Do you ever wonder why God has to be so awkward about how he approaches us?  In the Gospel of Matthew we hear, “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, Mary was found to be with child.  Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man was unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, so he planned to dismiss her quietly.”  He didn’t want the embarrassment in his life, so he was going to try to get rid of the whole situation without drawing a lot of attention to himself. 

Now you know I can’t fault Joseph for thinking they way he did.  He had to be very unhappy with his wife-to-be.  I mean what person in the ancient Roman territory of Judea, would not be ticked off with a spouse who turned up pregnant.  Mary was pregnant even before the two had an opportunity to live together, let alone sleep. Who would not be angry at a situation like this, even now in this 21^st century?  Even today an adulterous spouse is grounds for divorce….  It’s just scandalous!  Not to mention when we think of an engaged couple, the male spouse to be finds out his future wife is pregnant; it is scandalous.  But let that same person find out his bride to be is pregnant by another person, even before the two have come together, he will be livid and want to get rid of this woman quickly.  Can you blame him; I mean who would want to father a child with a woman you aren’t sure you can trust?  

Why would God want to begin his earthly existence under these kinds of circumstances?  All knowing, all powerful, all seeing God comes into the world to take on flesh and blood and begins it all with a soap opera setting!  Well, He certainly got our attention!! 

Last week we heard another passage from Matthew, “Blessed is anyone who is not scandalized by me.”  Our translation says “Blessed is anyone who is not offended by me,” but the word is “skandalisqh” (SCAN DAL ES THEY).  The Gospel is filled with references to scandal and even the scandal of it all.  Our gospel reading today is prefaced by a genealogy of Jesus, tracing him back through Joseph to David and even to Abraham.  I could read it out for you now, but I’m afraid most of you would be asleep before I finished.  It outlines Jesus’ claims to a royal pedigree with a lot of begat such and such and fathered so and so, you know the type of lists I’m talking about.  Well since I have cut to the chase for you, one huge problem we see right off the bat is that Jesus isn’t actually Joseph’s son; he’s adopted!  He can’t really be a descendant because he isn’t really of the same bloodline, right?  He isn’t pure.  How can he be a descendant of David if he doesn’t have the bloodline? 

And let’s not overlook that there are women included in the list—tsk, tsk! Remember women weren’t of value in this day and age.  Women were more like property, we can’t trace a bloodline through women.  Why this is another item for us to look down our noses about.  In fact, if we look closer and can get past the problem with women in his claim, of the four women listed in the genealogy, all four of them had less than reputable existences:  Tamar acted as a prostitute with her father-in-law!  Rahab was a prostitute!  Ruth was a crafty and cunning widow who did whatever was necessary to survive, including some less than virtuous things.  And then last but not least there is Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, who liked to bathe on her roof so that her neighbor King David couldn’t help but notice her, and watch her bathe, and well of course he had an affair with her, which caused her to become pregnant, and then of course David would have to have her husband killed in order to save embarrassment and ultimately take her as a wife rather hastily.  Sound enough like a soap opera?  Why would God, the Almighty claim these kinds of women?  Why would God do such crazy things? 

Well of course let’s get back to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Joseph thinks she’s been sharing her goods, so to speak.  Don’t think the women in Nazareth didn’t know about the situation if Joseph knew.  They were very aware of her, say down at the village watering well.  Uhuh!  You know there were many scandalous things said and whispered about Mary and her situation, as she approached and left the well.  I’m certain she heard the giggling and laughter and some of the cruel remarks, probably even after Joseph married her.  You know it’s true, women… and men like to gossip about scandalous things.  All seeing, all knowing, all powerful, Almighty God…why would you claim such a heritage and make such a scandalous entry into the world?  

How scandalous do you think it was for Joseph to marry a woman who is carrying a child that isn’t his?  How scandalous was it for Joseph to discuss a dream about an Angel in public?  People aren’t that much different today than they were then.  People would be saying things about his sanity.  “That Joseph, you know he’s a few cards short of a full deck.  He thinks an angel visited him and he thinks his wife’s illegitimate son is going to save the world!”  Why if I cam in here tomorrow evening and told you all an angel had visited me in my dreams, most of you would begin to think, “nut job!”  What does this say about God and his methodology? 

