Republicans seem to give in most of the time. I wish for the good of the country someone would step up and try to reverse the trend towards more spending and start cutting the budget for a change. We only had a budget deficit of about 161 billion in 2007 with income about where it is now. Then why do we have a budget deficit over one trillion today? It is because our problem is spending and not revenue!!!
It’s never a good idea to display weakness during negotiations. Your opponent will sense your fear and up his demands.
That’s certainly what we’re seeing in Washington. The cartoon at this link captures the GOP’s wobbly attitude on taxes, and this interview is about the ever-increasing demands of the Obama Administration.
It’s important to define austerity correctly. To provide an analogy, we have to drink liquid to survive, but that doesn’t mean it would be a good idea to guzzle paint thinner. Likewise, we need austerity, but that shouldn’t mean higher taxes. We need to be like Estonia and tighten the belts of the public sector, not the private sector.
It’s not my job to give Republicans political advice, but I also want to expand upon the arguments I made a couple of days ago, when I wrote a post giving five policy reasons and five political reasons why the GOP shouldn’t surrender on tax increases.
A couple of readers correctly pointed out that I forgot to mention that tax increases are political poison because middle-class voters turn against the GOP once “revenue” is on the table. They are completely right, and my oversight is inexplicable since I’ve actually made that point in the past. Here’s some of what I wrote last year.
If Republicans put tax increases on the table, however, the politics get turned upside down. Instead of being united against all tax increases, voters realize somebody is going to get mugged and they have an incentive to make sure they’re not the ones who get victimized. That’s when soak-the-rich taxes become very appealing. Democrats, for all intents and purposes, can appeal to average voters by targeting the so-called rich. And even though voters will be skeptical about what Democrats really want, they don’t want to be the primary target of the political predators in Washington. Think of it this way. You’re a wildebeest running away from a pack of hyenas, but you know one member of your herd will get caught and killed. You despise hyenas, but at that critical moment, you’re main goal is wanting another member of the herd to bite the dust. This is why surrendering to tax increases put Republicans in a no-win situation. They oppose class-warfare taxes because they understand the disproportionately damaging impact of higher top income tax rates and increased double taxation of dividends and capital gains. So when GOPers get bullied into agreeing to raise taxes, they want to target less destructive sources of revenue. But that usually means…taxes that are more likely to hit the middle class. Needless to say, Democrats almost always win if there is a fight on whether to tax the middle class or to tax the rich.
I have to pat myself on the back for that passage, particularly the analogy that equates politicians with hyenas (though in the past I’ve apologized to hyenas for that unfair comparison).
Let’s close with a very good cartoon, which points out the foolishness of the media for wanting to send more money to Washington when even they understand that the town is filled with clowns and buffoons. That’s actually a very serious point, as I note about halfway through the interview included in my five-political-reasons-five-policy-reasons post.
But it’s hard to laugh when you contemplate what’s happening. Obama is bullying the GOP, and the Republicans are in the process of surrendering to his class-warfare demands.
That will lead to bad policy, but it will also result in an emasculated, compliant, and house-broken GOP for at least the next two years, and perhaps even Obama’s entire second term. So even though the fiscal cliff tax hike is bigger than what Obama’s currently demanding, the long-run policy damage of surrender almost surely will be far greater.
Republicans don’t have many options in this fight. But they can show some cojones and tell Obama that the only way he’ll get a tax hike is if he wants to take the nation over the cliff.
P.S. If you like the Henry Payne cartoon in this post, you can enjoy some of his other work here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
But what really makes the cartoon funny is the petulant stance of the elephants. Very effective artwork, mush as I praised Ramirez for the visual genius of his recent cartoon.
After appearing on the television program, “Who Do You Think You Are,” Gwyneth Paltrow has decided to raise children Apple, 7, and Moses, 5, as Jewish.
According to The Daily Mail, the NBC ancestry show sparked the discovery that the actress descended from a notable line of Eastern European rabbis. Though she’s long practiced Kabbalah, Gwyneth had previously stayed neutral about a formal religion upbringing in her household, which includes crooner husband Chris Martin, who is of Christian background.
“I don’t believe in religion. I believe in spirituality. Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world,” the actress once told The Daily Mail.
_______________
Below is a letter I mailed to Chris and Gwyneth recently:
To Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow, c/o Go Go Pictures, 12 Cleveland Row, London, SW1A 1DH, United Kingdom, , From Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, USA:
I have been a huge fan of both of you and have posted many times on my blog about your religious views which have seemed to have changed over the years. I know that Chris was brought up as an evangelical Christian, but has long ago left the faith behind although he did revisit many biblical themes in his 2008 and 2011 cds.
I have shown what thought processes Solomon went through in Ecclesiastes and then compared them to the evident changes that are occurring with Coldplay. By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. My prediction: I am hoping that Coldplay’s next album will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14: 13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
I have also written before about Gwyneth’s famous Jewish relatives which includes a famous Rabbi and I have wondered if she would decide to return to those roots. Actually that is what has happened. I salute you for rejecting your earlier statements against organized religion and for making the decision to teach your children the Bible and to have faith in God.
I know that you will spending lots of time in the scriptures and I wanted to share with you some key scriptures that talk about the Messiah. Greg Koukl wrote the outline below:
A. Gethsemane (The name literally means “oil press”)
1. A garden on the Mount of Olives where Jesus and the disciples used to pray
2. Jesus seeks the comfort of His disciples but, unaware of the gravity of the hour, they don’t stay awake.
3. Jesus’ prayer has two parts.
a. Part one: a request for the removal of the cup “if possible.”
1) This is not a prayer of Jesus’ that went unanswered. His request was denied because conditions wouldn’t allow it.
2) Jesus in Gethsemane is the final argument against those who suggest there are other ways to heaven than the cross of Jesus Christ. Jesus pleaded, “Is there any other way?” The Father answered, “No, none.”
b. Part two: a surrender to the divine will.
c. “What convulsed the Savior was the fear of separation from God due to becoming the sin-bearer for men. He had long contemplated from afar what this would mean to Him, but now the hour was upon Him and it was overwhelming” (Harrison, p. 195).
4. In the Bible there are two famous gardens:
a. Eden, where the first Adam failed.
b. Gethsemane, where the second Adam was victorious.
B. The betrayal.
1. A large contingent comes to arrest Jesus.
a. Judas, chief priests, Pharisees, teachers of the law, and elders of the people.
b. The Roman cohort, a contingent of at least 200 soldiers and possibly as many as 600 (Harrison, p. 199, footnote 2).
c. They were equipped with swords, clubs, torches and lanterns.
