All posts by Camp Director

Commentary, The Church

Politicizing The Church- Part II

This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series Politicizing The Church

The Crumbling ChurchFor more than 20 years conservative Christians have had a political agenda: Get Christians into political power. Why?

Somewhere along the way the Christian church has lost confidence in itself. There is no longer the belief that proclamation of the Gospel can change the culture.  But politics apparently can succeed where the Gospel has failed.

Why this mistaken belief in the political order? There are many aspects to an answer to this question. But at the center of it all is a radical change not only in the message of the Gospel but in the way that the message is proclaimed.

Since the Protestant Reformation there has been a significant shift in the view of the Church. Part of this radical change is understandable. The Catholic Church had become part of the problem, trying to control the political realm as the mechanism to evangelize the world.

Such a belief, however, was not evident in the period that involved the Christianization of Europe. In this period, Christians carried out the Great Commission. This has a threefold aspect: to make disciples, to baptize and to teach.

What is not understood so well is the command to make disciples.  What does this mean?  What does it involve?  How should it be done?

And how will we ever know when we have succeeded?

Ian Hodge, PhD

P.S.  If you like what you read at www.biblicallandmarks.com, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button.

Commentary, Satire

Another “Revelation” From The “No Kidding!?” Dept….

Irony“Brain Scans Show Bullies Enjoy Others’ Pain” screams the headline in this breathlessly reported Washington Post article. Well, ya’ think?

We sometimes find ourselves a little incredulous at the nattering boobery of the so-called media elite, especially when it’s over something as obvious as this.

Of course bullies enjoy spreading misery. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. It may come as something of a shock to the Washington Post staff writers but there are a limited number of things that motivate fallen man. Avoidance of pain and pleasure lead the list. Bullies get pleasure by inflicting pain. It’s pretty simple, but it took a study by a Psychology professor at the University of Chicago to get the WaPo to see what most of us “lesser lights” grasp more-or-less intuitively. The fact that parts of their brain “light-up” when they are feeling the pleasure of inflicting pain is one of the “stunning revelations” of the study.

We’re underwhelmed.

Ohio Constitution Party Archives

Letter to National Executive Committee from the Ohio Executive Committee- A short history of the Nevada Independent American Party (IAP) situation

This entry is part 2 of 11 in the series Nevada Disaffiliation Archives

March 9, 2005

Mr. Jim Clymer, Chairman

Constitution Party

11111 place place

Anywhere, USSA 8052480

Mr. Michael Peroutka

Constitution Party Presidential Candidate

Mr. William Shearer, Chairman Emeritus

Constitution Party

Mr. Howard Phillips, past Presidential candidate

US Taxpayers Party, Constitution Party

Dear Constitution Party officials:

Recently the National Committee of the Constitution Party met in Nashville, Tennessee.  An issue was debated during that meeting, and a decision made, which could have significant long term consequences for the future stability of the party.

The Constitution Party of Ohio, whose delegation to the National Committee represented the views and opinions of the officers and members of the Constitution Party of Ohio, is very concerned regarding the outcome of the discussion of this issue, and would like to share with you a number of observations and suggestions relative to this issue.

With that, please read the following information with the understanding that our intent is to encourage the upholding of the principles which give the Constitution Party its definitive nature.

History and background

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People (political party) to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth (or major parties), the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (the Bible) entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.” ~Declaration of Independence, paragraph one

Throughout its history, the Constitution Party (formerly US Taxpayers Party) has declared clearly and concisely that the overarching cause impelling this one People (members of the CP) to “the Separation” with (mainly) the Republican Party and (secondarily) the Libertarians is the issue of the sanctity of life. That cause, based squarely on the foundation of the Laws of Nature’s God, the Holy Scriptures, has been one that sets apart the Constitution Party as, and has been stated as a theme for the Constitution Party, the ONLY 100% “Pro-life” political party in the United States.

This cause, this principle, has been a cornerstone on which the building of the CP has taken place. As all of the other political parties in America either reject outright this foundational principle, or have paid lip–service to the same while winking and nodding to those in favor with that party who have the blood of innocents on their hands and their consciences, good men and women have dissolved those Political Bands with those apostate and murderous Powers of the Earth. The resulting exodus gave birth to the US Taxpayers Party, now known as the Constitution Party.

