I’m guessing most small churches aren’t very high tech. My church is in the heart of Silicon Valley and it could be in the tundra of Alaska for all its tech savvy. But, like most churches, it did jump on the WWW bandwagon a number of years back and has a web site, email, etc. The problem is that the hosting company we use is a rip-off. It’s so bad, I would consider it a stewardship issue to continue to use them.

I use DreamHost to host this and a couple of other sites and for $10 a month for unlimited bandwidth and storage, it’s great. I’ve had some outages and problems, but I don’t run a business on this plan so I don’t have any complaints. I’m now in the process of moving all the churches stuff over. What I just discovered is that DreamHost provides FREE HOSTING to any organization that can present a letter from the IRS showing that it is a 501(c)(3). I’m just about to send off the letter I got from the church office.

So, if your church is paying for hosting, go checkout http://dreamhost.com/hosting-nonprofit.html.

Update: The approval came through in less than an hour. Free hosting for Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church, hurray!

I just got around to listening to Monday’s segment on “Rush Limbaugh’s World View.” All I can says is they whiffed on that one like it was a Tim Lincecum changeup. I agree that Limbaugh’s worldview is not thoroughly Christian in that he has too high a regard for fallen man. Beyond that most of what was argued against was a characature.

The guest, Dr. John Mark Reynolds, started with this:

Too often Rush sounds as if tax cuts are the solution to every problem. And that government can become infinitely smaller.

This is clearly a misrepresentation of Limbaugh’s stance on both taxes and the size of government. Limbaugh subscribes to the Laffer Curve theory which basically says there is an optimum tax rate and higher tax rates don’t necessarily equal greater income to the government. As for the size of government, Limbaugh has never advocated anarchy, an infinitely small government. This is flat out disingenuous and is hopefully more hyperbole than his opinion.

Then, talking about a Rush’s lack of a Christian worldview, Dr. Reynolds says:

JMR: If we don’t understand some basic concepts like, individuals need some check and balance on their own behavior. Will ultimately make bad decisions in the long term.

Once again Dr. Reynolds equates Limbaugh’s view of limited government with anarchy. What checks and balances is Dr. Reynolds talking about? Limbaugh is a big supporter of the objective system of checks and balances, the rule of law.

Then this exchange regarding big business:

TW: I often hear Rush Limbaugh talk as though government needs strong checks and balances. But business, especially big business, doesn’t need any checks and balances.

JMR: Let’s look at the example of food. American food is much cleaner now that we have some government intervention making sure that we’re not being poisoned and being fed food that literally is killing us today. My grand father was killed by a company that decided that he should cut asbestos without a mask back in an era when they knew that cutting asbestos without a mask would be bad for him. They didn’t inform him of this fact. They didn’t provide him proper safety equipment. And business was big enough that they could ward off anything other than some government intervention.

The death of Dr. Reynolds’ grandfather is a tragedy. But sadly is a ruse used by Dr. Reynolds. How is the death of a man due to criminal negligence by a company proof that food quality is improved by government intervention? Maybe it was technological improvements and demands by the consumer that improved quality, not government standards.

JMR: But to pretend that, for example, the world would be a better place if there was no government regulation of food, to pick a very simple example, is I think utopian in the extreme.

Once again, I fail to see how government regulations improve the quality of food. I know the point Dr. Reynolds is trying to make without saying it. He is saying that without government regulations, big business would try to maximize profit by providing low quality that is potentially lethal. I’m sorry, but I’ve never heard that espoused as a good way to do business. The free market will decide what is acceptable quality and what price it will pay for that quality and what it will pay for greater quality. As far as the harm done to individuals, applying the law to those responsible for the harm might be a good place to start instead of regulatory bodies just as prone to corruption.

JMR: We know what food looked like before the government intervened. And what city people had to eat. And it wasn’t some perfect, self-interested utopia. We were lied to and often poisoned. And businesses often poisoned their employees or harmed them.
…
Some government is necessary to check big business because people aren’t powerful enough to do it themselves.  