And Jesus, whoa, let’s not forget Jesus.  Jesus’ whole life will be scandalous.  His very birth compromises our notions of goodness.   Jesus is the descendant of prostitutes and liars, his lineage isn’t acceptable by human societal standards.  Jesus will be born in a feeding trough for animals.   When Peter rebukes Jesus for his first prediction of the Passion, Jesus says of Peter, “You are a scandal to me!” When Jesus instructs his followers not to cause the “little ones” to sin, he tells them not to “scandalize” the little ones. When Jesus speaks to his followers at the Last Supper, tells them that they will “fall away” on account of him that night, he says that they will “be scandalized” by him.  Jesus will say and do things his whole life that people will find scandalous.  He will die on a cross the death of a common thief or murderer, robbing him of dignity even in death and burial.  In death he is scandalous and humiliated for all to see….  And out of all these things and more that are scandalous about Jesus, there is this thing about him rising from the dead his disciples will begin to tell stories about.  It’s just Scandalous!  The whole thing, who would believe such a scandalous tale?  It doesn’t make sense in our world, how can a king be a pauper? 

This passage of the Gospel asks us to find in the advent of the Savior something that scandalizes even us, as it scandalized Joseph. Where in this narrative and in the Incarnation do we find the place that makes us say, “No, wait, I can go this far, but no further. If you ask me to do this, I cannot continue to walk with you.”  Where is the place in the story where we fall away?   Where is the place where we put Jesus quietly away, not wishing to shame him, but not wishing to associate with him, either? 

But wait… I forgot… I’ve got all of these things back here in my closet… skeletons lurking and waiting… things I don’t want anyone to know about.  I have things I did that I am ashamed of and things that would be too scandalous for me to be accepted.  I’ll bet everyone in this congregation has skeletons in their closet.  Even if you have lived your life like a saint, there are things that you are ashamed of and afraid to tell others openly.  

Maybe God knows more about me than I think he does.  Maybe God knows more about us all than we can ever fathom.  God knows how jaded my past actually is.  God wants me to rest at ease with my past and turn towards tomorrow with my head held high… in the knowledge that all things are forgiven, because only a God who enters into life with so much scandal can meet us in the depths of our earthly existence and raise us up.  Only a God willing to see us for who we are and love us in our times of darkness would live a life that might be a scandal to others. 

Isn’t it wonderful our God can take these circumstances of scandal and make a mockery of them?  The greatest story ever told is really the most scandalous story ever told.  Our God is so great we can’t even begin to understand the ways.  Our God comes into the world in a situation none of us would be proud of, and lives a life of a wanderer and the death of a criminal.  Isn’t that wonderful?  To accept him, we must be willing to accept these uncomfortable and scandalous things about Jesus, so that our own flaws and scandals will be undone. 

It seems that God can only come to us in the scandalous, because sometimes it’s all we know and understand.  We have a natural tendency to scandalize, to make victims, and scapegoats.  It is no less true in the Incarnation than in the Crucifixion. Paul said it this way, “God chooses what is weak to shame the strong. God chooses what is foolish to make foolish the wisdom of the wise.” If we are not scandalized by the Incarnation, we aren’t looking closely enough.  Everyone should be made aware, over and over again of how similar our lives are with Joseph—good, but still entangled in scandalizing others, and scandalizing ourselves at God’s self-revelation in Jesus.  Joseph is virtually silent in the Gospels, virtually irrelevant to the story, except that without him there is no initial acceptance of the beginning of the story. 

I’d like to leave you with this little irony and you can call it what you like; fluke coincidence, happenstance, Holy Spirit.  This morning I hadn’t really decided how to end this sermon and someone walked up to me and hands me a story on a piece of paper, it ended by reminding me of this: 

Jesus had no servants, yet they called him Master. 

Jesus had no degree, yet they called him Teacher. 

Jesus had no medicines, yet they called him Healer. 

He had no army, yet kings and rulers feared Him. 

He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. 

He won no military battles, yet he conquered the world. 

Isn’t that scandalous?  Yet… isn’t it wonderful?  Our God can take any circumstance and make it holy, including yours.  God can meet you where you are and let you know of places far worse than you can imagine.  Do not fear those who look down their noses at you or laugh behind your back.  Do not fear being scorned or even hated for being who you are.  Do not be ashamed of anything in your life, past or present.  Hold your head high in the knowledge and love of God, because your sins past are forgiven.  The past is the past, the slate is clean we need only to worry about tomorrow and today.  Allow these last few days in Advent to prepare you for the new beginning which is Christmas.  Love the Lord, listen faithfully and be aware that “God’s ways are not our ways.”  