The national Constitution Party’s own governing Constitution, in Article IID, states in part that the purpose of the Party is to “Promote allegiance to the principles and objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America….the Declaration of Independence occupies a primary and defining relationship to and equality with the Constitution of the United States…” The Declaration of Independence, of which the Party has been formed and organized to promote allegiance to, states in part: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

The bylaws of the national Constitution Party have been set forth and speak to both the structure of the national party, and of the affiliation of state parties under the banner of the national Constitution Party. Article II of the Bylaws, section 2.2, states in part that “The National Committee shall have the power to grant state affiliate status by majority vote and to revoke state affiliate status by no less than two-thirds (2/3) vote of the entire committee registered at the meeting.” Paragraph 2 of this section states that the granting of state affiliate status shall be based upon “a determination of preliminary qualifications upon finding that the state party or organization has: a. Pledged an adherence to the Constitution Party platform….”

In a statement of principle and belief known as a party platform, the Constitution Party has consistently put at the forefront not only the acknowledgement of Almighty God, but also the acknowledgement of His justice to all created life. This platform’s plank dealing with life states in part: “We affirm the God given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.”

Furthermore, this strong statement of belief was further expanded when in 1998, the language of the “San Antonio Resolution” was adopted at the National Committee meeting of the Constitution Party. The salient passage states: “Be it therefore Resolved, The U.S. Taxpayers Party National Committee shall not endorse or distribute, allocate, contribute to or solicit funds for, or support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death-without exception.”

The current situation

In 2004, an issue that had been developing over an extended period of time came to the forefront of the business of the Constitution Party National Committee meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. Propelled by the offering of a resolution to address the situation, delegates made determinations which will have long-term implications for the health and growth of the Constitution Party and its state affiliates.

The issue is that of state affiliate leaders and candidates specifically and vocally denying their responsibility to adhere to the Party’s platform plank on the sanctity of life. In a series of exchanges, there has been clear and convincing evidence of at least one state party Chairman advocating abortion for such reasons up to and including “severe fetal deformity.” This chairman has also stood for office under the banner of that state’s CP affiliate. Other individuals, running under the banner of the state affiliates of the Constitution Party, have indicated their allowance of exceptions to the sanctity of life issue in their responses to candidate questionnaires. It is understood that each of these state affiliates, in order to become and remain a CP affiliate state political party, has pledged adherence to the CP platform.

Given the dichotomy that currently exists between thought and action in this situation, a number of members of the CP have sought to bring forth a resolution establishing clear procedural guidelines to address the situation. An analysis of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Constitution Party reveals that there exists no just, clear or objective mechanism to investigate and process the veracity of such situations, or a means of establishing the record of violation to move toward action of disaffiliation by the two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the National Committee.

This “Lefemine Resolution,” named after sponsor and former CP South Carolina officer and candidate for public office Steve Lefemine, stated as its intention to create a mechanism for party disciplinary action against a state affiliate, officer or candidate who will not pledge adherence to the Sanctity of Life plank of the Platform. Lefemine’s resolution is conscious of the ethical and philosophical, as well as operational dichotomy of the current problem, or as has been stated succinctly, “The CP National cannot honestly continue to claim to be 100% pro-life while failing to discipline state leaders or candidates that advocate abortion.” Even the CP’s presidential candidate, Michael Anthony Peroutka, understands the difficulty that having state affiliates running contrary to the party’s Platform creates for a national candidate or campaign that does stand firmly upon the 100% pro-life plank, and he offered words to that effect, given to the supporters of the resolution.

An analysis of the events of the meeting has been offered by Cal Zastrow, one of the supporters of the resolution.  We will not expand on the events at this time. It is vital to note some observations:

1. This resolution did not call for the immediate disaffiliation of any state party or officer; in keeping with Biblical justice and principles of correcting error, a mechanism in keeping with Matthew 18 was to be instituted, under the control and oversight of the national chairman.

2. There was nothing in the resolution that would violate (or sought to violate) the principle of states’ rights. Each state may set its own standards, and the resolution did not change this. However, to be an affiliate of the national Constitution Party, a state must, as has been spelled out in the Constitution and Bylaws, adhere to the party platform. The Sanctity of Life plank of the Platform is the only plank in which the “no exceptions” clause is stated. It is the only plank of the platform to which total adherence is vital to the party’s identity.

3. A state party, its officers, or candidates would have full opportunity to respond to the concern, and a resolution of the matter would take place within a reasonable time frame.

