Something Close to Nothing!

People will no doubt continue to remain bitterly divided of the health care debate despite the new law/reform Congress passed last night. Good and honest people can and will arrive at different conclusions and have vastly different viewpoints as to what is best for this nation.

I have no doubt President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of their cohorts who voted in favor of Obamacare yesterday think they are making a more perfect union.

But, in my opinion, I think Congress has done something close to nothing to reform America’s health care system.

The sad reality is that for those of us who think the ballooning national debt is a key indicator of our nation's health and prosperity, the country is in desperate straits carrying a sense of falling that is undeniable. The continued expansion of government control and intervention coupled with massive spending increases make it difficult to be optimistic about our country's future.

The financial facts of this bill were continually ignored by the 219 members of the House who voted on this massive entitlement bill. Read at the bottom the Op Ed piece in the New York Times (of all sources) which laid out the truth about this bill. (“The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform”)

Given the government's history or grossly underestimating the actual costs of entitlement programs, I don’t know about you, but I know I don’t trust the government to hold my money.

Now, one last point, while everyone has an obligation to help those who are less fortunate, it is important how that duty is fulfilled. I simply believe that President Obama's desire for the government to carry out that responsibility is misguided and will lead to more government waste and neglect of the very ones they claim to want to help.

If you remember the Parable of the Good Samaritan, there's a priest and a Levite who use their freedom in different ways than the Samaritan did. They chose not to help the man who was lying by the side of the road. But the Samaritan used his freedom, and Jesus encouraged his followers to use their freedom to help the poor and the sick. And when you do that, the care that they receive ends up being better.

Many are predicting that the government's effort to provide medical care to the poor will be an “administrative and bureaucratic nightmare" because of the all the politicking and litigation involved.”

This country has a lot of soul searching to do when it comes to what's best for our nation's health care needs

People are afraid that this new health care law will lead to socialized medicine, no choice of doctors or hospitals, and their list goes on and on.

It is indeed a time of reflection and prayer. In the end, We must always remember what the God of heavens says about Himself and about the righteous and wicked,

"Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men who cannot save. When their spirits depart, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them--the Lord, who remains faithful forever. He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets prisoners free, the Lord gives sight to the blind, the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down, the Lord loves the righteous.
The Lord watches over the alien, and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked. The Lord reigns forever..."

Psalm 147:3-10a (NIV).

_____________________________

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
Published: March 20, 2010

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.
Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the
Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year.

The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.
In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

The Gospel and ‘Social Justice’…

In light of the highly publicized politic debate taking place right now concerning “Obamacare” (i.e., national government health care), I have been thinking about how all this relates to the subject of social justice and whether or not the church should involve itself in such things. This has really become a hot topic these days, especially amongst younger Evangelicals.

A few examples are………

Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC. Tim has been speaking about justice for many years but has just recently put his insights into a new book coming out in October of this year entitled Generous Justice. Here is the publishers description:

It is commonly thought in our secular culture that the Bible is one of the
great hindrances to doing justice. In Generous Justice, Timothy Keller
illuminates a life of justice empowered by an experience of grace: a generous,
gracious justice.

Generous Justice is a book for believers who find the Bible a trustworthy
guide, as well as for those who suspect that Christianity is a regressive
influence in the world.

Keller calls upon life-long Christians to deepen their faith by
understanding that justice for the poor and marginalized is central to the
Scripture’s message and challenges skeptics to recognize that the Bible is
actually the basis for the modern understanding of justice.

Like all of Tim’s books, this one promises to be thought provoking and generate lots of good healthy discussion and debate.

But it illustrates the debate about the social justice and gospel.

It doesn’t take a one long to realize that the so called “emerging church” which crosses a number of theological boundaries and the participants can be described as evangelical, post-evangelical, and post-liberal. They are very concerned with the planet, with the ecosystems, pollution and the environment; so much so that apparently in some sense Christ died for the physical planet and it is the job of the follower of Christ to help restore and protect this world. He is also troubled with injustice.

One of the leading voices of this movement is Brian McLaren. He asks, “And could our preoccupation with individual salvation from hell after death distract us from speaking prophetically about injustice in our world today?”( The Last Word and the Word After That, p. 84) .Emergent leaders have a deep concern that if we are preoccupied with who is “in” and who is “out,” who is going to heaven and who is not, we will ignore present physical needs of the planet and social issues like injustice, poverty and AIDS.