“The mock trial and subsequent activities of the Sanhedrin were undertaken with utmost haste in the very early morning darkness and the hours of daylight on Friday, so that the execution of Jesus could be accomplished before the Sabbath began at 6 p.m. that day” (Daniel, p. 259, footnote).
B. Before Caiaphas
1. This is before the assembled Sanhedrin, the high court of the Jews (Matt 26:57-59).
2. Here Jesus faces two of the three charges against Him:
a. Charge one: He would destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days (Matt 26:61).
1) Probably a reference to Jn 2:19, but Jesus never claimed that He would be responsible for the destruction.
2) The testimony of the witnesses does not agree (Mk 14:59) and their testimony is thrown out.
b. Charge two: He was the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matt 26:63-64).
1) “You have said it yourself.”
2) “Hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Here Jesus refers to Daniel 7:13, a messianic passage.)
c. Caiaphas declares Jesus guilty of blasphemy and Jesus is sentenced to death (Matt 26:65-67).
C. Before Pontius Pilate
1. The Jews were not allowed to execute Jesus (Jn 18:31), so they took Him before Pilate, the Roman governor, seeking a judgment.
2. Jesus’ third charge: sedition
a. “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Messiah, a King” (Lk 23:1-2).
b. Pilate finds no grounds for punishment, but since Jesus is a Galilean, Pilate sends Him to Herod who has jurisdiction there (Lk 23:7).
D. Before Herod Antipas. (Lk 23:8-12) (This is the Herod who had John the Baptist put to death.)
1. Herod was hoping to see some sign performed by Him (v8).
2. When Jesus made no response He was mocked and ridiculed (v11).
E. Before Pontius Pilate a second time (Lk 23:13-25)
1. Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate proclaims Jesus’ innocence once again (v20).
2. Pilate offers Jesus’ release, but the people choose Barabbas instead.
3. Jesus is scourged and crowned with thorns (Mk 15:15-19).
4. Pilate makes a final appeal in the hope of saving Jesus.
5. The crowd intimidates Pilate with the suggestion of disloyalty to Caesar (Jn 19:12).
a. “If you release this man you are no friend of Caesar’s; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar.”
b. The expression “Caesar’s friend” was a technical term assuring a long and profitable career. The loss of this title–a realistic threat considering Tiberius’s suspicious nature–could prove Pilate’s undoing (Harrison, p. 215).
6. Pilate sentences Jesus to death by crucifixion.
A. A very cruel form of execution, generally reserved only for slaves and rebels, not Roman citizens
1. Death was agonizing. A person could die by either exposure and shock or by asphyxiation. When the person would collapse, hanging from his arms on the cross, it would constrict the diaphragm, inhibiting breathing. The only way they could breathe was to push up against the nails that went through the feet. This was a continual effort. Finally, through the loss of blood and exhaustion, the person eventually suffocated.
2. Death was slow.
a. Sometimes death took up to nine days.
b. Sometimes they would break legs.
B. Psalm 22 (see notes, Week 2).
C. Certificate of debt (Col 2:13-14) (Lindsey, p. 100).
1. This certificate was a list of crimes committed against the state that required payment.
2. When the crimes were paid for, it was stamped with the word tetelestia, meaning “paid in full.”
3. Paul says that Jesus paid our certificate of debt.
4. Jesus victory cry on the cross was, “It is finished!” (Jn 19:30)
D. Jesus gave up His spirit.
Crucifixion is a cruel form of execution, generally reserved for slaves and rebels. Death is agonizing and slow, the result of shock, exposure and, eventually, asphyxiation. Hanging from a cross constricts the diaphragm, inhibiting breathing. The only way to get air is to release pressure on the arms by pushing up against the nails that pierce the feet, requiring continual effort that could go on for days. Exhaustion eventually overtakes the victim and he suffocates.
For Jesus, though, the pain of the cross paled in the face of a greater anguish. There was a deeper torment that could not be seen, more excruciating than nails pinning Jesus’ body to the timbers, more dreadful than lashes ripping flesh from His frame. It was a dark, terrible, incalculable agony, an infinite misery, as God the Father unleashed his fury upon His sinless Son as if guilty of an immeasurable evil.
Why punish the innocent One? Nailed to the top of the cross was an official notice, a certificate of debt to Caesar, a public display of Jesus’ crime: “The King of the Jews.” The certificate of debt was a list of crimes committed against the state that required payment. When punishment was complete, Caesar’s court would cancel the debt with a single Greek word stamped upon the parchment’s face: “tetelestai.”
Being king of the Jews was not the crime Jesus paid for, however. Hidden to all but the Father was another certificate nailed to that cross. In the darkness that shrouded Calvary from the sixth to the ninth hour, a divine transaction took place; Jesus made a trade with the Father. The full weight of all the crimes of all of humanity-every murder, every theft, every lustful glance; every hidden act of vice, every modest moment of pride, and every monstrous deed of evil; every crime of every man who ever lived-these Jesus took upon Himself as if guilty of all.
At the last, it was not the cross that took Jesus’ life. He did not die of exposure, or loss of blood, or asphyxiation. When the full debt for our sin was paid, and the justice of God was fully satisfied, Jesus simply gave up His spirit with a single Greek word that fell from His lips: “Tetelestai.” “It is finished.” The divine transaction is complete. The debt was cancelled. (Colossians 2:13-14)
This was not an accident. It was planned. The prophet Isaiah described it 700 years earlier:
Surely our griefs He Himself bore. He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. (Is 53:4-6)
No other man did this. No other man could. Jesus alone, the perfect Son of God, the Savior of the world, He paid the debt so that whoever relies on Him would not perish under God’s judgment, but have life with Him fully and forever.</p>
Messiah was dead. A vibrant and hopeful era had come to a bitter and dismal end. The movement was over, the disciples were scattered, and darkness covered the land. The religious establishment shook off the nasty experience and settled down to resume life as usual. But their rest would be short-lived, because very quickly death would be swallowed up in victory.
“It is finished” It only remains for us to trust in His promise.
We got to cut these welfare programs before everyone stops working and wants to get the free stuff. The Bible says if you don’t work then you should not eat. It also says that churches should help the poor but it doesn’t say that the government should step in and do that.
How many Americans depend on a government program for a basic (or not so basic) need? According to recently released Census Bureau data and Heritage Foundation calculations, the number is 128.8 million. That is the number of individuals directly receiving aid that they depend on for their daily consumption of things such as rent, prescription drugs, and higher education.
That is 41.3 percent of theU.S.population as of July 2011.
TheWall Street Journal puts the number of people living in a household where at least one member receives help at an even higher 49.1 percent.
The 41.3 percent number is surely undercounting. It is based on survey responses to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) of March 2011. These responses are well known to undercount the number of people receiving Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, State Children’s Health Insurance, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Heritage research shows that the undercount in higher education subsidies may be the most dramatic.