4. The matter would not be left up to the decision of one person (the national chairman) or to the debating abilities of certain members of the party (those not either part of the problem or part of the proposed committee to investigate the claims). This would ensure just decision-making, keeping principle and truth at the forefront, and setting aside personalities, emotional appeals, or mischaracterizations of the situation to be widely broadcast either at the National Committee meetings or through other channels.

Unfortunately, much disinformation, mischaracterization, character attacks and appeals to fear and emotionalism marked the “debate” on the proposed resolution. Never addressed was the actual logic of the matter, the mechanics of the resolution, or the admission of the need for there to be limited national standards for CP affiliated officers and candidates.

Noted elsewhere, Bill Shearer (the former CP National chairman) loudly, angrily referred to those who brought forth this resolution as: “thought police,” members of the “Hitler youth movement” and guilty of “travesty of the worst order,” “shameful,” and other similar things.  However, Mr. Shearer must have forgotten the logic of his own words, which he wrote in May of 2004 in the California Statesman (regarding the platform plank on “religious freedom”) that “Their (the Founding Fathers’) principles are affirmed in the ‘Religious freedom’ plank of the Constitution Party platform. It would be difficult to be “The Constitution Party” and not adhere to the fundamental precepts of that document (the Constitution of the United States with Amendments).” If so with the religious freedom plank, even more so with the Sanctity of Life plank, developed directly from the Declaration of Independence’s claim of the truth of the inalienable right to Life, the same Declaration to which our party Constitution recognizes primacy over even the said Constitution of the United States!

Nashville and beyond

The resolution itself was turned down by a vote of 14-44. What remains turned up however is the realization that there is a potential crossroads of which the Constitution Party must decide which fork to follow. The irresolution of the matter has created unnecessary rancor, confusion and delay among the members, and has harmed the objectives of the Constitution Party. A continued attack upon the character and intentions of those supporting the resolution is now seeing print from one of the state affiliate parties, which was not directly under the question which led to the resolution. Such distortions and vitriol have NO PLACE in a party of principle and character.

Should the national chairman or the national executive committee fail to actively address the immediate situation of the adherence to the life plank, and begin a dialogue on the underlying problems of the party which has been laid bare by the debate, there will be more direct efforts to call for principle to take precedent over politics.

If numbers are the ultimate goal of the Constitution Party, then greater compromise of the party’s Constitution, Bylaws, platform and standards will become commonplace.  In the paraphrased words of Zell Miller, the Constitution Party will cease to be a national party unless and until we self-consciously embrace our stated Biblical foundations and hold to a consistent and principled ethic of life and truth.

Anything less would be a denial of our stated beliefs, and marks the CP as being truly no different from the “Powers of the Earth” from which we severed the “Political Bands” that held us captive. If acknowledgement of and submission to God and our Lord Jesus Christ is our standard, then He who is sovereign over all will give the necessary increase, or will use the Constitution Party as a Gideon’s band or a David and his faithful men to achieve God’s purpose, advance His standards in the public arena, and turn our nation to Him.

May God grant us the wisdom and the courage to do what is principled and right, not what is pragmatic and “right now.”

Respectfully submitted,

James Burkhamer, Chairman

Constitution Party of Ohio

Dr. Patrick Johnston, Vice-Chairman

Constitution Party of Ohio

Charles Michaelis, Secretary

Constitution Party of Ohio

Beverly Bressler, Treasurer

Constitution Party of Ohio

Nathan Radcliffe, Executive Committee member

Constitution Party of Ohio

Barry Sheets, Executive Committee member

Constitution Party of Ohio

Bruce Purdy, Chaplain

Constitution Party of Ohio

Joseph Rogers, delegate to the National Committee

Constitution Party of Ohio

Marriage and Family, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, The Vote

YES On State Issue 5

This entry is part 4 of 5 in the series 2008 Election Issues

Voting MachineOne of the two most contentious issues on Ohio’s Fall 2008 ballot is Issue 5. In 1995 Ohio’s legislature foolishly repealed the existing usury laws. In the wake of that action hundreds of so-called “payday” lenders popped up all over the state, usually in or near areas where predominantly lower- to lower middle class workers reside.

Just a few years ago, Ohio passed very tight new bankruptcy laws. The combination of tighter bankruptcy laws and the repeal of usury laws have created an economic atmosphere in which usurers can flourish. And have they ever flourished. The number of payday lenders grew by more than 1500% since 1996 from 107 to 1638 in 2007. Between 2006 and 2007 the number of Ohio’s payday lenders grew by 76 or over 5%1.