McLaren argues, “When Matthew, Mark, and Luke talk about the Kingdom of God, it’s always closely related to social justice…. The gospel of the kingdom is about God’s will being done on earth for everybody, but we’re interested in getting away from earth entirely as individuals, and into heaven instead.”(ibid 149) Martin Luther King is given by McLaren as an example of one who had the right gospel emphasis.[ibid 153) They fault the evangelical church for being too wrapped up in eternity to care about what is happening right now on planet earth and with being too anxious over who is saved from sin to notice who is suffering from man’s inhumanity to man.

It does not seem to be an option to the emergent church that both social injustices and eternal redemption can be and have been attended to by God’s people. But, despite opinions to the contrary, the priority of Scripture is on man’s relationship to God. It is because men are alienated from God that they mistreat one another. The spiritually redeemed and transformed person should and will care about social sins.

But, again, the gospel is about man’s alienation from God and what He has done through Christ to reconcile us to Himself (Romans 5:6-11), not about the ozone layer and elimination of poverty. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made these latter things the focus of their ministries; it was the reconciliation of souls to God that was at the heart of their message. Once we begin to draw our gospel from the culture, no matter what culture that might be, we have altered the true gospel. Emergent leaders are not wrong to be concerned about the environment and social injustice; they are wrong to confuse it with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For me, the issue is not an “either/or” scenario. I like the way Jonathan Leeman put it recently, suggesting that evangelism and social involvement are “not at odds with each other, but that social involvement is a subsidiary part of evangelism but we shouldn’t get our priorities confused.”

Again, to me, the question to me is we will be emphasizing evangelism and reaching out with the proclamation of the Gospel at the same time, just as strongly how we as Christians live that out? The reality is that in our culture today, especially among the younger generations, they respond to social justice issues and move from that to hearing the Gospel, rather than hearing the Gospel and moving to social justice.

Again, it is good and proper for us to attempt to alleviate the suffering of anyone, in whatever form that is: feeding the hungry, healing the broken, freeing the slaves, redeeming those in prostitution, loving the orphan and the widow, etc.

But the truth of the matter is that if we do not preach the gospel, we are, in essence, simply putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. In the end, that does not address the real issue, and that is giving people life. One can be freed from forced prostitution but still a slave to their sin nature. It is better for one to remain in slavery and come to know Christ than it is for one to never hear of Christ and be freed from slavery. Of course... it is best if one knows Christ and is freed from slavery... but I believe it is our best practice to address the former sooner than the latter, if at all possible.

I greatly desire to see a resurgence of evangelism in the body of Christ today. But evangelism that is rooted in and focused on the gospel.

For a much better and compelling argument read the one made by Kim Moreland in the following article: http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/14545-the-social-gospel-and-eternity.

In Christ,
Robert Prater

Where is this Global Warming?

Propelled by the threat (perhaps hysteria) of supposed man-made global warming, the American culture has been convinced to "go-green." From political statements, marketing tactics (remember the Audi “Green Police” commercials for the Super Bowl?)and even one church I read about installing an earth-friendly heating system, we now seem to be much more conscious of protecting our environment. The advocates of global warming have cooled down in recent weeks as a massive cold front and record snow has held an icy grip on much of the Mid-West (including Dallas!), South-eastern states. As a result, one top United Nation's global warming proponent is now going to the opposite extreme and is predicting the beginning of a "mini ice age" (see FoxNews.com's report "30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says" on January 11, 2010).

The increased concern of protecting and preserving our environment is a good thing. In fact, it is a divine directive. One of the responsibilities given to mankind is to be a steward and keeper of our earthly abode (see Genesis 2:15). God has given this environment, its creatures, and natural resources for mankind's use (cf. Genesis 2:11-12, 16-17; 3:21; 9:3). Yet, God is displeased when we blatantly abuse his creation (cf. Deuteronomy 22:6-7; Exodus 23:11).

We must be good stewards of the earth and not abuse God's provisions for us. However, we must not fall victim to the doomsday predictions and hysteria of the environmental prophets. Man can abuse the earth and even do great harm (remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989?) However, we do not have the power to destroy the earth. God has reserved that exclusive right having promised that he will be the one to personally destroy the earth and man cannot subvert his plan (2 Peter 3:7, 12). God has personally "reserved" the destruction of the earth with fire for himself on his predetermined day (2 Peter 3:7). Man cannot preempt God's predetermined plans. Even after the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez, scientists were amazed at the "rapid recovery" of the environment which demonstrates that God has designed the earth as a "resilient ecosystem" and not a "fragile environment" (Doughty, Heaven, pg. 48).

From the beginning God designed the environment and weather patterns of the earth to be cyclical in nature (Genesis 1:14). We should expect that there will be cycles of cold weather and decades of warmer temperatures. In fact, God made a promise concerning this after he destroyed the earth by water in the days of Noah. God said, "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease" (Genesis 8:22).