Source:
http://www.epiphanycrestview.com/Sermons%20past/Advent%204.htm

When we answer to the pragmatic issues like how we’re happy with our insurance or that parts of the bill are suspect, we simply lose the debate and miss an opportunity to educate.

In my humble opinion, the following areas would establish primacy in this important dialog:

1. There is no Constitutional authority for the proposed healthare legislation

“We are sympathetic to those that have lost their insurance and the obstacles that they go through in order to have insurance or pay for their coverage. But…this is unconstitutional” Alicia Healy, Candidate for Columbus City Council

People need to be reminded that we are a self governing nation and what that means. For the federal government to provide healthcare to citizens, it must first forcibly take the property of the prosperous. If we as individuals do not have a moral right to steal the property of our neighbor to pay for our healthcare, such a power cannot be rightfully delegated to our governing representatives. This is why such a power was not enumerated in the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8.

2. Unconstitutional intervention by the Federal Government has caused the healthcare crisis

“I experienced medicine before they had managed care [introduced during the Nixon years] and patients were always charged the least and nobody went without medical care. The churches and volunteer hospitals and other groups took care of the people, but now, everybody has to have this so-called insurance, which doesn’t do a whole lot more than boost prices and then cause shortages and then there’s a demand for what? For more government and that’s where we are today.” – Congressman Ron Paul

Managed care was introduced during the Nixon years and was a program designed to force people into medical care and provide PPO and HMOs and tax credits for certain groups and not any others. We have been enduring managed care over these last 35 to 40 years and what has developed from this has been corporate medicine.

The fact is that there are tens of thousands of regulations and mandates that health providers and insurance companies must follow. The costs of adhering to these regulations are staggering.

Helpful Resources:

Text of Ron Paul’s Speech
Ron Paul Library
Blame Congress for HMOs

OTHER AREAS TO COVER:

The Federal Reserve has contributed to rising healthcare costs due to skyrocketing inflation
Socialized Medicine in other countries has not been successful

Christopher over at the OFA and Break the Matrix made an impressive case for why the Creation/Evolution debate is central to this freedom movement. And after learning about the Darwinization of our legal system, in my research for the analysis of the Constitution Party Preamble, I believe it! It is the BIG LIE — one that that doesn’t have to make sense because it has been told over and over and over. Even some Christians are accepting compromise of scripture to reconcile it with this false science. But it is an essential tool of the establishment with devastating consequences for liberty.

The truth is that most people have not really given the subject matter a critical review. Most are inclined to believe one way or another so they gravitate toward sound bites that justify their predisposition – even in the liberty movement where so much deception has been progressively revealed to us. This reminds me of my favorite quote I saw on facebook by an OFA members:

“Always amazes me that so many ‘liberty minded’ people here who have been awakened to so many things in the last couple of years, yet still seem so determined to hang onto the indoctrination we’ve received in our coerced public education.  Hmmmmmm….”

Simply put if all men are not created, then they are not equal. You cannot evolve equally. Darwin provides the justification for an eventual ruling class of experts that are “highly evolved” and “more advanced” than the rest of the masses.

Doesn’t this logical conclusion call for a deliberate and critical analysis of the facts? The resources below are short, inexpensive reads that take a critical, factual and common sense look at the evidence surrounding this debate.

If reason is your guide, then be guided by reason and “question even the existence of God,” but question it, analyze it, listen to the evidence and courageously let it lead you to the logical conclusion. You may come to understand why the debate is so vehemently suppressed.

THE FIRST BOOK:

The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined

By James Perloff

Price: $4.32

Buy it

The Case Against Darwin is James Perloff’s newest title on the creation-evolution debate. Written from a creationist perspective, this 83-page book is a primer for those unfamiliar with the subject, and too busy for a full-length book such as the author’s earlier Tornado in a Junkyard.

Perloff first explores the social impact of Darwinism to establish the relevance of the topic. Then, in layman’s language, he discusses the growing body of evidence that is invalidating Darwin’s theory of evolution: evidence from genetics, origins science, biochemistry, paleontology, taxonomy and molecular biology. Finally, he examines fallacies of certain evidences commonly said to support Darwin’s theory: Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings, vestigial organs, salt percentages in blood and seawater, babies born with “monkey tails,” peppered moths, microevolution, and similarity as a proof of common descent. Despite the scientific nature of the material, Perloff keeps it light and short, and most readers should find The Case Against Darwin an easy read.