Taking advantage of Ohio’s current law which allows a 391% Annual Percentage Rate (APR) ceiling (this is for a two-week loan. A 10 day loan can be as high as 548% APR2 due to the decreased loan duration and subsequent increase in annual repayment periods ; to be fair a loan at the $800 cap is “only” 367% APR3) and an $800 borrowing cap, Ohio’s virtually unregulated payday lenders are reaping huge revenues from their chosen targeted customer base. And just who is that base? Those who can least afford it, naturally. People who have limited or no access to other kinds short-term credit- credit cards, equity in real property, acceptable credit rating (or in the case of young people new to the job market and college students, any credit rating) people in low-income jobs (seasonal employees, etc) or on a “fixed-income (retirees, injured and disabled workers4).” A favored target of payday lenders is families of enlisted military, whose pay rates tend to be dismally low. In many states payday lenders cluster near military bases. Or they used to. The federal government recently (2006) capped loans to soldiers and their immediate families at 36% and most payday lenders have moved on to greener pastures like subsidized housing.5 So much for noble payday industry claims of “just being there to provide a necessary service.” Only if the interest rate is in the triple digits as we will prove later.

What payday industry watchdogs say about the industry-

Morgan Stanley IPO Analysis of Advance America:

The Georgetown study reveals the long-term nature of much payday lending. At a 300 percent APR, the interest on a payday advance would exceed the principal after about four months. In these circumstances, the loan starts to look counterproductive: rather than bridging a gap in income, the payday advance may contribute to real financial distress. Advance America’s disclosures show that repeat borrowing is important. [emphasis added]

FDIC Center for Financial Research:

‘We find that high-frequency borrowers account for a disproportionate share of a payday store’s loan and profits.

Ernst & Young Analysis of Payday Lending Business Model:

The survival of payday loan operators depends on establishing and maintaining a substantial repeat customer base.’

Michael Stegman’s “Payday Lending: A Business Model that Encourages Chronic Borrowing” – Economic Development Quarterly:

The financial success of payday lenders depends on their ability to convert occasional users into chronic borrowers.

What the Payday lenders themselves say-

Stephen Winslow–Former Harrisonburg, Virginia Payday Store Manager:

This industry could not survive if the goal was for the customer to be ‘one and done’. Their survival is based on the ability to create the need to return, and the only way to do that is to take the choice of leaving away. That is what I did.6

My customers were not stupid or ignorant – they were in crisis. I ended any ability they may have had to overcome that crisis by putting the final nail in their financial coffins.7 [emphasis added]

Rebecca Flippo – Former Virginia Payday Store Manager:8

These companies feed on the people living on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis.The customers who do come in and repay the loans take out another loan right then almost every time.They want to create a dependence on their services so the customer is forced to reissue the loan on every payday.

We saw most of our customers every month.

We really played down the APR. We disclosed it, but we played it down.[emphasis added]

What the Bible has to say about deliberate gouging those who can least afford it-

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. Ex. 22:25 ESV

Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your [poor] brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. Lev. 25:36, 37 ESV

You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. Deu. 23:19 ESV

Whoever multiplies his wealth by interest and profit [That is, profit that comes from charging interest to the poor] gathers it for him who is generous to the poor. Prov. 14:31 ESV

Though the exegesis of this is well beyond the scope of this article (see Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony for an expansion), the Bible doesn’t condemn interest bearing loans for commercial purposes. The Institute For Principled Policy believes in the basic economic premise that market forces should set interest rates for commercial loans under normal circumstances. However, the Bible does strongly condemn the lending of money at interest, especially at rates that are condemned as usury under any circumstances except extreme hyperinflation, to those in society least able to repay the loan for reasons that are obvious. Truly, the book of Proverbs states it most eloquently

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender [emphasis added] Prov. 22:7 ESV

Compare the verse above with the highlighted part of Steven Winslow’s quote above. The payday lenders know they are a lender of last resort (i.e., the bad players are little better than loan sharks) and they are fully aware that most of their customers are unable to repay within the normal 2 week window without creating either a severe financial hardship or taking out another loan at the same usurous interest rate. That is why payday lenders specifically target a specific demographic of borrower. Why would anyone with a credit card or home equity loan capped at no more than 36% APR borrow from a payday lender at 391% APR in an emergency?