The calculations that Heritage ran on the Census Bureau data do not, however, double-count individuals. So if someone receives Medicare and Social Security, he is counted only once. Therefore, the dramatic undercounting in higher education subsidy beneficiaries makes the biggest difference, because recipients of education subsidies are generally younger and not likely to be on other dependency-creating programs.
Those subsidized by the government for their higher education are generally dependent only on that government program. Heritage research shows that of the small number of people in the March CPS survey who admitted that they received higher education subsidies—about 2 million—less than one-half of 1 percent relied on Social Security retirement income; only 1.5 percent were on Medicare in 2011; and only 16 percent were on food stamps. The 2 million admitting they received higher education subsidies is assuredly a vast undercount, because the number of people receiving Pell grants in 2011 was 9.7 million, according to the Department of Education.
Just counting true Pell grant recipients would add millions to the lowball estimate of 128.8 million government dependents.
Sixteen years after President Bill Clinton erroneously declared “the era of big government” over, it’s not over; it’s still with us and growing. Unless something is done,Americaas we have known it will cease to exist.
There is a way out of the dependence-on-government trap. Steps are laid out in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan. If this plan were implemented, the economy would grow, government expenses would be held in check, and more Americans would support themselves. Some of the good results for individuals and the country would be:
More Americans climbing the prosperity ladder.
Fewer Americans stuck in the rut of “just getting by.”
Those who currently receive more from the government than they pay in taxes could become contributing taxpayers.
Catastrophe averted by shrinking the runaway national debt.
More happiness as the intergenerational cycle of government dependence would be shattered and replaced by an intergenerational cycle of self-reliance and private-sector opportunities for all.
In this 1968 interview, Milton Friedman explained the negative income tax, a proposal that at minimum would save taxpayers the 72 percent of our current welfare budget spent on administration. http://www.LibertyPen.com
Source: Firing Line with William F Buckley Jr.
________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Pt 1 of 2 Listen to this Important Message by Francis Schaeffer
Published on Sep 30, 2013
This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.
_____________________________
Pt 2 -Listen to this Important Message by Francis Schaeffer
I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks on a crucial subject that is very important today too.
This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.
Will Christians take a stand?
—-
I have a question to ask you, and that is: Where have the Bible-believing Christians been in the last 40 years? All of this that I am talking about has only come in the last 80 years (I’m 70… I just had my birthday, so just 10 years older than I am). None of this was true in the United States. None of it! And the climax has all come within the last 40 years, which falls within the intelligent scope of many of you sitting in this room. Where have the Bible-believing Christians been? We shouldn’t be surprised the liberal theologians have been no help — but where have we been as we have changed to this other consensus and all the horrors and stupidity of the present moment has come down on out culture? We must recognize that this country is close to being lost. Not, first of all , because of the Humanist conspiracy — I believe that there are those who conspire, but that is not the reason this country is almost lost. This country is almost lost because the Bible-believing Christians, in the last 40 years, who have said that they know that the final reality is this infinite-personal God who is the Creator and all the rest, have done nothing about it as the consensus has changed. There has been a vast silence!
Christians of this country have simply been silent. Much of the Evangelical leadership has not raised a voice. As a matter of fact, it was almost like sticking pins into the Evangelical constituency in most places to get them interested in the issue of human life while Dr. Koop and Franky and I worked on Whatever Happened to the Human Race, a vast, vast silence.
I wonder what God has to say to us? All these freedoms we have. All the secondary blessings we’ve had out of the preaching of the Gospel and we have let it slip through our fingers in the lifetime of most of you here. Not a hundred years ago — it has been in our lifetime in the last 40 years that these things have happened.
It’s not only the Christian leaders. Where have the Christian lawyers been? Why haven’t they been challenging this change in the view of what the First Amendment means, which I’ll deal with in a second. Where have the Christian doctors been — speaking out against the rise of the abortion clinics and all the other things? Where have the Christian businessmen been — to put their lives and their work on the line concerning these things which they would say as Christians are central to them? Where have the Christian educators been — as we have lost our educational system? Where have we been? Where have each of you been? What’s happened in the last 40 years?
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning abortion, […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis _________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ___________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning abortion, […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once […]
The opening song at the beginning of this episode is very insightful. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer. I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]
This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of […]
Great article on Schaeffer. Who was Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer? By Francis Schaeffer The unique contribution of Dr. Francis Schaeffer on a whole generation was the ability to communicate the truth of historic Biblical Christianity in a way that combined intellectual integrity with practical, loving care. This grew out of his extensive understanding of the Bible […]
Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
Here is another real success story, this time in Czechoslovakia. Martin was a rock musician. Today he makes documentary films. Some years ago, he did a concert tour of the United States and brought back secondhand recording equipment. The communist government let him bring it back, after paying a hefty import tax, because he said he wanted to record folk music __ something the government was not doing and did not plan to do.
In the past year, since things have opened up, his business has exploded. Along with music and films, he now duplicates video cassettes. He also makes audio cassettes for other Czech producers and has devised his own English language course on tape. He is on his way and many more will follow if the government just gets out of their way. You just can’t keep good people like that down.
The guests at this party aren’t much interested in self-driving entrepreneurs like Martin. High powered business executives from North America and West Europe __ they are interested in bigger game. They are here to do business and make good profits for their firms. They’ll do it by arranging joint ventures between their western companies and government enterprises. To succeed, they have to get on the right side of the politicians and the bureaucrats who are in charge. It is large scale lobbying, very much in the western manner. The danger is that in the process, local government bureaucrats and big foreign business will end up freezing out local entrepreneurs.
Friedman: The assets of Hungary belong to the people of Hungary. I do not believe they should be sold. You are a citizen of Hungary, who owns the state enterprises?
Unknown: Okay, the society as a whole.
Friedman: Not the society, the people.
Unknown: Well, give it to the people.
Friedman: In finance ministries all over Eastern Europe, the talk is all about privatization, but rhetoric is one thing __ action sometimes very different.
One example is in Prague where Vacla Klouse, the finance minister, is desperately trying to free the Czech economy.
Vacla Klouse: The people who were the reformers at that time were done after the Russian invasion, they were fired from their jobs and they return to politics with their own extremely obsolete ideas, and now they are trying . . .
Friedman: But he is up against political planners that aren’t ready to give up control. They are all anticommunists, all in favor of markets, but many are still beguiled by the idea of market socialism. A third way between capitalism and socialism, Klouse and I believe that is a mirage __ that a third way will take Czechoslovakia straight to the third world. It must either move directly to a pure free market, or it will get stuck just as Yugoslavia has.
Klouse: . . . I think intellectuals tend to underestimate the intelligence of the ordinary people . . .