Here are a few snippets: 

Genetics – was not developed as a science in Darwin’s Day and he assumed animals had the unlimited capacity to adapt to environments. But a creature cannot be anything physically his genes will not allow. To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists assert that genes mutate and over eons. This is the explanation for how fish got the genes to eventually become humans. But mutations DELETE information from the genetic code, they never create higher, more complex information.

The Fossil Record – Despite billions of fossils from all groups of species, transitional fossils linking them are missing. The fossil record reveals animals complete when first seen and thus better supports creation than evolution.

Biochemistry – The human body has features, such as blood clotting and the immune system that are “irreducibly complex” and cannot have evolved.

Taxonomy – the science that classifies plants and animals, grouping them by characteristics they share. If all creatures have a common ancestor, we should not see distinctively divided groups, but living intermediaries between those groups. Taxonomy shows a lack of intermediaries between the major divisions of living creatures.

Common Sense – Why aren’t reptiles today growing feathers? Why aren’t fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren’t invertebrates evolving into vertebrates? Why aren’t reptiles evolving into mammals?

Why is man so incredibly different from animals? What animal can solve complex math equations? Write poetry? Laugh at jokes? Design computer software? How can we say man is merely one more animal, just more highly evolved?

THE SECOND BOOK:

15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History

By Dr. Don Batten and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Price: $1.95

Buy it

Many have been misled into thinking that the Genesis account of creation is not actual history but is just some sort of theological argument (“polemic”). This small book succinctly shows why those who believe in the inspiration of Scripture have no intellectually honest choice but to take Genesis as straight-forward history, just as Jesus did. It powerfully challenges one of the major problems in the church today that affects the authority of the entire Bible.  

1. Jesus understood the Old Testament as history 
2. Jesus regarded Adam, Eve and Noah as historical people 
3. Genesis was written as history 
4. The rest of the Old Testament takes Genesis as history 
5. The New Testament takes Genesis as history 
6. Genesis history is consistent with God’s nature 
7. Genesis as history explains the origin of death and suffering 
8. The Gospel presupposes the historical events of Genesis 
9. A consistent Christian worldview depends on Genesis as history 
10. Denying the history of Genesis disconnects Christianity from the “real world” 
11. The early church leaders accepted the time frame and global flood of Genesis 
12. The Reformers understood Genesis as history 
13. Atheism requires naturalism —Christians should not deny Genesis as history in order to accommodate it 
14. Abandoning Genesis as history leads to heresy and apostasy 
15. Why not take Genesis as history? Only the fallible speculations of historical “science” stand in the way

As I see it, the beginning of the United States of America was the most dramatic and significant episode in a long pilgrimage – the pilgrimage of the Christian idea of law, liberty, and self-government. Christianity is the master principle of our organic documents of government – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Neither Paul nor any of the other early Christians had any particular interest in social reform or political revolution. Their dedication was spiritual; yet, at the core of Christian faith is the most revolutionary idea ever conceived: that individual man is infinitely important. Individual man is imperfect, yet God so loved him that He sent His only begotten Son to save him from sin.

After that basic Christian idea had worked for centuries in the finite minds of men, it led to an obvious conclusion: Individual man, the object of such infinite grace and mercy, is the most important creature on earth. This is the origin of the basic American political ideal: that man gets all his rights and powers from God, the Creator; that government is weaker and less important than man, because government was created by man.

A Christian Foundation

The beginnings of America were Christian. Most of our organic documents of government give recognition to God. While the Mayflower rode at anchor in Provincetown Harbor, near Christmas time, 1620, the Pilgrims aboard decided to form a government before going ashore in the new world. Hence, they wrote and signed the Mayflower Compact, which begins:

In the name of God, amen, we whose names are underwritten … having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic.

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia could reach no agreement on the kind of national government needed – a kind which would bind individual states together in a union for protection against foreign powers and for preventing wars among themselves, while preserving the sovereignty of the states, leaving to the people their God-given rights to govern themselves in their own states, without interference from the national government.

The Constitutional Convention was on the point of breaking up when Benjamin Franklin gave the delegates a reminder and a warning:

How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our -understandings?…

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth; that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

I… believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.