Currently there is no mechanism for making 0% bridge loans to needy borrowers. The Progressive movement and its influence on policy making, has resulted in the takeover of church functions like charitable loans, feeding, clothing, housing and educating the needy through the old church tithe agencies by the government, complete with gross over-taxation, nearly completely. Therefore, the biblical concept of equity provides for the private-enterprise establishment of a system to provide loans at reasonable cost and under reasonable repayment conditions for those who have fiscal emergencies but have no other recourse.

Unfortunately, the lenders have completely failed to govern themselves, as illustrated by the earlier quotes and, more importantly, the statistics which show that unscrupulous lenders know a cash cow ripe for milking when they see one.

Here are some interesting numbers9. Statistically, the average Ohio payday loan is $328. The average interest rate is 391% with a two-week interest due payment of $49.33. But as we have noted, the payday industry thrives on and cultivates repeat business. The average payday borrower visits a single location 7.4 times per year. This means that the average borrower pays out $365.01in interest alone on top of his original loan amount of $328 or more than 111% of the original. But that doesn’t end the story. That same borrower doesn’t just visit one payday store front. On average, he visits 1.7 per year. That means that the 7.4 times he visits a single shop has to be multiplied by 1.7 to get his total number of loans taken each year at the average $328. That brings the total to 12.6 loans of $328 each with an interest payout of $49.33 each, bringing the total interest only to $621.51or 189%  total interest paid. This also means that the average payday borrower is indebted to a payday lender for nearly 6 months per year!

But the situation is worse than it looks at first blush. Using data from Michigan , the state closest to Ohio’s demographic and economic numbers, we find that 94% of the entire revenue generated by payday lenders came from borrowers who had 5 or more transactions per year (pretty close to our example above and the equivalent of 75% interest only repayment). Seventy-seven per-cent of their revenue came from borrowers who had 12 or more transactions per year (very close to the example). Eight per-cent of Michigan customers had 30 or more transactions but they accounted for 27% of the revenue of Michigan payday lenders. In other words, a small but significant percentage of borrowers were indebted with one loan for the entire year, and a second loan virtually certainly with at least one other payday lender for at least part of the year and paid 450% or more in total interest. That’s $1476 or more in interest alone for a $328 loan. If that’s not usury then what is?

Here’s the bottom line. Low-income payday borrowers are easily trapped in a cycle of debt by extremely high interest rates and very short pay-off times from which there is virtually no escape.10 It’s designed that way by testimony of former and present industry insiders and industry analysts

The financial success of payday lenders depends on their ability to convert occasional users into chronic borrowers.11

Irrespective of whether the repeat transactions are cast as “renewals,” “extensions,” or “new loans,” the result is a continuous flow of interest-only payments at very short intervals that never reduce the principal.12

– Michael Stegman, “Payday Lending: A Business Model that Encourages Chronic Borrowing,” Economic Development Quarterly

Having put to rest the false industry arguments that it “isn’t really 391% interest” by showing that, indeed it can be 391% interest and more and that the APR is a reasonable description that allows loan comparisons with credit cards, banks and credit unions, we now must deal with the question that seems to have ruffled so many libertarian feathers- the loan registry.

An analysis of HB 545 shows the following information: Under the new law loans are capped at 28% APR and borrowers are permitted only 4 loans per year, only one at a time and only 2 in a given 90 day period (this final requirement is waived for borrowers who complete a state-approved “financial literacy” course to be offered at low cost at local community colleges). The repayment period must be longer than 30 days.

And, to insure that these requirements (and a number of others borrower safeguards including seriously restrictions to the loan shark-style harassment collection methods often used by payday lenders against those whose finances they have had a significant hand in ruining) are adhered to there is a provision for the creation of a loan registry. BUT, and this is important, the registry CANNOT be used by law for any purpose other than tracking the transparency of the loan transactions, CANNOT by law contain any private financial identity information (e.g., the Social Security number of the borrower, bank ID numbers, etc.) and CANNOT by law even be created if there are less than 400 licensed payday lenders. Industry sources have made it clear that 90-95% of lenders will leave the state if the law passes.

Taking the best case scenario given by lenders would leave 10% of the current number of lenders or about 164 proprietors left to pull licenses, well under 400. Therefore, no registry.13 And if there ever is one, it will most likely be under the supervision of a contractor with experience handling sensitive records- just like a bank, credit card company or credit union!

The loan registry is recommended by groups like The Ohio Coalition For Responsible Lending because it keeps the more predatory payday lenders from playing the corporate shell game of moving loans around to corporate subsidiaries and partners to hide them from regulators, hardly an unimaginable scenario for companies who have no qualms about targeting low- and fixed- income borrowers with 391% APR interest rates. The experience of other states proves the necessity of the registry.