Friedman: Poland and Hungary have exactly the same problem. Some, like Klouse, want to move to free markets right away. Others still hanker after socialist control of the markets.
Klouse: . . . use the word naive citizens. They are the interventionist economies and the other, so this is my speech in the parliament . . . . . .
Friedman: Political power is limited, but economic power is not limited and you can have, if you have one millionaire, you can have another millionaire, another millionaire, without anybody else being worse off. In fact, everybody else will be better off. It seems to me again, the people understand that. I can’t believe that your ordinary people here don’t. They know overnight you can make a change if you could only get the government off the back of the people.
Where are we headed __ we are heading all the way up here __ we’ll get there. Let’s not get any more gas than we need to. What is it? It is about $1.00 a liter which makes it about $4.00 a gallon of gas.
In these countries, the hardest problem is to transform their heavy industries. This is Novahoota, a vast collection of steel mills in Poland and a disaster in every sense. It is inefficient, costly, and above all, a major polluter. The best thing to do with places like this would be to bulldoze them, but that is almost impossible. They are too well shielded by special interests: the unions, the bureaucrats, and all the other political interests on the fringes.
The communists socialize the means of production. They tried to run everything from the center. It didn’t work. It was a mess and a failure. We in the United States, on the other hand, have been socializing the fruits of production. That is, the government has been taking money from some people, the people who produce the goods and services, and giving it to other people who do not produce goods and services. The end result is likely to be the same loss of incentive and organization if we carry it too far. That is one lesson we should learn from these countries.
A year ago, the cornucopia of fruits and vegetables and other things in this street market were simply not obtainable. It is one of the first signs of the flowering of enterprise under the new regime. This market is in Krakow, Poland. Goods are readily available now, only because the government eliminated price controls allowing the market to set the prices. Like a miracle, overnight the stalls had goods for sale. This gentleman sells bulbs and seeds. He is happy in the market, but many traders would like to set up in stores and develop on a larger scale. At the moment, they can’t. The stores are all owned by the state. The traders are stymied unless and until the stores become private property. When they do, the market will get another boost.
This youngster is 16. He is still in high school, but this is Saturday and he is in the market selling jeans from Thailand, making a little money for himself. He is studying to be a gardener. But when I asked him what he was going to do when he left school, he had no hesitation __ he was going to be a businessman. There is the hope of Poland.
Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state need to be gotten into the hands of the private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values. The problem is how to do it. Now that you have some degree of political freedom, there is an awful fight going on about who is going to get what share of the total pie. Everybody wants a little bigger piece. It is a political mine field, but unless that mine field can be gotten through, the game is up. It will be a failure. If it can be gotten through, then you will have an opportunity for these resources to be used the right way for the right things.
We in the West know only too well how hard it is to get the government out of something once they have been in it. Here in Poland they have been in it for 50 years and in a much bigger way than the United States. So they have a real job on their hands.
It would be silly of us, on the basis of a brief trip, to try to judge how successful these countries will be in doing what no country has yet been able to do __ transform a totalitarian state into a prosperous, free society. If this experiment is successful, it will not only transform Eastern Europe __ it will also offer an invaluable blueprint for the economic development of many poor countries.
You know, nothing is more striking than the wide differences in the standard of life of people who live in different parts of the world. Why? Not because of race or religion or culture or natural resources. After all, the Chinese who live in Hong Kong and in Taiwan are of the same race and background as those who live in Red China, yet their standards of living are vastly different. The same thing is true of East Germany and West Germany; of South Korea and North Korea; of Japan before the major restoration and Japan after the major restoration. The real explanation are the economic institutions that they adopt __free private markets versus central planning.
The countries of Eastern Europe have finally overthrown their communist masters who foisted central control on them. They have the rare opportunity to write on a clean slate; to create the institutions of private property and free markets that are the only ones that have ever achieved widespread prosperity and human freedom. We in the United States, on the basis of our experience of the last 10 years, know how hard it is to cut a government down to size. We hope they succeed better than we did. If they do, we will learn as much from them as they have learned from our example.
Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?
People say the government has a debt problem. Debt is caused by deficits, which is the difference between what the government collects in tax revenue and the amount of government spending. Every time the government runs a deficit, the government debt increases. So what’s to blame: too much spending, or too little tax revenue? Economics professor Antony Davies examines the data and concludes that the root cause of the debt is too much government spending.
Ronald Reagan on our ability to solve our problems
Great article on what has happened in the past fiscal cliff deals. Patrick Louis Knudsen rightly points out, “… history shows that broad bipartisan compromises between the White House and Congress have typically just yielded higher taxes, while … deficit reduction have failed to materialize.”
It seems to me that we need to cut spending and avoid slowing the economy with tax increases. In the past we just raised taxes most of the time and never got around to cuttng spending.
The Fiscal Cliff and the Perils of Grand Budget Deals
One of the major complications in the current fiscal cliff debate is that both sides are overreaching, trying to tie a near-term resolution to a sweeping deficit reduction plan that would address the longer-term budgetary crisis looming in the years ahead. They see the cliff negotiations as a stage for a “grand bargain” on the budget between the President and Congress.
The tight time frame of the cliff’s approach makes such an aim increasingly impractical. Furthermore, history shows that broad bipartisan compromises between the White House and Congress have typically just yielded higher taxes, while the promised spending restraint (except in national defense) and deficit reduction have failed to materialize. Given the current state of divided government, these risks prevail today. More broadly, they also offer a warning to budget process reformers who seek to institutionalize regular budget negotiations between Capitol Hill and the President.
Experience of the Reagan Administration
After his inauguration in January 1981, President Ronald Reagan moved assertively to enact his budget plan, cutting taxes, boosting defense spending, and seeking to gain control of entitlements. With the economy still reeling from the prior years’ stagflation, however, deficits widened initially, leading Congress to push for a series of budget “summits,” as they were called then, to close the gap.
First came the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, “a $98 billion tax increase which supporters claimed would reduce the deficit from $128 billion in 1982 to $104 billion in 1983.” It did not. “Spending restraints never materialized…and the actual deficit jumped to $208 billion.”[1] (In today’s dollars, that tax hike would have totaled $204 billion and the deficit $432 billion—roughly a third of this year’s red ink.)
In 1984, the President agreed to yet another tax hike totaling $49 billion, which was supposed to reduce the deficit from $185 billion to $181 billion. Once again, however, the deficit increased—to $212 billion.[2]
The 1987 budget summit repeated the pattern. President Reagan swallowed a tax hike of $28 billion, but the result was the same: “The deficit, which was supposed to remain at $150 billion, jumped to $155 billion in 1988.”[3]
The 1990 Budget Agreement
Despite these failures, 1990 produced another major exercise in budget summitry. With deficits having swollen well beyond target amounts written in law at the time, the government by mid-year faced automatic spending cuts (called “sequestration”) that would slash defense spending by 42 percent and non-defense spending by 38 percent.[4] So President George H. W. Bush and the Democratic Congress agreed to a plan that was estimated to reduce deficits by $482 billion over five years.