The Declaration of Independence expresses the essence of Americanism; and the essence of the Declaration is a Christian assumption:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

There were no arguments or committee meetings or panel discussions about it: Simply, we proclaim these things as truth because we know them to be truth! The basic truths of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights can be summarized in a short paragraph:

Government derives its just powers from us, the governed. We want it clearly understood, moreover, that the power we give to government is very limited. Even though we must delegate to government enough power to protect all of us from one another, and from possible foreign enemies, we have certain rights which we are not willing to surrender or modify for any purpose whatever. We call these rights unalienable because God, our Creator, endowed us with them: We consider them sacred. Each of us as an individual, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, has certain rights that God has given him and that no power on Earth can legally take away – neither government, nor an organized group, nor an overwhelming majority of the people themselves.

Christian Individualism

The Christian concept of equality (also written into the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal) is not tainted with materialism. Jesus rather impatiently said that the poor are always with us. His concept of equality had nothing to do with man’s physical attributes and possessions, or with the general distribution of worldly goods. The teachings of Jesus did not imply mass organization and standardization of people, or worldwide uniformity, or a universal leveling of mankind. They implied the opposite. Jesus taught that men are equal before God, regardless of their status on Earth.

The Christian concept of equality is spiritual. It has nothing to do with income, health, or environment. It simply gives a little, imperfect man, born in sin, an individual, personal relationship with God – equal to that of any other man on Earth. In short, Christianity exalts individualism, stressing the importance and exclusive dependence on God and self of the human individual.

The strength and culture of America, built on faith in Jesus Christ, will start degenerating when Americans no longer hold aloft the central tenet of Christian faith – namely, that the human individual (not the masses or society, but the individual) is a divinely important being, because God sent His only begotten Son into the world to make a blood atonement for the sins of individuals.

Socialist Togetherness

The strength and culture of communism-socialism-fascism, built on faith in the almighty state, or government, would die if heavily infiltrated with Christian individualism, because the central tenet of communist-socialist-fascist faith is that the individual is nothing; the State (or society, or the masses, or government) is everything.

Could the socialist concept of man as an unimportant unit in a soulless something called “the masses,” win converts among free men? Could materialistic faith in socialism ever have a stronger appeal to free men than Christian faith in the divine importance of -individuals?

It has.

The blossoming of socialism occurred in the modern world almost simultaneously with explosively sudden, worldwide developments in the physical sciences. In the new enthusiasm for science, a monkey-like amazement at his own inventive cleverness replaced man’s ancient awe for things spiritual. In the 20th century, the material promises of socialism presented themselves as a new faith and captured some of the most cultivated minds in the Christian world.

The Irrepressible Conflict

After seizing power in Russia, the Bolsheviks discovered that the only way to destroy Christian churches is to infiltrate them so that they will be destroyed gradually, by church people themselves. Reinterpret Scriptures to remove the deity of Christ and convert Him into a socialist. Distort biblical sermons on charity to prove that government should confiscate property and enforce economic equality. Strain spiritual content out of Scriptures, and religion’s hold upon the people can be broken: God then becomes some kind of vague universal force; Jesus becomes merely a great man – a teacher, philosopher, social reformer.

A church establishment built on such notions as these is not an insurmountable obstacle in the path of the socialist revolution. On the contrary, it can become a very useful instrument for promoting socialism.
Thousands of church people have supported hundreds of communist causes; but that is relatively unimportant. The important question is whether preachers have rejected or corrupted the doctrines of the Christian faith.

The fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that imperfect man can be saved only by the grace of Jesus Christ. The fundamental doctrine of socialism is that all of man’s sins – all evils on Earth – result from man’s physical environment; that government can create paradise by taking total control of the lives of all the people, legislating away all evils, creating the right environment – regulating, controlling, and redistributing until everyone has an equal share of everything.

It is at this point that preachers who regard themselves as Christian socialists begin to substitute government for God. It is at this point that the social gospel becomes socialism.

Emphasizing material reform, achieved by man himself, with only casual, or no, reference to salvation by the grace of God, seems to have left many modern liberal ministers with no confidence in God. They react to problems around them by exerting pressure, in the name of religion, for federal laws to impose their notions of equality and morality on the entire nation. They do not believe in voluntary, individual Christian giving – except to their own churches. They believe in organized political pressures for legislation which will force other people to give. They have become class-conscious political Robin Hoods: perpetually petitioning government to take money away from one group of citizens for distribution to another group.

Most of the clergymen who have had some connection with communist activities probably got into the fronts because they could not tell them from respectable organizations.