Getting back to Limbaugh, this is once again a mischaracterization of his stand. Dr. Reynolds continues to equate Limbaugh’s call for limited government with a call for no government. To me, it is quite evident that Dr. Reynolds’ grandfather’s death is a big contributor to his perspective. And he has gone off the tracks of making this an argument about a Christian worldview and turned it into a view of the role of government which Christians are free to disagree upon. The view that people aren’t powerful enough to protect themselves from big business has nothing to do with your view of fallen man.

JMR: So it’s not even enough to have big business and big government checking each other. We need strong families, we need strong churches, and we need strong civic institutions, like the old women’s club that can check government and business. I’m afraid too many of those structures have become too weak to exercise too much force.

This is where Dr. Reynolds really misses the mark on Limbaugh. It is the same institutions, families and civic institutions, that Dr. Reynolds advocates for that Limbaugh advocates for. It is Dr. Reynolds confidence in regulatory bodies that is the real difference.

I want to close with some rare criticism of Pastor Wilken. As a follow on to Dr. Reynolds discussion on trust in big government vs. big business, Pastor Wilken asked:

I wonder, would you go so far as to say, obviously with some qualification, that just as the socialists would pin their hopes upon unfettered government as the answer; as a mirror image of that, Rush Limbaugh conservatives might pin their hopes on unfettered markets?

Pastor Wilken just talked about the biggest lesson he learned from Jeff Schwarz which was to be specific. Well this question was so vague as to be pointless. The “qualification” and definition of “unfettered” are central to answering this question. A truly unfettered government would be an oligarchy and a truly unfettered market would be anarchy. What’s missing is that “Rush Limbaugh conservatives” would include the rule of law whereas the socialists would put the elites above the law.

What was really missing from this whole interview was the place of the first use of the Law (shame on you Pastor Wilken). Limbaugh was characterized as believing that the “curb” was embodied in the free market. As he comes from a family of lawyers, I doubt this is his position. I think he sees objective laws as the curb. It is true that Limbaugh sees human progression more like an American than a Christian, but to characterize him as believing in free markets without the restraint of law is way off base.

That’s what I used to think when I heard those pitches over the radio. I thought people were crazy to get no equity loans and 125% second mortgages. I figured they were putting themselves in financial jeopardy, but what did that have to do with me? As we all know, it turns out this did affect me, it affected all of us. Because of these mortgage products the fundamentals of the housing market were changed. Home prices were inflated because there were fewer homes on the market because there were more home owners who could “afford” houses.

It follows a classic case of unintended consequences. Government officials were upset because people with lower incomes, predominantly minorities, were being rejected for mortgages. This had to be because of discrimination and not income to debt ratios, so the government instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make sure the banks weren’t discriminating against these higher risk borrowers. But how did they entice banks to make these risky loans. Well, they bought them from the banks. They lowered their standards for mortgages they would buy so the banks had a market for the higher risk loans. In the old days, banks made their money on mortgages by collecting the interest, now they were making money on the transaction. They no longer had to worry about people defaulting, that risk was shifted to Fannie and Freddie. So what would you do if you had a no risk way to make money? You’d see the dollar signs and milk it for all its worth and of course that’s what the banks did.

Then the economy slowed, interest rates went up, and people with Adjustable Rate Mortgages started getting adjusted out of being able to pay their mortgage. Then house prices started dropping because there were fewer buyers and more houses. This snowballed until we got where we are today. People who should never have bought the homes they did are now without them. People who still have their homes have seen there value drop. Banks folding. Government officials pointing the finger at everyone else and not the rules they setup that created the situation. All because someone thought they had a great solution to end discrimination in the housing market.

First, true good works, those that God considers good works, can only done by Christians. But wait, don’t unbelievers do good things like give to charity, lend a helping hand, etc., etc? Of course they do, but those are civil good works (good in the sight of man). Good works in God’s eyes are those works that are 100% out of love for Him. So, the unbeliever who is doing his civil good work because it will raise his standing in the community, or gain favor with someone, or even out of his own sense of compassion is not doing a good work.