Though the President had famously pledged never to raise taxes, his Administration by mid-1990 conceded to adding “revenue” as part of the deficit reduction plan. Predictably, this crack in the door widened during the arduous negotiations at Andrews Air Force Base. In the end, fully one-third of the package—$158 billion—consisted of tax hikes. The next largest savings came from cutting national defense by $91 billion over five years, which proponents rationalized by arguing that the Cold War had ended. Meanwhile, non-defense discretionary spending in the plan actually increased by $45 billion, offset by an empty promise of $144 billion in additional, unspecified discretionary cuts.[5]
The plan’s outcomes were no more satisfying. Even after the defense cuts, total outlays (excluding interest payments) increased by 13 percent from 1990 through 1993, and even with the tax hikes, the deficit worsened by 17 percent in the first two years of the plan.[6] When President Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, he promptly called for another deficit reduction plan, this one with $241 billion in tax increases over five years.[7]
The 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement
Even genuinely successful deficit reduction can lead to expanded government, allowing both parties to declare victory. Such was the case with the 1997 balanced budget agreement between a Republican Congress and President Clinton.
Although it cut taxes by $80 billion over five years—or perhaps because it did—the plan produced surpluses within a year of enactment. This was largely due to real growth in gross domestic product (GDP) that was greater than 4 percent per year from 1997 through 2000, which boosted tax revenue to 20.6 percent of GDP.
The problem was that the plan also increased spending. Though officially estimated to reduce outlays by $198 billion over five years,[8] the legislation contained a number of entitlement spending increases sought by President Clinton, including the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and expansions of food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and welfare. Consequently, total “programmatic” spending (excluding interest) grew by nearly 3 percent to 4 percent per year faster than inflation and exploded by a total of nearly 14 percent from 1997 through 2001.[9] The effect was hidden because with the government running budget surpluses, interest payments declined, reducing the total spending increases.
Learn from History
The background outlined above should give pause to advocates of a grand budget deal between the President and Congress—especially those who are seeking to limit the size and scope of government. Such agreements tend to produce higher taxes and higher spending with little or no deficit reduction. Congress and the President should dispel any visions of a “grand bargain” and focus on the task at hand: avoiding the fiscal cliff.
This history also warns against budget process reforms that would institutionalize summitry by requiring the President to sign or veto the congressional budget resolution. Advocates argue that this change would create a forum for regular, early White House–congressional negotiations on broad budget levels, presumably making it easier to settle on specific spending and tax legislation later.
Some analysts, however, doubt whether the practice would actually produce agreements as often as its advocates think.[10] Equally important, the process could produce higher spending and higher taxes even more often. Thus, a reform aimed at budgeting more “efficiently” might only be more efficient at expanding government.
Patrick Louis Knudsen is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Kaitlyn Evans and Paul Bremmer, members of the Young Leaders Program at Heritage, contributed to this report.
Pt 1 of 2 Listen to this Important Message by Francis Schaeffer
Published on Sep 30, 2013
This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.
_____________________________
Pt 2 -Listen to this Important Message by Francis Schaeffer
I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks on a crucial subject that is very important today too.
This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.
Liberal theology is humanism with religious words
—-
Now, we cannot be at all surprised when the liberal theologians support these things, because liberal theology is only Humanism using theological terms, and that’s all it ever was, all the way back into Germany right after the Enlightenment. So when they come down on the side of easy abortion and infanticide, as some of these liberal denominations as well as theologians are doing, we shouldn’t be surprised. It follows as night after day.
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning abortion, […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis _________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ___________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning abortion, […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once […]
The opening song at the beginning of this episode is very insightful. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer. I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]
This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of […]
Great article on Schaeffer. Who was Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer? By Francis Schaeffer The unique contribution of Dr. Francis Schaeffer on a whole generation was the ability to communicate the truth of historic Biblical Christianity in a way that combined intellectual integrity with practical, loving care. This grew out of his extensive understanding of the Bible […]
The President and his team have been blaming “European headwinds” for some of the U.S. economy’s woes. But the truth is that the policies pursued by Washington and Athens are frighteningly similar—and the outcomes are not good for either country. Both countries are in need of comprehensive fiscal reforms, yet their leaders have avoided the tough decisions in favor of bailouts and political posturing.
In yesterday’s election, political parties supporting Greece’s bailout secured a narrow victory, causing Europe and world markets to breathe a temporary sigh of relief. The parties must now form a coalition government, despite continued protests from the radical party that sought to throw out the terms of the bailout assistance—which could have led Greece out of the euro currency. At 22 percent unemployment, Greek voters expressed disappointment with their limited options.
The Greek crisis was foreshadowed in this year’s Heritage Foundation/Wall Street JournalIndex of Economic Freedom, with Greece registering the largest decline in economic freedom of any country in the world. Its economy is rated “mostly unfree,” and it has the fifth-lowest economic freedom score in Europe, beating only Russia and three former Soviet republics.
Why is it in such a state? The authors of the Index point to “decades of overspending, a lack of structural reform progress, and endemic corruption,” noting that Greece’s “lack of competitiveness and fading business confidence are serious impediments to economic revival. Adjustments in market conditions have been stifled or delayed by public unions.”
A few other points of comparison: The U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than Greece’s. The Index of Economic Freedom pegged America’s overall tax burden at 24 percent of total domestic income, while Greece’s overall tax burden was 30 percent of GDP. Government spending inAmerica—42 percent of GDP—approaches Greece’s government spending level, which exceeds 50 percent of its GDP.
Both countries have structural economic deficiencies—like tax rates and labor regulations—that are causing deeply rooted problems. And both countries have tried to solve their fiscal problems through bailouts, to no avail.
Though it goes back to the adoption of the euro in 1999, the European crisis first broke into the open some 10 years later. In April 2009, the European Union told France, Spain, Ireland, and Greece to reduce their budget deficits in the wake of the credit crisis. Since the crisis began, Europe has substantially weakened its banking system, which is propped up only by central bank cash and shaky bailouts.
Now, defaulting on loans is a real possibility for Greece and other European nations. They have too long dismissed the need for economic growth in favor of government intervention.