Frankly, we’ve left out a lot of information regarding details like interest rate and cost deception and collection methods employed by the payday industry but you can research these yourself, especially by reading Stephen Winslow’s blog site and The Center For Responsible Lending website (see footnotes below).

It is clear that the current payday lender regulation is completely inadequate to control the rampant greed and usury that creates a cycle of debt in the low- and fixed-income community which the industry targets. While the Institute For Principled Policy applauds initiative and vehemently supports the right of businessmen to conduct their chosen business, we cannot sit on our hands and say nothing as social Darwinists actively work to allow the poor to be trapped into penury and wage slavery by unscrupulous lenders. To do so would be a dishonor and curse on our own heads.

The legislation which will be approved by a “YES” vote on the Issue 5 referendum will go a long towards keeping low- and fixed-income families from disintegrating due to debt and bankruptcy and the downward spiral of family despair and destruction that often follows. It will also allow the principled players in the industry who really do want to provide a needed service stay and run an efficient and profitable business to continue to operate. It is not an outright ban, as the industry has claimed. We know this from the several other states which have been forced, as has Ohio, to regulate corporations who have allowed themselves to become no better than the loan sharks the usury laws were passed to stop originally.

VOTE “YES” ON ISSUE 5

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Rothstein, David & Jeffrey D. Dillman, The Continued Growth of Payday Lending, Policy Matters Ohio, The Housing Research & Advocacy Center, Mar., 2008, p. 1

2 Rothstein, p. 3f

3 Rothstein, P. 3, table 1

4 Rothstein, P. 8

5 Rothstein, P. 8

6 King, Uriah & Leslie Parish, Center For Responsible Lending, Springing the Debt Trap: Rate caps are only proven payday lending reform Dec., 2007, P. 12

7 Winslow, Stephen, Payday Lending: A practice whose end has come, Conservative Viewpoint blog entry for May 25, 2007

8 Center For Responsible Lending, Payday Loans Trap Borrowers, video at http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/payday/inside-the-payday-industry.html

9 Ohio Coalition For Responsible Lending Trapped By Design: Payday Lending By The Numbers, Sept. 19, 2007

10 Rothstein, P. 10, Table 5

11 King, P. 11

12 King, P. 12

13 Gakh, Max, Ohio General Assembly Legislative Service Commission Final Analysis Sub. H.B. 545 127th General Assembly

Commentary, The Church

Guest Blogger- Ian Hodge

The Crumbling ChurchLet’s Get Rid of the Old Testament!

You never thought I’d make that suggestion, did you?

Now before you write me off as a complete heretic instead of a partial one, at least give me a chance to explain myself.

One of the problems we have in Christian theology is understanding the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments.  At least since the second century with Marcion, there have been debates about the continuity of the Old Testment, especially the law, into the New Testament era.

Now a good part of the problem is words.  The words “old” and “new” carry with them the connotation of replacement.  Or at least, that is how it is now understood.  The New Testament somehow replaces the Old.  And if you’re not careful, you end up with a kind of “replacement” theology.

In order for better understanding, then, it’s time to join a crowd that says let’s abolish the name, Old Testament.  We could creatively find new names for it, such as “Permanent Testament” or something alone these lines.  Then we could get creative with the New Testament and call it the “Fulfilled Testament.”

I think we should really get rid of the word “Testament” completely and call it the alternative, “Covenant.”  Then we could have the “Permanent and Fulfilled Covenants.”

Now, doesn’t that give you a better idea of the relationships between the books of the Bible?

God bless you this week.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

P.S.  If you like what you read at www.biblicallandmarks.com, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button.

Events, The Church, Education

Central Ohio Reformation Institute

Title: Central Ohio Reformation Institute
Location: The Lodge at Camp McPherson
Link out: Click here
Description: Presentations
“Sola Scriptura: From Renaissance Humanism to Covenant Theology
“Foundation for a New Piety: Reformation Rediscovery of the Savior of Sovereign Grace”
“Between Scylla and Charybdis: The Reformation Navigation of the Sanctified Life”
“From Witness to Warrior: French Protestantism and the Defense of Liberty”
“The Church that Christ Builds: The Ecclesiology of John Owen”
“Reformation in America: Profile of the Last Puritan”

Start Date: 2008-10-28
End Date: 2008-10-30

Commentary, Satire

Looking Into The Acme Crystal Ball

Wile E. Coyote is an interesting study. No matter what he tries, nothing works. He designs (with the help of the venerable Acme Corporation and its subsidiaries like Indestructo) elaborate schemes to trap the elusive Road Runner. They never work. The Road Runner is always too fast or too clever and Coyote’s schemes always backfire with spectacular results. And yet he can’t stop. He just has to catch the Road Runner. It’s a compulsion. He forgets that there is other game that won’t require the huge outlays of time, talent and treasure to catch.

