Our Members'
Comments
“The Difficult Critique of War”
With the
Memorial Day holiday recently passed & the celebration of our
country’s Independence on the horizon, I find
myself reflecting on the emotional difficulty of critiquing a
questionable war(s) while at the same time reflecting on the moral
necessity of such a critique.
It is difficult to hear anything in a public setting,
regardless of the political spectrum, which does not speak of those
fighting overseas as fighting to “protect our freedoms.” This is more of an emotional
expression than a statement of fact. Are our freedoms really being
protected? And if not,
what should be our response?
The action of
critiquing a war which involves the participation of our fighting
men (& unfortunately these days, women) involves the difficulty
of perspective. To
speak from the “perspective of a soldier/veteran” or the close
kin/friends of such, bespeaks the problem of trying to conduct an
objective assessment of the worthiness of our relatives/friends
participation in a potentially unjust war. There is nothing objective
about personal involvement in warfare. It is subjective to the
hilt! At the same time, if we are not able to objectively assess the
justice of our mission & our participation in it, then there is
no hope of extrication from an unjust involvement and our troubles
will only increase. The
power of our emotional connections tends to override our objective
concerns, so we need to take care to remove them as far as
possible. If patriotism
marks a love for our country which exceeds our love for the truth,
then we need fewer patriots.
That mentality will mark the loss of our country, or at least
the principles upon which it was
founded.
Whether someone
has served in a combat role or not says nothing about the truth
value of the propositions they assert. Even Hitler was undoubtedly
right on some things.
This is all to say that, yes, we need to hold our leaders
responsible, but to do that effectively we need to first hold
ourselves responsible, soldiers and
citizens alike.
Regardless of whether a soldier thinks he is fighting to
protect the freedoms of his friends and family does not make it
so. The mere fact of
being willing to go to war makes a hero out of no one. Sometimes the hero is the
one who refuses to go along with the group-think mentality that
often leads to war, even to the point of social and even vocational
ostracism in his community.
We need people who are willing to stand on principle and not
on feeling, and to run the risk of misunderstanding & social
rejection. No one
doubts that courage is often evident on the part of those who
volunteer to fight for what they deem a just cause. But courage can be
misplaced. You will
find courage displayed on both sides of any conflict. We need to have the courage
to take our country back to the moral high ground of fighting only
to defend our liberties and not our supposed “right” to meddle in
the affairs of foreign lands and certainly not to force our way of
life onto those who don’t even understand it, let alone desire
it. When it comes to
liberty America needs to lead by
example, any other method denies what we seek to see instilled. The
Muslim nations need missionaries, not eradication. To argue the opposite is to
get our wisdom from the Koran instead of the Bible. If our current wars are
unjust then we must educate ourselves as to the grounds for this
injustice, vote only for those who are willing to stand on
principle, make our views known to those in positions of authority
and quit volunteering to fight these wars, especially under false
assumptions.
Whether a war
is just or unjust is not merely for our leaders to decide. In our Constitutional
republic the decision to go to war is vested in Congress. Congress is the branch which
most directly reflects the plurality of states and the people of
America. A declaration of war is said
to be passé these days but only to the extent that we have given
over our civic responsibilities to the professional politicians
& their hired technocrats.
The more our senators and representatives are in fear of and
are informed by the views of “we the people” the more they will tend
to fight for our freedom instead of the big moneyed special
interests.
There may be a
lot of people fighting in the Middle
East who think they are fighting for my freedom. I appreciate their
sentiments & admire their courage but think they are quite
misled. My freedoms are
disappearing. So far as
obeying orders go, no immoral order should be obeyed. To put oneself in harms way
under unjust leadership is a very dangerous place to be put. The call to courage at that
point may require you to act alone with only God as your support.
Your actions may surely prove honorable but will not be without
cost. Such cost should be counted carefully before putting oneself
in such a position. There is a higher Law & it is according to
that Law that our freedoms are tied and according to it, our
country’s motives & actions, as well as those of her individual
citizens and soldiers, will be judged. We are all in this together
but our thoughts & actions must first be dedicated to seeking
the truth. Only then
will our country be served. Semper
Fidelis!
Doug
Holmes
Pastor,
Sovereign Grace Church, Dows, Iowa
Safe or Sorry
With the advent of another year my
thoughts generally turn from the merry-making of Christmas and the
New Year to surviving “the Cold Time.” Not being a great fan of ice
fishing or owning a snowmobile or affording to travel to America’s various winter
wonderlands I must content myself with more domestic affairs. Thinking is generally cheap
and can be done from the warmth of ones
home.
Recently I have been pondering the logic of
certain businesses in Iowa who, in an effort to make their employees
and customers “safe”, have taken to posting signs in their windows
banning anyone from carrying firearms into their stores. The impetus for such action
is not a sudden rise in violent crime in Iowa or even an increase in the number of
media reports of such events (although the case in Tucson has
surely had an impact).
