RSample.com

A new poll by Rasmussen Reports indicates that 75% of Americans are at least somewhat angry with the government.  45% are listed as “Very Angry.”

I have always hated government by poll data.  I believe strongly in a Republic form of government – elected officials who are then to rule in the best interests of the country.  They answer to their constituents at election time – but during their term in office are to vote their conscience.  Republics assure that the passing whims of the masses do not become lasting tyrannies of the people.  Governing by polls – t0 me – often comes too close the dreaded full Democracy that the founding fathers of this country worked so hard to avoid.

This latest poll, though, could be important.   It describes a growing disconnect between what Rasmussen describes as Mainstream and the Political Class.  Here are some of their findings:

The divide between the Political Class and Mainstream voters, however, is remarkable. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Mainstream voters are angry, but 84% of the Political Class are not.

Forty-nine percent (49%) worry the government will try to do too much to help the economy, while 39% fear it won’t do enough.

As the economy continues to stumble along, 59% of voters believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool, but 72% expect the nation’s elected politicians to increase spending instead. (Rasmussen Reports)

One way to read this report is that Americans are upset with the gridlock and the politics that has become routine in DC.  Nothing gets done because of political bushwhacking – or – things only get done after payouts and costly concessions.  Americans are mad not at what policy is – but HOW the government is working.

While this argument holds some truth – Americans are indeed tired of the political stunts of both parties – I believe that there is something more going on.  I think Americans – from both parties as the poll shows – are finally waking up that government is not the answer.  I think some of this anger is a frustration is that the average American knows how to fix things – but is hindered by a federal system that prohibits them from doing so.

Case in point.  The biggest item on the block right now is a nationwide lack of jobs.  9.7% of the American population – give or take – cannot find a job.  (Business Week)  Yet, potential employers are faced with so many expenses that are rolled into hiring the work force that they need – from unemployment tax to social security to FICA to insurance – that it is far cheaper to go without that extra person.  Ask any contractor in Campbell County, Tennessee why they cannot hire full time help and they will tell you that for the first two weeks of every month no one works – that is when the government doll check arrives. Workers will only do anything at the end of the month – all under the table of course – because their “Crazy Check” has already been spent.

Restaurants and fast-food joints have historically been the entrance place into the workforce for many people.  Because these places pay minimum wage – they were never designed to be “living wage” areas.  But, as the minimum wage goes up less and less job force entrants will be hired.  The minimum wage is a great example of the government trying a quick fix – higher wages – that only ends up with lower employment and higher prices.

Americans are finally – I think – starting to tell the government that we can fix it – just stay out of our way.  Let me hire someone at the wage I negotiate with that individual – not some inflated wage that is not determined by the market.  Don’t make us pay taxes on hiring someone – nor subsidize those who are not working.  Do not spend money on jobs bills when we can put people to work more effectively – and more cost efficiently – than any government program can.  Don’t give us grants, loans, or subsidies – just stay out of the way.

I think this anger will continue to grow.  The poll indicates an increasing division between those who hold public office – and the rest of us.  Thankfully – there is more of us.

An 8 year old boy in Oregon gets suspended from school because he brought a 4 inch plastic toy gun to school – a toy gun that is part of an action figure’s lineup. School officials defended the principal, stating that she followed policy.  (KPTV) Yet another example of the idiocy of zero tolerance.

When we look to the Law of God, we often think that God is indeed the original author of zero tolerance. “Lest ye die” is riddled all through the Law. But, a careful examination of Scripture finds an amazing amount of room for grace and common sense. Murders were to be put to death. (Ex. 20:3) However, the Law also setup cities of refuge for those who accidently – without premeditation or malice – kills another. The determination of guilt or innocence in such a case was left to the elders of these cities. (Joshua 20:2 – 6) The Law determined that one must not be clean in order to observe the Passover, yet at the same time allowed for accidental exposure. (Numbers 9:6 – 10) Adultery is a sin punishable by death, yet Jesus told the repentant woman to go and live her life. (John 8:11) Clearly, our God has laid out a system of rules, regulations, and moral codes – enabling us to live as people of God. While the breaking of these Laws leads to serious consequences, it is also clear that God intended the elders and rulers of the community to apply that Law with love and grace as well.

A student who brings an actual gun to school should be punished – along with his parents. A student who brings a toy that looks like a realistic gun should be talked to – then handed over to his parents. An 8 year old who brings a 4 inch toy gun that is clearly not a weapon of any sort should be allowed to go play. Instead, the boy gets suspended, and it goes on his permanent record. What idiocy.

Contact the Portland School Board to express your desire that they change their minds – and to institute a common sense – and Godly – policy.

By repeatedly issuing statements and holding seminars, Evangelical Christians gave DaVinci Code author Dan Brown a tremendous amount of free advertizing for what was a mediocre movie at best. By railing and decrying the Tim Tebow commercial, liberal women’s groups did the same for what turned out to be a very tame commercial.

Just go back and read the headlines: Women’s groups call for CBS to pull Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad (LA Times), Stop Anti-Choice Super Bowl Ad (Women’s Media Center), Tell CBS that using the public airwaves to promote an anti-abortion message will lose the network both respect and business (Feminist Majority Foundation). These are just a few of the organizations that rallied and pushed CBS – to no avail – to pull the ad from the network.