Going into the G20 summit today and tomorrow in Mexico, President Obama “has called on European leaders to recapitalize weak banks and to focus on economic growth and not just budget austerity,” reports Reuters. Basically, he has been urging European governments to spend more now, even as their borrowing costs and debt far exceed sustainable levels. One wonders how countries that have limited or no access to credit markets because of their dire fiscal situations are supposed to borrow the money for all this additional spending. There is only one substantive difference between Obama’s policies for Europe and his domestic policy, where he has urged expanding government jobs as a solution to U.S. unemployment: The U.S. government can still borrow to finance its deficits, because we’re only partway down the road the Greeks have already traveled.
The overspending, overtaxing, over-borrowing and over-regulating approach does not work for Europe any more than it works for America.
To deal with any European financial fallout that might affect the U.S., we have to stop embracing the same policies. Congress and the President should rein in federal spending immediately by choice rather than being eventually forced to do so, as countries across Europe have been. They should declare a regulatory cease-fire and disarm the Taxmageddon threat.
America is responsible for its own economic problems, regardless of the winds sweeping across the Atlantic.
_____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Speaking on House floor in support of Balanced Budget Resolution, 11/18/2011
___________
Dear Senator Pryor,
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
Below are some of the main proposals of Milton Friedman. I highly respected his work.
David J. Theroux said this about Milton Friedman’s view concerning the Balanced Budget Amendment:
Balancing the Budget: Since deficit spending is simply a device for hiding tax increases, thereby lowering taxpayer resistance to government spending and impairing economic growth, all government spending should be handled according to the merits of each specific proposal in a pay-as-you-go basis. Fiscal policy should never be used to affect business cycles, and the Balanced Budget Amendment should be adopted.
“Milton Friedman is a scholar of first rank whose original contributions to economic science have made him one of the greatest thinkers in modern history.” —President Ronald Reagan
“How grateful I have been over the years for the cogency of Friedman’s ideas which have influenced me. Cherishers of freedom will be indebted to him for generations to come.” —Alan Greenspan, former Chairman, Federal Reserve System
“Right at this moment there are people all over the land, I could put dots on the map, who are trying to prove Milton wrong. At some point, somebody else is trying to prove he’s right That’s what I call influence.” —Paul Samuelson, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science
“Friedman’s influence reaches far beyond the academic community and the world of economics. Rather than lock himself in an ivory tower, he has joined the fray to fight for the survival of this great country of ours.” —William E. Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury
“Milton Friedman is the most original social thinker of the era.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, former Professor of Economics, Harvard University
“There are various ways to describe Friedman’s influence. But one way is to ask, ‘Has he helped many people—poor people in the world?’ And I would just take India and China, 37% of the world’s population. Hundreds of millions of people in these two countries, who used to live on less than one dollar a day or two dollars a day, are now able to live at a much more decent standard of living as a result of the reform of their economic policies toward more free-market policies, less regulation, less government and the like. There was one person who they are more indebted to than anybody else for their great improvement in their situation. In my judgment, that person is Milton Friedman.” —Gary S. Becker, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science
Economist and former Newsweek columnist Henry Wallich has credited Milton Friedman with having “almost single-handedly” changed economic thinking on the subject of money.1 Indeed, Milton Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, was a world-renowned economist and an academician of the finest caliber. But he was much more. He was an articulate and persuasive advocate of individual freedom, and the private property, voluntary exchange economy, which is based upon and sustains that freedom. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has stated, “Professor Friedman is usually referred to as a monetarist, but his basic belief is not in money. It’s in people’s inherent right and ability to choose how they will live.”
Among his proposals were the following:
Negative Income Tax: To eliminate the massive welfare system’s disincentives and enormous waste, abolish all welfare programs and replace them with a program of direct cash payments to those actually in need simply by adding a new income tax bracket (one for negative values of taxable income) to the tax code.
Educational Vouchers: To provide a competitive climate for public and private education, all parents of primary and secondary school children would be issued government vouchers to be spent at the school of their choice. Government’s only role would be to provide the vouchers; competition for clients would assure quality and innovation.
Flat Income Tax: To streamline the tax system and to lower its enormous direct costs to the general public and the indirect inefficiencies imposed on the economy, abolish the corporate income tax. In addition, tax individuals only at a non-progressive, low, flat rate, raising personal exemptions to some minimum income level, and ending all loopholes.
Stable Money Growth: To eliminate the recurring problems of inflation, unemployment, and decreased productivity, abolish the Federal Reserve System, legalize private monies, and peg the increase of the government money supply to the growth in GNP, perhaps 0 to 3 percent per year.
Floating Exchange Rates: To solve the nation’s balance-of-payments problems and to open the possibility of unilaterally eliminating anti-consumer protectionist measures, abolish exchange controls and let national and private currencies seek their own price levels in the market.
Balancing the Budget: Since deficit spending is simply a device for hiding tax increases, thereby lowering taxpayer resistance to government spending and impairing economic growth, all government spending should be handled according to the merits of each specific proposal in a pay-as-you-go basis. Fiscal policy should never be used to affect business cycles, and the Balanced Budget Amendment should be adopted.
Volunteer Army: To create a more efficient, better motivated, and morally tenable defense system, abolish the compulsory servitude of the draft and draft registration and maintain a voluntary system of enlistment based on competitive benefits and professional, career-oriented training.
No Victimless Crime Laws: To direct limited police and legal resources to the problems of violent crime, eliminate all laws creating “crimes with no victims.” More specifically, where consent is present between two or more adults no criminal injustice can be possible; hence, for Friedman government has no place in proscribing or regulating such areas as prostitution, profanity, pornography, drugs, and so forth. In this regard, Friedman was not condoning any such behavior, but instead noting that these and all non-invasive matters are best regulated by property owners via private-property agreements and institutions, as opposed to government command-and-control. Moreover, Friedman agreed with the late Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick’s position that such practices should be equally legal along with all “capitalist acts between consenting adults.”13
As a result of his devotion to individual freedom, Friedman was an early and vocal supporter of California’s Proposition 13 to reduce property taxes across-the-board, as well as President Ronald Reagan’s original proposal to cut individual and corporate income tax rates. He was opposed to price controls, farm subsidies, securities and exchange controls, tariffs, and, in fact, all government interventions into the peaceful pursuits of individuals. To Friedman, government’s role should be stringently restricted to defending the nation from foreign enemies, defending persons from force and fraud, providing a forum for decisions of the general rules determining property and similar rights, and providing a means to mediate disputes about the rules.
Perhaps Friedman’s greatest success began in 1979 when he and his wife Rose authored the book, Free to Choose, based on the famous ten-part TV series for PBS by the same title. Both the TV program and the book were drawn from an earlier series of lectures presented by Friedman. Because it aired during a period of critical economic distress during the Carter Administration and in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Watergate scandal, and Richard Nixon’s resignation as President, the program is widely regarded as being a major factor in shifting American public opinion toward appreciating the need to dismantle government largess. The series was shown in England, Japan, Italy, Australia, Germany, Canada, and many other countries, and the book was translated for distribution around the world, selling more than one million copies.