Hey, don’t we have to do good works to please God? Whoa, that is the worst kind of “good work” because it imperils the soul. We don’t do anything to please God. Christ has done this for us by His perfect life, death, and resurrection. If we try to please God, we’re essential trying to buy our salvation, and that is not love, that is self-interest.

So how does anyone do good works? Even as a Christian, when I do things that look like good works like giving to charity or volunteering, if I am motivated in any way, and I am, by a tax deduction or perceived status, then I have not done this work out of 100% love of God. However, because I am a Christian, this sin is covered by Christ and God accepts it as a good work just like He accepts me, a sinner, because of Christ.

As usual, I feel pretty much out of step with many of those in the tech. industry. Google announced that they are against California Proposition No. 8. The proposition would prevent same-sex marriages. Google’s position is that this would infringe on people’s personal lives and eliminate the fundamental right of anyone to marry the person they love.

First off, marriage is not a private act. Even if you don’t believe that it was instituted by God, it is at least a governmental institution. I’m really at a loss to understand how something that requires a government issued license is a private act.

Next, nobody has the fundamental right to marry the person they love. What if the person you love doesn’t love you, is already married, is related to you, or a child? Do you still have a right to marry the person you love?

When you don’t understand what marriage is you sound silly, even if you are as smart as the people at Google.

When Sarah Palin was announced as the Vice-Presidential running mate for John McCain, I heard some news outlets say that she wouldn’t get support from Southern Baptists because they don’t even allow women pastors. I also read that Evangelical Christians in general would have a problem with her because they believe women should be at home with the children. These are both supposed to be examples of the backwards thinking of Christians and in some ways a hook into pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians if they do support a woman for Vice-President.

Lutherans have very similar positions on both women pastors and women staying at home with children. And while I don’t know why Southern Baptists and Evangelicals hold the positions they do, I do know why Lutherans believe the way we do. Our understanding doesn’t put the notion of women Vice-Presidents vs. Pastors in conflict. It also provides for women working outside of the home.

So why can a woman be a Vice-President and not a pastor? Simply put, the United States does not prohibit women from become Vice-President and God prohibits women from being pastors in His church. There’s not much more to say except that if you take God’s word seriously the case is open and shut. If you want to play around with God’s word women pastors will be the least of your problems .

But aren’t women supposed to be home barefoot and pregnant? God did create men and women differently. Woman are naturally more suited to rearing children. That is not to say men don’t have a role in raising their children, it’s just a different role. The issue is really about the children, not the parents. The parents were given their children by God so that the parents would love are raise them in the fear and love of the Lord. How are the children best served? Most likely by having their mother available to nurture them full-time. However, a mother may also have a calling to serve her neighbors as a government official. This calling will conflict with her calling as a mother, and in this fallen world, she will have to compromise and ask for forgiveness in either case.

What I’m trying to point out is that we have an understanding of the roles of women, vocations, that allows for this seeming contradiction. God rules both the church and the state. In one He allows women to govern in the other he does not. In addition, He places women where they can serve their neighbors. In some cases the needs of various neighbors conflict. They must use the reason God has given them to best serve the neighbors and ask for forgiveness for the rest.

After watching part of the news with my wife last night, I’ve decided it brings out too much of the “Old Adam” in me and I will avoid watching the news if at all possible. What sets me off is emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth in both the coverage and the people being covered.

The lead story was about a man who was near death after police shot him in the course of pursuing him after he was part of a drug deal. The coverage showed an angry relative and witnesses decrying the police for firing too many shots at an unarmed man. Thomas Sowell covers these exact same arguments in an article entitled “Bullet Counters”. What Sowell argues is that the man was not “unarmed” he was, as the report glossed over, armed with a car that he was using to try to injure or kill the police officers. Sowell then talks about the notion of firing “too many shots.” The number of shots fired was studied in these types of incidents and it found that just over half the shots missed ever at 6 feet. When lives are at stake, the police don’t have the luxury to shoot single shots and then look around to see if it hit. I’m not for police brutality but I give the benefit of the doubt to the police. This story gives the benefit of the doubt to the emotional relative and sensationalism of police shooting an “unarmed” man.