I imagine somewhere at CBS today a savy ad exec is telling her bosses, “See, I told you so.” What in fact was a very tame – and a little hooky – ad became a national event. I – like countless others around the nation – stayed glued – looking for that one commercial. If there had been no pre-game angst about the ad – it probably would have gone unnoticed by most. It was the first set of commercials – following a somewhat funny commercial starring Betty White and Abe Vigoda. It would have been lost in the endless commercialism – and alcoholism – that marks this annual meeting of the gridiron titans. Instead, this 30-second, white background, country music commercial will probably land in the top ten.

I imagine the blogs and airwaves will be crowded with spins and backpeddling. From the Huffington Post:

After much anticipation, the ads have now been released — and the Heisman winner tackles his mother! They do not contain any overtly pro-life message and are tamer than many may have expected. The ads mostly consist of Pam Tebow, Tim’s mother, talking about her son. The former Florida quarterback only speaks at the end of the commercials. (Tim Tebow SUPER BOWL AD VIDEO: See Tebow TACKLE Mother Pam)

Focus on the Family – who sponsored the ad – is a pro-life group committed to the very serious problem of unwanted pregnancies. This commercial, however, focused on the tenacity of a mother to give birth to a child in a very uncertain situation. It was a commercial about the strength of mothers, of their commitment to their children, and the joy of families. Hard to find the hyped-up hate there.

So, thanks Dan Brown for showing us that conservatives can give voice to something that should have just been ignored. And – thanks Women’s Media Center, Feminist Majority Foundation, and others – for not learning that lesson.

A California mayor just found out something that future politicians will take for granted – any profession of a faith in Christ will bring down the wrath of Muslim and anti-religious groups.

According to Fox News – Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris stated at a private meeting that he is “growing a Christian community.” The event in question was made at a gathering of Christian ministers – a meeting which he paid for himself. This same mayor is sponsoring a ballot proposal that would bring unrestricted prayer back into schools.

CAIR – Council on American-Islamic Relations – has asked for a formal investigation into the matter. They like neither the statement that the mayor made at the meeting, nor the fact that the prayer ballot does not restrict the mention of Jesus Christ. I have no doubt that if the ballot mentioned Islamic prayers – CAIR would not have a problem.

The growing fact is that American politicians are under increasing pressure to hide their Christian faith. How many times at Christmas do we hear about towns forced to take down Christmas symbols – all to avoid costly lawsuits – even though the vast majority of the town is Christian. We hear about politicians who profess a personal faith – but go overboard not to be a Christian witness in their votes. Now a mayor is taking heat because he would like to see a “Christian community” as a result of his time in public office.

Christians in this country need to continue to elect Christians to office. We need to support them – prayerfully, financially, and personally – as they seek to serve Christ through public office. We must let our Christian brothers and sister know that the last thing we want from them – and the worst thing they can do in service of the Kingdom – is to keep their faith quiet.

Article Six of the Constitution expressly forbids the government from asking religious tests of candidates. But for some reason, churches have applied the same restrictions on candidates for public office who are also members of their faith community.

Article Six states in part, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”(US Constitution) The Framers wisely understood that the government had no place in determining the orthodoxy or spiritual soundness of any candidate running for office – or those duly elected by the people.

The need for an effective faith in the lives of those seeking political office, though, was never far from the minds of the Founding Fathers. James Madison writes:

Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government. (1785) Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. (1785) We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future…upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. (Summit Ministries)

There are countless other references to the how James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and others felt about the need of a moral, religious public servant. Yet, how do we rectify this deep felt religious requirement and Article Six of the Constitution?

The answer seems clear – while it is not the role of the government to determine faith and orthodoxy, it IS the role of the local church to do so. Since the majority of the Founding Fathers were either Anglican or Presbyterian (Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers), Article 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is relevant:

Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto. (Confession of Faith)

It is the role of the church to gather and instruct the faithful in the life and discipline suitable for the following of Christ. In the church, the elders have been given a specific role: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9) It follows, then, that anyone seeking to public service – considered a high calling by John Calvin – should be examined by the local church in terms of faith, religious practice, and spiritual maturity. In other words – it is the role of the local church to administer a “religious test” – making sure that those who are elected are first representatives of Christ and then secondly representatives of those who put them in office.

According to a Pew Foundation study, close to 80% of all members of the House and Senate consider themselves Christian. (The Religious Makeup of Congress) Yet, we continually see these Christians vote for abortion and other issues that are clearly in contradiction to the Gospel of Christ.

It is time for churches to make sure that those who claim to be followers of Christ are actually carrying that out in their votes and actions in public office. The Roman Catholic Church has been in the forefront of holding her members accountable – Top Catholic Cardinal Says ‘No Way’. BreakPoint Ministries just awarded Tony Hall their prestigious Wilberforce Award for his commitment to Christ while in public office. But more must be done. Are churches asking candidates in their pews questions of faith and service? Are churches praying for people in public office and meeting with them regularly if they are members. Are communities of faith holding their members who are elected officials accountable for their actions? Will churches go the final step of removing from their rolls politicians who are acting against the Kingdom of God – and who show no signs of changing or repenting?

The Founding Fathers never expected the government to examine the inner spirit and faith of elected representatives. It is about time that the church started doing so.