There is the danger: The language of modern liberalism is so similar to the language of communism; the root ideas of socialism are so closely akin to contemporary doctrines of the social gospel – that many cannot tell the difference.

If church congregations of America do not become critically conscious of the basic issues involved in the struggle of our times, and do not exert every effort to correct grave errors on the part of the professional and lay leadership of the churches, the great religious institutions will, at best, be nothing better than pleasant social organizations. At worst, they can become dangerous propaganda centers for socialism.

The great struggle of our time is a war to the death between the Christian forces of freedom and the atheistic forces of slavery. It is, therefore, dangerously significant that American Christians will tolerate any gesture on the part of their own church organizations to announce neutrality in this great struggle … or tolerate a “brotherhood” brainwash which results in the outlawing of Christian instruction for their children.

Having been reared and educated in the intellectual atmosphere of the 20th century – an atmosphere laden with the virus of socialism – many church leaders seem never to have learned that the Gospel of Jesus is spiritual. They think it is merely a moral message to help men solve the material problems of human relations. Hence, they easily identify the teachings of Jesus with the socialistic ideal of enforced materialistic equality for the human race. They show more zeal for “brotherhood” and “togetherness” than for the saving grace of our Lord Jesus. This withering of spirituality and growth of materialism are primary characteristics of the 20th century.

How Late the Hour?

How late is the hour in the night of our history? Not too late. Americans are beginning to hunger for spiritual sustenance. Instead of accepting the socialistic credo that man with science and with “scientific political organization” no longer needs God but can lift himself by his own bootstraps, intelligent Americans are beginning to realize that a worship of science and of scientific political organization will create a Frankenstein monster capable of destroying the human race.

People who have for a long time – out of ignorance, or indifference, or something – followed the leadership of misguided men, into a dead end of frustration, doubt, and fear, are now beginning to search for the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Our Only Hope

It came upon the midnight clear. As the white flocks lay sleeping along the hills of Judea, Christ was born. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them:

Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.

That is the hope of the world.

This article first appeared in The New American in the December 23, 1985 issue. It was taken by permission from the annual Christmas broadcast the late Dan Smoot delivered for the radio and television stations that carried his weekly syndicated Dan Smoot Report.

Ohio House Judiciary Committee
Opposition Testimony for House Joint Resolution No. 8
December 10, 2008

Chairman Blessing and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opposing testimony on House Joint Resolution No. 8. My name is Teri Owens and I am from Delaware, Ohio.

This is my first testimony before a legislative committee, but I don’t want to waste precious time explaining who I am because my background, ethnicity, race, religion or vocation does not matter to this issue. I speak as a citizen of Ohio, who – no matter what special interest categories I might fit into – stands to be irreparably harmed by the ramifications of calling an Article V convention. The quickness and quietness with which this legislation emerged and is moving is especially troubling because of this.

With due respect to the Sponsor, Representative Huffman, for those who stand in opposition to calling an Article V Constitutional Convention, it is not about fear, but rather wisdom.

The consensus among jurists and Constitutional scholars is that once a Constitutional Convention is called in accordance with article V, state legislatures have no authority in the method of selecting delegates and no authority to limit the scope or outcome of the convention. The only precedent for this in our nation’s history was the first Constitutional Convention, which was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. Indeed this became a runaway convention that emerged not with an amendment, but a brand new form of government and Constitution which only required 9 of the 13 states to ratify in nominating conventions rather than the consent of all state legislatures per the Articles of Confederation.

By its very nature, a Constitutional convention creates a sovereign representative body of the people and no limitation of the state legislatures or congress can restrain the delegates.

Would a Constitutional Convention become another runaway jeopardizing the political protection of the God-given rights of Ohio citizens? Is it wise to take that risk in today’s divided political climate?

Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg summed up the answer this way: “if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is no, but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is yes. In our history we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the convention itself was a definite runaway.”

In addition to the dangers of a con-con, the most glaring problem with HJR 8 and its companion bill SJR 9 is that a Constitutional Convention is not even needed to address the problem cited. Applications for a Convention should only be used if a Legislature believes that the present Constitution is structurally flawed and in need of repair. An unbalanced federal budget is not the result of a “Constitutional flaw,” rather it is the result of a Congress which consistently ignores the Constitutional limitations upon its spending of federal funds.

I have emailed to all of you links to a 4 part video series called Beware: Article V which was created by legislators to help you take a closer look at the serious implications of an Article V Constitutional Convention. All four parts can be viewed at principledpolicy.com.