Rather it seems that this concern has issued from a change in
Iowa’s gun laws which took effect
this year. Before, if
someone wanted to get a permit to carry a firearm the decision was
entirely up to the subjective opinion of whoever currently held the
office of Sheriff in that person’s county. The ease or difficulty of
getting a permit varied considerably from county to county. But with
the turn of the year, a sheriff cannot refuse an applicant a permit
to carry a firearm except for several clearly defined reasons.
Evidently many Iowans are taking advantage of
this new law and applying for permits to carry. In response to this renewed
interest in carrying firearms in public, certain businesses have
taken to posting signs prohibiting them from carrying firearms into
their stores. Now I have no problem with this in so far as a
business has the right to conduct its affairs in the way that best
serves their interests. What I don’t understand is why they would
think that having no firearms in their store would contribute to
keeping their customers and employees safe.
It is true that the law now grants a
responsible citizen easier access to legally carry firearms. But it still remains quite
illegal to murder someone or to rob them or even to threaten
them. The only people
likely to consent to NOT carrying a weapon into a store which
prohibits them are the very people I would think you would want to
have one! After all, the murderer or
thief doesn’t all of a sudden become law-abiding when he sees a sign
in the window that prohibits him from entering with the tools of his
trade. Further, it’s
not just that the presence of a law-abiding possessor of a firearm
is in a position to stop the murderer or at least limit his impact
(as significant as that is), it’s that such a sign would seem to
attract criminals, contrary to ones
intent. After all, just
because criminals are morally deranged doesn’t make them
irrational. If two
stores have the same amount of goods and one is populated with
people with firearms and one is not, which would you choose to rob? When’s the last time you
heard of anyone robbing a police station of their arsenal? Schools have had “no
firearms” policies for quite a while but they have sadly not been
“murder free.”
Perhaps this “No Firearms” policy should be
re-visited, especially if we are really interested in the safety of
those we seek to serve.
I would think it would better serve the purposes of providing
security for others by putting a sign on the door which says
“Firearms Welcome,” or perhaps, “All Firearms Prohibited – except
MINE!” In my own life
I’ve found that keeping a “low profile” has had certain advantages.
Perhaps “not knowing”
would prove adequate; at least more so than an open invitation.
Doug Holmes, pastor of SGC,
Dows
Executive board member of Iowa Gun
Owners
Dear Editor-
What
is Freedom?
Freedom and rights have
been hot topics this election season. Tax day tea parties bemoan the
loss of freedom. Groups warn of government infringement on our
freedoms. Various groups seem to think of it different ways. It
seems to me that there are two main popular definitions. One says
freedom is drugs, sex, and rock and roll. Another says freedom is
lower taxes and less regulation. I would say that both of these are
wrong. To understand freedom we must understand what it means to be
a human being. God created us. We were created good, but our first
parents sinned and without fail we receive this sin nature as our
first inheritance from our parents. This inheritance leaves us
slaves. We are slaves to sin and that leads to death and destruction
of ourselves and those around us. The good news is that God did not
leave us in this state. He sent his Son to die for the sins of all
those that trust in him. While we still struggle with sin we are no
longer in bondage to it. We are free to be free! Freedom is avoiding
the death and destruction brought by sin by living as we were made
to live. We are told how we were made to live in God's word and
especially in his law. When we hear "law" we do not think freedom.
That is because we are either thinking of man's law or we desire to
do things that will lead to our death and destruction. The point is
that freedom comes from God and nowhere else. When we demand our
government to give us our rights and freedoms we have already lost
the battle. We have made them god and they will try to be. God has
told us what our individual, family, church, and state
responsibilities are. Were we to read God's word we would find that
churches and families should be in charge of welfare and health
care. We would find that families and individuals are responsible
for finance and education. When we ask the government to be our
pastor, father, and conscience they take the place of our Heavenly
Father, Good Shepherd, and Holy Spirit. So if you are taken aback by
healthcare policy, sodomite marriage, abortion or anything else, do
not despair! The solution is simple and it starts in your own homes
and churches. Repent and live in accordance with God's will as
expressed in His word. Repent and live free! 2nd Chronicles
7:14
Sincerely,
Ed
Sents
Wellsburg, Iowa
On Friday, April 3rd the Iowa
Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal. In my school
history classes I have learned that there are
three branches of state government. The first is the executive
branch, which is the governor. The governor’s job is either to sign
a bill passed into law by the legislative branch or to veto
it. The second is the legislative branch. Their job is to represent
the people of Iowa
according to their district. They represent
the people by voting for or against a bill. The third is the
judicial branch or the Iowa Supreme Court. Their duty to the people
of Iowa
is to examine and interpret the laws. In
short the legislature makes the law, the governor carries out the
law and the court interprets the law. This brings up some questions
that many Iowans should be asking. How can the Supreme Court make a
law that legalizes anything when only the legislature can make laws?