While we should be very conscious of the fact that we must be responsible stewards of God's creation, we should not be fearful that we will destroy the earth. God holds that exclusive right. We must be personally prepared for that day (2 Peter 3:11-13). In this way, maybe we should be more concerned with heaven than with earth!

God bless,
Robert Prater

Not Out of the Woods Yet

"I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn’t apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn’t have to go far to find them.

"I was wrong. I was foolish. I don’t get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me. I brought this shame on myself." ~ from the text of Tiger Woods comments

This was probably the most lengthy and sincere apology I've ever seen by such a huge public figure . And I for one I’m glad Tiger Woods made his public confession today. I think he was sincere. Of course these confessions, unfortunately, are public relations necessities which are carefully calculated. They are born out of the environment created by modern media, particularly the Internet and 24-hour cable news.

But, as often is the case, celebrities do not "say the right words" -- they dribble out half-truths and self-justifications. Tiger did none of that. Hopefully his public confession will make us want to confess our “sin” and make us more inclined to be self reflective to see how our moral choices hurt others.

But the test of a confession is in what follows it—repentance (change)!

Now let's give him some space. Pray for him and his family, and let's leave the man alone. Let him live up to the promises he made this morning, and hope that he can truly recover. After all, it's not just about a man's accomplishments that matter, as much as how he responds to the great challenges of life.

I also can’t help but comment on Tiger’s statement he made concerning the following: “Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes and unhappy and pointless search for security… Obviously I lost track of what I was taught.”

I believe that Tiger did not stray from his religious teachings but fell prey to Buddhism’s man-centered teachings. Rather than looking for joy from “outside” himself, such as in a grace-based relationship with Christ, Tiger lived a very self-centered, prideful life of self-sufficiency.

I hope that Tiger and his wife find a way to stay married, especially for the sake of the children. But, sadly, Tiger’s adherence to Buddhism will continue to be a hindrance. All Christians should pray for Tiger Woods that he will look “outside” of himself to help that comes from the true and living God and that he will trust in Jesus Christ alone for true forgiveness and redemption.

May God bless you all,

Robert Prater

Reminders!

A string around the finger; A note left in a conspicuous place; A single word written in the square of a date on a calendar—reminders. Let’s face it, we all need them. Our memories are not perfect. We may have been told, we may have known, but sometimes the gray matter needs jogged so we can remember what we know.

Christians need reminders, Peter wrote, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder.” (2 Peter 3:1).

We need to be reminded of the great grace by which we have been saved and the commitment we made to the Lord the day we gave our lives over in obedient submission to Him (Eph. 2:8; Gal. 2:20). We need to be reminded we are no longer our own but have been bought with a price.

We need to be reminded that while the church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) it is comprised of sanctified sinners. These are people who struggle and toil, who try to do good and right but don’t always succeed. They are people in need of compassion and forgiveness and encouragement and that we are numbered among them.

We need to remember that as we are constantly being pressured and pushed to fit into a certain way of thinking, that we are instead to be transformed and not conformed. This comes with a renewed mind and a renewed mind is one filled with the mind of Christ.

We need to be reminded that the world is LOST in sin, a world for whom Christ did and sin which His blood is able to cleanse. As one who wears His name I must remember that God’s saving power, the gospel, has been given to me as a great treasure. I need to be reminded that as I have been blessed I also now have a responsibility.

“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have.” (2 Peter 1:12 NIV)

Remind Me, Dear Lord
Chorus
Roll back the curtain of memory now and then
Show me where you brought me from and where I could have been
Remember I'm human and humans forget
So remind me, remind me dear Lord

Robert

Much ado about nothing - The Tebow ad

Fairly predictable lefty outrage was made by feminists groups such as NOW and pro-choice groups over the Tim Tebow Super Bowl commercial ad sponsored by Focus on the Family.

A 30-second Super Bowl ad, which pro-abortion and feminist groups had feared would offer a strong pro-life, anti-abortion message, instead did what the its sponsor said it would: celebrate family and life. The ad, in keeping with the comic tone of the majority of the advertisements running during the game, featured Pam Tebow, the mother of college football standout Tim Tebow, reminiscing about the struggles she faced in seeing her future Heisman Trophy-winning son come into the world.

The ad finishes with the invitation for viewers to visit the Focus on the Family website to hear more about Pam’s story.

While Focus on the Family reportedly paid an estimated $2.5 million for the 30-second spot, the publicity the group received because of attacks from its critics was priceless. Nearly every day, feminist and pro-abortion groups introduced a new tactic in an effort to smear Focus on the Family and pressure CBS officials to change their minds on running the ad.