As a result of his impact on academic and public opinion, Friedman was an economic advisor to 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater; Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon; as well as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But throughout this time, he consistently turned down full-time positions in government, preferring to continue his scientific work and leave public activities to full-time policymakers.
In addition, Friedman’s ideas were critically influential in the economic liberalization reforms in such countries as Estonia, Chile, Ireland, China, New Zealand, Czech Republic, and India. In the process, he was accused of complicity in the repressive regimes of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and in Communist China. However, Friedman maintained that in advising any government, in no way was he supporting any policies that run counter to the principles of individual liberty. Indeed, he indicated that he instead sought to end all policies of oppression.
In short, Friedman believed that government’s sole functions should be to provide civil policing and justice plus national defense. For the latter however, he went further than merely supporting the protection of national borders from invaders. In the aftermath of World War II, Friedman became a supporter of the Cold War and the Wilsonian legacy of U.S. military interventionism around the world. This led him to support the Vietnam War and other overt and covert U.S. policies. However, in the process, he noted that, “I’m anti-interventionist, but I’m not an isolationist,”14 and upon reading the 1987 landmark book by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan, which shows that war “crises” are the major engine of the very neo-mercantilism and Big Government he long opposed, Friedman became an increasing critic of “wars of choice,” including the war in Iraq.
The Friedman’s were married for 68 years and had two children: David, who teaches law and economics at Santa Clara University, and Janet, who practices law in California.
To recognize the enormous contributions of this man, I had the distinct pleasure and privilege to organize the gala National Dinner to Honor Milton Friedman on October 4, 1983, at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco, at which then struggling actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had been inspired by the “Free to Choose” TV series, first met Friedman in person.
In addition to the Nobel Prize, Friedman was the recipient of the Grand Cordon of the First Class Order of the Sacred Treasure of Japan (1987), National Medal of Science (1988), and Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988), and he was a member of the American Philosophical Society and the National Academy of Sciences.
In 1998, Milton and Rose Friedman penned their autobiography, Two Lucky People: Memoirs, which traces their remarkable personal journey and life experiences, and they both spent recent years working together pursuing their dream of educational choice for all parents throughout the U.S.
Milton Friedman died on November 16, 2006, from heart failure, in San Francisco. Unlike any other intellectual figure of the twentieth century, he transformed public debate away from the suicidal path of command economies and toward economies based on individual choice, free markets, and personal responsibility. Friedman was brilliant, creative, resilient, and effective. In his career, including the thirty years that I had the pleasure of knowing him, he was a champion who sought to facilitate greater opportunity for all, especially those most in need. In economics, education, finance, business, civil liberties, welfare, and a host of other areas, he has left a powerful legacy for the benefit of humanity.
Notes
1. John Davenport. “The Radical Economics of Milton Friedman,” Fortune, 1 June 1967, p. 131.
2. “Milton Friedman,” Current Biography 1969 (Bronx, NY: H.W. Wilson Company), p. 151.
3. “Milton Friedman,” Les Prix Nobel en 1976 (Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation, 1977), p. 239.
4. Karl Brunner. “The 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics,” Science 194 (November 5, 1976), p. 595.
11. Milton Friedman. “He Has Set a Standard.” Wall Street Journal (June 31, 2006).
12. Milton Friedman. “Introduction.” New Individualist Review (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1981), pp. ix-xiv.
13. “Portrait: Milton Friedman,” Challenge (May-June 1978), p. 69; Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); and Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980).
14. “Best of Both Worlds: Milton Friedman reminisces about his career as an economist and his lifetime ‘avocation’ as a spokesman for freedom,” Reason (June 1995).
David J. Theroux is the Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Independent Institute and Publisher of The Independent Review.__________Thank you again for your time and for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.
Pastor Tony Felich of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS gives the invocation to the mini conference event in honor of Francis Schaeffer’s 100th Birthday.
__________________________
This year Francis Schaeffer would have turned 100 on Jan 30, 2012. I remember like yesterday when I first was introduced to his books. I was even more amazed when I first saw his films. I was so influenced by them that I bought every one of his 30 something books and his two film series. Here is a tribute that I got off the internet from Chuck Colson’s website www.breakpoint.org :
A Brief Evangelical History of Worldview
By John Stonestreet|Published Date: June 14, 2010
Evangelicals and Worldview (2)
Two Calvinists
David Naugle traces the use of worldview among Christians to the teachings and writings of James Orr (1844-1913) and Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), and claims that each, having emerged from a Calvinist tradition, utilized the concept of worldview via its widely-accepted use in German philosophy. These two men are the “headwaters” from which emerged a stream of Christian worldview thinkers.
Orr’s influence can be seen in the writings of Gordon Clark (1902-1986) and Carl F.H. Henry (1913-2003), while Kuyper’s influence is seen primarily among reformed thinkers, most prominently Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984).[i] The influence of these men can be further seen in the writings of others, including Ronald Nash, Albert Wolters, Arthur Holmes, W. Gary Phillips and William E. Brown, Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey, James Sire, David Noebel, and David Naugle.[ii]
James Orr
When James Orr delivered the Kerr Lecture is 1891, he appropriated the idea of worldview and applied it to Christianity. Although Christianity had been seen holistically by many before him, he was the first to specifically utilize the English translation of weltanschauung which, as already noted, had become a significant concept in German philosophy. Living during the time some had called the “un-Christening of Europe,”[iii] Orr noted that there was a growing confidence in the coherence of the universe and the ability to achieve a synthesis of knowledge about the universe, and that Christianity would stand or fall according to its ability to answer challenges that were comprehensive. Christianity, also, had a “worldview”[iv] in that sense, and Orr asserted that it should be talked about as such.