Sound familiar? It should. Think about Christian “conservatives” who, like the Coyote, just can’t stop trying to capture the Republican Party. No product in the Acme catalog seems to help. The Republican Road Runner always taunts them with an obnoxious BEEP, BEEP, as if to laugh and say “keep trying, sucker.”

The sample provided below is especially illustrative. Watch closely from about the 4:50 mark to the end. It’s a perfect illustration of what Christians can expect from the Republican Party. The quality of the Indestructo hollow ball is the only limiting factor to the number of circuits the Coyote can make in the ordeal. No one knows yet what the limiting factor is for the number of circuits Christians can make.

Watch and chuckle. Then think about it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl3t8-Tv9f0[/youtube]

Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Church

…And News Outlets Who Want To Be Partisan Should Give Up Freedom Of The Press

2 Comments

For 54 years the first amendment of the US Constitution has been suspended for a very specific cultural demographic. That group has been singled out to be effectively gagged because many group members had a voice that corrupt politicians found too difficult to overcome in election races. So the grafters cooked up a way to silence their critics in the most effective way possible. By threatening their cash flow. The crooked politicians created a clause in the tax code that required members of this special group remain silent in political matters or to lose both their own tax-exempt status and the deductibility of any donations made to them. The group whose freedom of speech has been so obviously violated is the Church. The politician who led the effort to strip churches of their right to be heard on political matters was Senator, later President, Lyndon Johnson. This information about who did this to the Church and why it was done is a well known matter of historical fact. To everyone, that is, except the Columbus Dispatch editorial writers.

Their editorial for Wednesday September 10, 2008 titled Preaching Politics; Churches that want to be partisan should give up tax exemption displays either gross historical ignorance, a terrible naivete regarding politically motivated abuses of the tax code or a blatant disingenuousness designed to hide political partisanship. Or maybe it’s a combination of all three.

The subject of the editorial in question is the Alliance Defense Fund’s (ADF) Pulpit Freedom Sunday event on Sunday Sept, 28, 2008. The Dispatch editors begin their political speech restriction rationalization tour de force with this gem-

The idea behind a 1954 IRS rule that bars tax-exempt organizations from direct involvement in partisan politics couldn’t be clearer: Tax exemption is a privilege for those organizations whose work benefits society and is nonpartisan. It preserves the resources of these groups for the good works they do, and that includes churches.

It is difficult to believe that supposedly savvy newspaper editors could be this politically naive. It is as if they allowed a high school journalism class write this section of the editorial. The idea behind the change in the tax code was to shut the mouths of pastors who were making it clear that politicians like Lyndon Johnson were crooks and unworthy of their congregations’ votes- for biblical reasons.

What is easier to grasp is that the Dispatch editors do not understand that churches are not just exempted from taxes they are immune from them. This is a key point that is being overlooked by Christians, many of whom will loudly insist that their pastor shouldn’t endorse or disparage candidates from the pulpit. Churches are immune from taxation because the Church and the state are separate and co-equal realms of Christ’s Kingdom each with a distinct non-overlapping authority sphere. The civil realm is the realm of justice while the Church is the realm of grace.

Then Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (emphasis added)- Matthew 28:18

And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”- Matthew 22:20, 21

As committed secularists, the editors deny that the Church has any authority whatsoever. This declaration in light of Christ’s proclamation above is futile and meaningless, like an angry man that shakes his fist at and curses the wind in a storm. Hence the false notion that tax exemption is a “privilege for those organizations whose work benefits society and is nonpartisan.” The Church is tax exempt because the state has no authority over it. The Church needs no “privileges” from the state. The Church answers to Christ alone (note that this does not mean that churches can violate civil law at will and expect no consequences).

The editors go on to proclaim from on high

…every political season, the false complaint rises anew: Pastors are being denied freedom of speech and religion because IRS rules forbid them from preaching for or against candidates from the pulpit.