Another story was on the budget cuts in the city of Alameda that might cause it to reduce the use of some of it’s fire vehicles. The reduction in emergency services is a real issue, but it has to reasonably addressed, I mean wouldn’t it be safest for everyone if there were police and fire stations on every block? But that’s not economically feasible so you decide on an appropriate level of service and set the funding level based on that, but that doesn’t work in the political world because you have unions and politicians with multiple agendas. What broke me on this story was the proposed solution of raising sales taxes to cover the shortfall. It never ceases to amaze me how little politicians understand economics. Thinking that raising local sales taxes will save them is nonsense. Just imagine they raise the sales tax in Alameda by 1- 2% wouldn’t residents just stop off in Oakland on the way home from work to do their shopping thus lowering the city’s revenue.

Those are some of my beefs with the news. I know the news casts aren’t changing anytime soon, so I’ll just avoid them.

Today seems to be Blog Action Day. Which is the blogosphere’s attempt to put everyone’s focus on the environment. I will first state that I am a 2 times as crazy as your average geek. I believe in God and I’m a doubter of man-made global warming. From the faulty data, to the reliance on computer models which can’t model tomorrows weather, to the fact that the Earth has gone through climatic cycles without our influence, I just can’t buy into it especially when I look into the agenda of this movement’s proponents and their proposed solutions which force change on everyone else but exempt themselves.

I believe this crisis is another manifestation of the Theology of Glory which places its emphasis on mans’ abilities and reason for salvation. What these people believe is that they can somehow “fix” the Earth and make it a utopia. They want to stomp out poverty, end wars, etc. These are noble goals, but will never come to pass this side of the second coming of Christ. I’m not saying that we should wantonly waste resources, go to war, or ignore poverty. What I’m saying is that we can do our best in all these areas but this corrupt and fallen world will always have its problems and doing the most good for the most people isn’t always the same as doing what makes you feels good.

With the release of the latest IPCC paper on climate change, there is increased focus on global warming (not that there was ever any slack). On the news this morning, some S.F. Bay Area public policy official was pointing out that rising sea levels will be problematic he said bay waters had risen 7 inches in the last 100 years. Did you catch that, 7 inches in 100 years. I thought my car was the cause of global warming. If sea levels started rising 100 years ago, then it wasn’t global warming that started the rise. If global warming is causing the sea levels to rise, people aren’t causing global warming. Global warming isn’t science, it’s a political agenda.

The next time someone starts in on global warming, ask them to answer these questions:
• Has the Earth ever gone through warming and cooling periods? If so, what caused them?
• Where does the Earth get its warmth (Sun)? Does that source ever fluctuate?

I’m listening to an interview with Tony Campolo who is stumping for the Left as an alternative for Christians. He may be a wonderful speaker and a smart guy, but he’s just as wrong and uses the same deceptive tactics as your run of the mill non-Christian Liberal. Take for example his stance on abortion. Did you know that the low minimum wage causes more abortions? Yes, according to Mr. Campolo, you can’t fight abortion unless you raise the minimum wage. If the minimum wage was $100K a year, I guess that would stamp out abortion. He says that the abortion rate for those over 30 is the same as it was in the 1950′s. Wait, wasn’t the minimum wage lower then. Shouldn’t there be fewer? The deceptive tactics that he uses are simple, spout statistics that are factual and sound authoritative, but are irrelevant in the context of his argument or make strong statements without evidence. His over 30 statistic is irrelevant because that age group is a minority of those having abortions. His comments on raising the minimum wage to stop abortions sound strong, but he give no evidence that there is any link, he says it, it sounds good, it must be right. I think the biggest problem the religious Left has is that their compassion is leading people away from the Lord. It’s a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. By trying to solve these problems through government programs the religious Left has people looking to the government as the answer instead of Jesus Christ.