Why are the Legislative and Executive branches not upset that their
powers are being overstepped? And also, how can the judges pass laws
without being able to enforce those laws? I am a descendant of
Stephen Tilden, a patriot who fought in the American Revolution. He
did not fight for freedom from the British tyranny just so that the
Americans could set up their own form of tyrannical government. He
fought for a government by the people, not for a government by the
unelected judges. My family’s prayer is for Iowans to wake up before
it is too late to save what our ancestors fought so hard to give us
in the American Revolution.
Caleb Dirksen, age 16
Son of David & Mary Dirksen
Thornton, Iowa
On Same Sex “Marriage”
One of the benefits of writing is that it necessarily
requires you to focus your thinking. We live in a day when
“change” is not only in the air but shaking the ground under our
feet. The news is
filled with so many troublesome reports. Such reports include
economic/financial meltdowns; taxpayer funded “bail-outs;” foreign
wars; terrorism; pirates (real live ones!); and encroaching
government tyranny in areas such as health, education and
environmental regulations. It becomes difficult not to be
overwhelmed by this multifaceted assault on common sense moral
values. The moment one
begins to analyze one issue, another vies for your attention. One simply does not know
where to begin to sort it all out. Fortunately for me, the Iowa
Supreme Court’s recent contribution to legalized debauchery was
enough to bring me out of the spin of events and focus my mind on
the issue of same sex “marriage.”
Much is being discussed on the air waves and
newspapers about the legal, social and personal ramifications of
this decision. I think
WHO Radio’s Steve Deace has done an excellent job of analyzing the
legal issues concerning this decision. Much can be learned about
the abuse of this court concerning the separation of powers. Clearly the courts are not
to be in the business of making law. To say that the Iowa Code
concerning marriage between one man and one woman violates the Iowa
Constitution is not the same thing as to require that marriage
licenses from henceforth be made available to homosexual/ lesbian
couples. A more sane
approach may be for the state to re-think its involvement in the
licensing of marriages all together.
Now I am a Christian with strong libertarian (NOT liberal!)
leanings. But I have
those leanings because I think the Bible requires them. Governmental checks and
balances are a biblical means of controlling the effect of our very
sinful dispositions.
There are many sins in the Bible but not many crimes, at
least compared with the Federal & State Codes of today! For
example, one cannot be punished for the mere thought of murder. The thought must be followed
by action. Drinking and smoking cigars are not sins at all. Unfortunately for our
sodomite fellow denizens of this fair land, God’s Word declares that
homosexuality is not only a sin, but its blatant & deliberate
practice is a capital crime.
But then so, in many cases, is adultery. It seems that the reason for
these strong measures is that the family is to be considered the bed
rock institution for a Christian society. Treason against the family
(which both homosexuality & adultery are) is a capital offense,
while treason against the state is pretty much non-existent. This is because biblically
speaking the state is to have only a very narrow jurisdiction in a
Christian (i.e., free) society. Ultimately, however, I stand
against the notion of legal same sex “marriage” because God insists
on my doing so. I am a
Christian before I am a libertarian or even an American for that
matter. A free society is possible for any length of time only
because God’s Law gives it transcendent support.
The legal status of same sex
“marriage” has become a problem because the Church feeds the broader
society morally. And
the Church has been remiss, not only in refusing to confront her own
sins (easy divorce & out of wed-lock pregnancies being but two
examples), but in neglecting to honor and teach God’s Law as the
moral foundation for a free society and the necessary consequent of
saving faith in Christ.
Many Christians worry a lot about when we may expect Jesus to
return in glory but not nearly enough about what He commanded us to
be doing until that time.
He commanded us not to wait, but to occupy and extend His
Kingdom by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The simplest solution to the same sex “marriage”
issue is to put the Iowa Supreme Court in its place and ignore its
decision on the basis of appeal to a higher Law, viz., “the law of
nature and of nature’s God” inscribed in our Declaration of
Independence. A piece
of paper (yes, even one with an embossed symbol of state authority)
does not make a marriage!
Marriage is defined by the One who ordained it & not by
the state. Sodomites
can SAY they are married but so can two parrots. A marriage occurs when a man
and a woman exchange vows in the presence of God and other
witnesses. That’s what
marriage is, and no “Supreme Court” can change that. It is time to revert back to
the biblically informed foundation of common law and call nonsense
what it is. And if your
church doesn’t teach the application of biblical law to the issues
of the day, find one that does! Your political and spiritual sanity
depend on it.
Now, back to the spin of events we call
life.
Doug Holmes, pastor
SGC Dows
|
|
|
|
Meeting at the Dows Presbyterian
Church
109 N
Eskridge St,
PO Box
75
Dows, IA 50071
| |