Imagine it! These pastors actually believe that their freedom of speech, not to mention the free exercise of religion have been violated just because they (and their parishoners) will be punished by the IRS for endorsing candidates! This is the height of hypocrisy from a profession that proclaims itself the guardians of freedom of speech, press, expression, etc. But this pretzel logic gets worse.

The rule doesn’t prohibit members of the clergy or anyone else from espousing personal political views away from the pulpit. It doesn’t prevent any organized group from supporting or opposing a political candidate. It simply says a group engaging in partisan politics has to pay taxes.

In other words, keep the fact that a candidate is anti-Christian or a corrupt grafter to yourself or face the wrath of the federal tax authorities.

So let’s look at this from a different perspective. Lets say Congress tires of dealing with pesky newspaper editors who constantly point out the pecadillos of politicians. The politicians pass an amendment to the tax code which taxes a media outlet whenever they express an opinion about a sitting government representative or a candidate for office. It’s not really an infringement of freedom of the press because no one is prohibited from printing anything. They just have to pay the tax. How long do you suppose it would take for the Dispatch and other news outlets to begin civil disobedience under these circumstances? Instantly, perhaps?

Realizing that the case is exceedingly weak the Dispatch editors try to appeal to the Christian sense of propriety.

Politics, as anyone can see today, often is a hateful and divisive business, while churches traditionally have been devoted to peacemaking, healing and reconciliation.

Politics is a dirty business. You nice Christians need to stay out of it and leave it to us grizzled news types. This is a thinly veiled and cynical attempt to maintain the main stream media’s tenuous control of public opinion and therefore policy.

The truth is that Christians have a bad habit of bringing Christian ethics to bear when they become involved in something. Truly Christian ethics are based on absolutes; truth, right and wrong for instance. Humanistic politics often deals in situational ethics and “gray areas.” This allows opinion manipulators to often act as brokers in shady political deal making and to do this means that concessions must often be made regarding what is and isn’t true. Politics has become dirty precisely because Christians have withdrawn from it for so long. A strong Christian political ethic preached from a well-informed pulpit threatens the status quo and therefore the entrenched power structure, including the compromised media. That’s right. Well informed pastors willing to speak truth about corruption in the civil realm is dangerous!

The Dispatch editors then wander off to a sort of journalistic fantasyland where tax-exempt organizations flex their new found political muscle and dive into the deep end of the political pool, actually endorsing candidates! Apple carts might be upset! Groups could demand the freedom of speech, press and assembly that other entities have! Why, they might lose donors! People might stop giving blood! They can’t believe anyone would risk donors!

More important, if churches are released from this obligation, other tax-exempt organizations, too, could rightfully challenge the law, upsetting even more apple carts. Donations to tax-exempt organizations could rise or fall based on donors’ feelings about a group’s political activities, or simply because donors might not know a group’s viewpoint and don’t want to risk supporting a view they might oppose. Think about the complications if the Red Cross endorsed politicians. Does anyone want politics to enter into the decision of whether or not to donate blood?

This is nothing more or less than a desperate attempt to appeal to the tax-exempt groups’ pocket books and, in reality, is a thinly veiled threat. And again we see the insistence that Christ’s Church bow to Caesar, as if that was biblically required. Of course, the Church answers only to God.

The editors wrap-up with a complete misstatement of the argument.

Tax-exempt charitable organizations are given a tax break because they do good works that transcend politics. The Alliance Defense Fund’s initiative would put this fine system in jeopardy.

Of course, this statement is debatable for non-church entities which are accountable to the state, though the “transcendence of politics” statement is high-sounding but meaningless drivel. But as for Christ’s Church, it must, like Peter and the Apostles “…obey God not men”-Acts 5:29. And when there is no jurisdiction, there can be no taxes.

General, Commentary

From the “No Kidding!?” Dept…..

Well, it’s now confirmed as a scientific fact. Men’s and women’s brains are different. Who’d a’ thunk it?

According to this article published in Britains online version of the Telegraph, science now confirms what every man and every woman not blinded by an irrational ideological attachment to the “no difference between men and women” dogma already knows- men and women think differently. And that’s because their brains are structurally different. They are also different in wiring. Men have 1/3 more synapses in certain parts of the brain while women had larger connective areas between the frontal and temporal lobes.

College students take note; the next time a professor of one of the humanities or one of the soft sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.) tells you there is no difference in men’s and women’s brains, you can say with confidence “bunk!”