Amazingly, without having even previewed the ad, leaders of the Women’s Media Center urged women to sign a petition to CBS, arguing that the ad was “surrealistic” in its pro-life message. Wrongly assuming that Focus on the Family would give the abortion issue center stage, the National Organization for Women demanded that CBS pull the plug on the spot, saying that the abortion issue “has no place in the Super Bowl.”

Each year, the Super Bowl broadcast is almost as anticipated for its ads as for the game itself. Many of them tastelessly use sex and the objectification of the female body to attract attention. You'd think "women's groups" might have something to say about that. But they reserve their censorship calls for what they really care about. Again, I think the truth about what these groups are really about, were exposed.

Although they claim to be more "tolerant" than those who might not agree with them, their view is not so much "pro-choice," but "no life."

Pam Tebow decided not to have an abortion, after a doctor urged her to, when in 1987 she was pregnant and had been diagnosed with dysentery. She called Tim her miracle baby, and said that she still worries about his health. No matter what your views are on abortion, Pam Tebow had a story to share; she was advised to have an abortion, didn’t, and her son has gone on to college football record fame. The commercial was not an attempt to force someone’s views upon another, but rather the testimony of one football hero’s journey into the world.

Congratulations to CBS and the Super Bowl for the brief time-out from the game to celebrate Tebows' focus on their family.

Robert Prater

Suffering

The presence of suffering and evil in the world undoubtedly presents the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith. Henri Blocher, commenting on this challenge, writes, “While it is suffering and evil that tortures human bodies, it is the problem of suffering and evil that torments the human mind.” Even the prophets in the Bible raise the question in various forms. For example, the prophet Habakkuk asked God, ―How long, O Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, ‗Violence!‘ but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? (Habakkuk 1:2-3) Jeremiah challenged God by saying, “I would speak with you about your justice: why does the way of the wicked prosper?” (Jeremiah 12:1) The issue of suffering is taken up in the Book of Job where God’s character and moral trustworthiness that are called into question. If scripture is reliable, we may trust the goodness of God, but we will not have explanations. There apparently was never a more faithful and good man than Job, but he suffered without ever knowing why

Dr. Earl West tells of J. W. McGarvey, the greatly admired preacher and teacher of the Restoration Movement, counseling a grieving lady who lost her only son in the Civil War. She was seeking advice from the scholarly McGarvey when she asked, “Where was God when my son was dying?” Like Job’s wife, her grief and doubt led her to blame God for her sorrow. Immediately McGarvey replied, “The same place He was when His Son died.”

Ultimately, the answer to the problem of evil and suffering is not a philosophy, but a Person; not words, but the Word. The value of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is often overlooked at just this point. “So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.” (John 1:14 New Living Translation) God “tabernacle” among us, or came to earth in a “tent” of flesh and blood, in the person of Jesus Christ. (John 1:14) Most often, in the midst of our pain, we want comfort, not explanations. This is where the presence of Christ in the lives of those who hurt is critical.

John Stott in his classic book, “The Cross of Christ,” addresses the centrality of the cross when it comes to suffering in our world. He writes:

“I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross. . . . In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? The God of the cross is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in light of his. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross which symbolizes divine suffering. “The cross of Christ..…is God’s only self justification in such a world as ours.”

God is not indifferent to suffering. God so loved the world that He gave his only Son to experience unimaginable suffering and to die as a victim of evil and cruelty. He endured this to overcome sin, so that we might be reconciled to God and enjoy heaven where there is no suffering and death. (cf. Rev. 21:4) Also, we read all the stories of how compassionate Jesus was when encountering suffering people. He was not aloof. He cared about and shared their pain, just like He cares about your pain and problems now.

That is the God for me! I do not want to give trite or easy answers to these tough questions regarding human suffering. But in the end, when all is said, the answer to all suffering is the cross. “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” (Romans 8:32)

And for the Christian, despite how difficult life gets, Romans 8:28 promises us that God can bring something good out of even the worst of circumstances, if we turn it over to Him. The promise doesn't say the good will outweigh the bad, or that the purpose of the bad is so there can be good - just that good can come from all situations if our lives are given to the Lord.

As long as there is life on earth, there will be pain and suffering. As long as there is life on earth, there will be injustices. We have no promise of a fair life. What we do have is a promise that God will never leave us or forsake us, that He will always be with us, even to the end of the age (Heb. 13:5; Matt. 28:20). And in our finite understanding, although we cannot fully understand why He does not step in and stop our suffering, we can see that what seems to matter in these few years we spend on earth is the relationship we develop with Him.

God bless,

Robert Prater