Further, Orr saw it as the natural tendency of humans to theorize towards a comprehensive view of things, and practically to seek answers to ultimate questions of origin and destiny.[v] Worldviews, to Orr, were human nature. Additionally, Orr believed there were four advantages of thinking of Christianity in this way: (1) it would highlight the differences between Christianity and modernist views; (2) the debate over miracles would be reconfigured from particular miracles to the nature of reality; (3) it would alter the Christian’s approach to other worldviews and the truth that is found in those views; and (4) it would tie the Old and New Testaments together.[vi]
Orr’s influence can be easily traced. The title of Clark’s book A Christian View of Men and Things suggests that he was influenced by Orr’s The Christian View of God and the World, and was even attempting to take Orr’s work further. To Clark, only the Christian worldview could adequately explain the way the world is, offer legitimate meaning and hope, and support the existence of truth that is attainable.[vii] Through Clark’s influence, the language of worldview gained further momentum. For example, Ron Nash, a student and admirer of Clark, utilizes the language of worldview in many of his books and has influenced other students to think along those lines as well.[viii]
More prominent in Orr’s legacy is Carl F. H. Henry, who pointed to the influence of Orr as key to his worldview approach. This is evident in Henry’s masterful God, Revelation and Authority.[ix] Although it would be hard to fully measure the influence of Henry on twentieth century evangelicalism, it can certainly be seen in David Noebel’s contribution to worldview thinking, Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Worldviews.[x]
Abraham Kuyper
Kuyper, in Lectures on Calvinism (the published form of his 1898 Stone Lectures at Princeton University) stated, “Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat. This is the struggle in Europe, this is the struggle in America …”[xi] To Kuyper, these two systems were modernism and Christianity, and if modernism were a comprehensive system, then Christianity ought to be conceived of as comprehensive as well. If non-Christian worldviews were marked out across the spectrum of society, so too should Christianity be worked out and applied to every area. When fully applied and compared, Christianity would naturally prove to be the “more brilliant” and “the more capable of taking us to a higher level as a civilization.”[xii]
This approach, Kuyper thought, would be more effective than traditional apologetics, which, “has not advanced us one single step.”[xiii] For Kuyper, the goal was the transformation of all of culture, at every level, to recognize God’s authority. Key to Kuyper’s approach, and legacy, are the following themes: (1) a cosmic understanding of salvation, that grace restore nature as well as souls; (2) the sovereignty of God over all of life and order; (3) the cultural mandate as prior to, and unlocking the meaning of, the great commission; and (4) a spiritual antithesis characterizes the relationships of believers and unbelievers.[xiv]
Kuyper exerted significant influence on future worldview thinkers through the founding of the Free University of Amsterdam, as well as through his considerable success in Dutch politics. This influence continued through the work of Dooyeweerd, who emerged as Kuyper’s heir at Free University and has been called “the most creative and influential philosopher among neo-Calvinists in the 20th century.”[xv]
Dooyeweerd followed up on Kuyper’s concept of worldview early in his career, altered it later in his career, and became a key individual in the academic discussion of worldview. His influence can be especially seen through Calvin College and the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, Canada.[xvi] Writers on Christian worldview that have followed in the Kuyperian tradition include Albert Wolters, Arthur Holmes, Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh, Charles Colson, and Nancy Pearcey.
Francis Schaeffer
Still, the one who may have influenced Protestant Evangelicalism more than any other towards worldview thinking is Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer’s most significant contribution was bringing the concept of Christian worldview out of the academy to popular Christian thought. Through books like How Should We Then Live[xvii], videos, and his L’Abri Study Center, Schaeffer made worldview thinking accessible and applicable to non-academics, demonstrated the broad relevance of Christianity to culture, paved the way for para-church organizations committed to Christian worldview thinking, and influenced the worldview writings of individuals such as Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey. Naugle traces Schaeffer’s thought back to Kuyper, pointing to Schaeffer’s wide application of Christianity to culture. However, Schaeffer’s varied approach to worldview thinking suggests that his use of the concept went beyond the Kuyperian tradition.
Orr vs. Kuyper
While Orr and Kuyper shared a belief in a common foe (modernism), and though it is believed that Kuyper relied heavily on Orr’s earlier lectures[xviii], their overall approach to worldview differed. Though Orr was clearly a Calvinist, he did not emphasize it as much as Kuyper did, who attempted to understand everything first and foremost in light of the absolute sovereignty of God. Kuyper’s famous line from a speech delivered at the opening of the Free University in Amsterdam, which he founded, reflects his starting point of thinking about Christianity as a worldview, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”[xix]
So, while Orr focused on Christianity as a total belief system in contrast with other systems, Kuyper focused on Christianity applied (more specifically Calvinism) compared with modernism applied. For Kuyper, worldview was a notion that offered an apologetic primarily not by comparison with other worldviews, but by allowing it to provide cultural leadership in a wide variety of areas;[xx] and he is well-known for his attempts to actually apply a Christian worldview to diverse areas of culture in The Netherlands through his various roles as scholar, journalist, writer, pastor, and politician. The heritage of the two diverging approaches of Orr and Kuyper can be seen in the different approaches to worldview study today.
Questions for Study or Discussion
What do Orr’s and Kuyper’s understanding of worldview have in common? Where do they differ?
Why is it essential to keep both of these understandings of worldview in mind as we work to build our on Christian worldview?
What are some aspects of contemporary Christian belief that might frustrate our attempt to construct a comprehensive Christian worldview?
In what areas of contemporary culture do you think a Christian worldview is most urgently needed?
Why does Francis Schaeffer matter so much in the discussion of Christian worldview?
[i]Naugle, Worldview, 5, 6-15, and 16-32. See also, Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism, 88-95.
[ii]Ronald Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992); Albert Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids,Mich.:
Eerdman’s, 1985); Arthur Holmes, Contours of a Worldview (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdman’s, 1983); Brown and Phillips, Making Sense of Your World; Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984); Colson and Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live?; Pearcey, Total Truth; James Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 4th ed. (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004); David Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 1991); David Naugle, Worldview. Many more could be added here, but these are among the more important who reflect a direct influence from Orr, Kuyper, Clark, Henry, Dooeyweerd, and Schaeffer.
[vii]Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, 218.
[viii]Most significant are Worldviews in Conflict and Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1968). Nash’s influence can be seen in Phillips and Brown, Making Sense of Your World.
[xv]Naugle, Worldview, 25. See also, Nash, Dooyeweerd and the Amsterdam Philosophy (Grand Rapids,Mich.:
Zondervan, 1962).
[xvi]See Naugle, 25-29; Also, Paul Marshall, Sander Griffioen, Richard J. Mouw, eds. Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1989) and James Sire, Naming the Elephant (Downers Grove,Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
[xvii]Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton,Ill.: Crossway, 1983).
[xviii]Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview, 92-95. Heslam cites the following point made by Kuyper that were initially made by Orr: (1) Christianity and modernism each derived from separate, antithetical “first principles;”
(2) the only Christian defense against modernism is the development of a comprehensive, coherent worldview;
(3) the concept of worldview had bearing on all theoretical thought, not just religion; (4) all true religions possess a worldview of their own; and (5) the purpose of the lecture series itself was to show that Christianity had a definite view on things.
[xix]Kuper, “Sphere Sovereignty.” Quoted in Naugle, Worldview, 16.
[xx]Wolters, “On the Idea of Worldview and Its Relationship to Philosophy” in Stained Glass, 20.
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]
What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go. DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to […]
E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]
E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]
E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]
How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]
How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]
How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]
How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]