Chairman Blessing and members of the committee, I strongly urge you to vote against sending this bill to a floor vote. This issue comes down to whether you believe the “possibility” of obtaining a balanced budget amendment is worth the risk that our entire system of government could be changed. Chairman Blessing I know that you are a 20 year champion of a Con-Con and I especially urge you to allow your fellow legislators more time to discern the wisdom of this resolution before they are forced to vote on it.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.

Sen. Barack Obama said the following on the Aug. 31 broadcast of 60 Minutes:

“If I can get health care for every American, if I can make sure that the economy is providing jobs that pay a decent wage, if I can solve this energy problem so that we are more secure, if I can make an education system work for every child, that’s going to be good for everybody.”

This all sounds nice, doesn’t it? It’s supposed to. But the problem is that the president of the United States is not tasked with these responsibilities.

As our Founding Fathers warned, “There is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government.” So every time the chief executive comes up for re-election, promises fly about “taking care of” and “providing for” the citizens.

After more than a century of our governing representatives ignoring the supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, our problems have become so immense that we as a citizenry are desperate for exactly what we were warned against.

With its solid political and economic principles, the U.S. Constitution can solve nearly every problem facing America today. But instead of trusting the rule of law, we’ve become accustomed to the rule of man.

Unconstitutional intervention by the federal government in health care, the economy, energy and education is destroying a nation that was once the most prosperous in the history of the world. The only way for America to regain its former glory is to return to our heritage of limited, constitutional government.

Otherwise, America is destined to succumb to the bondage that has enslaved most of the world throughout history.

In Ohio, there is a better choice than the lesser of two evils. The Constitution Party nominee for president, Chuck Baldwin, recognizes the authority of the U.S. Constitution and the limited powers he as president would have under Article II, Section 2.

He’s not asking you to trust him, but rather to trust the rule of law.

“…on the approach of any vessel when communications have not been established…”

On Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the Vulcan Lt. Saavik, began to remind Admiral Kirk of governing regulations in the situation they were facing. Captain Spock was quick to chastise her because it is obvious that the Admiral is “well aware of the regulation.”

However, the Admiral was ignoring the regulation, which was clearly designed to protect the starship should a situation arise wherein the security of the ship is in question. Kirk opted instead to engage in a guessing game with the crew as to why they could not establish communications with a vessel in their own fleet.

Not until it was indicated that the approaching vessel was raising their shields and locking their phasers, did the Admiral in command of the Enterprise call for the ship’s shields to be raised. By then it was too late and the approaching vessel was able to cause substantial damage to the Enterprise almost succeeding in taking the entire ship captive.

When the Admiral’s quick thinking saved the day and the threatening ship retreated, a crew member exclaimed, “You did it!” To which Kirk admitted,

“I did nothing! Except get caught with my britches down.
Mr. Saavik, you go right on quoting regulations.”

This scenario is not unlike what happens when federal and state politicians deviate from their “instruction manual” – the governing constitution. Admiral Kirk decided that in that instance the regulations were not the law, but that he was. His job was made more difficult and the lives of thousands of crew members were put at risk because he, with the power of his position, decided that he was the authority, rather than the regulations designed to govern his actions as commander of a star ship.

This is the corrupting nature of power to which every human leader is susceptible. At least in this instance, Admiral Kirk was humble enough to admit that he had made a mistake and the Lieutenant was commended for her commitment to the rules – even in the face of political correctness.

Lieutenant Saavik was doing what we, the citizens are tasked with doing in a Republic, which is to hold our governing leaders accountable to the rule of law – the supreme law of the land – the Constitution.

It is hard enough to hold them accountable once elected, so let’s not make the mistake of advocating for candidates who don’t fully recognize that supreme authority which governs their actions in office. In so doing, we ourselves are advocating lawlessness and the rule of man – and as history has shown us so vibrantly in the last century, we shall reap what we sew.

The Illusion of Freedom, How to Restore the True Constitution and Reclaim Liberty Now, by Martyn Babitz

“The Sailor has freedom of the seas only when he has become a slave to the compass. Until he is obedient, he must stay within sight of the shore. Once he is obedient, he can go anywhere a sailing vessel will take him. When you take the train off of the tracks, it’s free, but it can’t go anywhere. Take a steering wheel out of the automobile and it’s under the direction and control of no one, but it can’t move. Man is very much the same way. Freedom – real freedom – comes only when discipline, undergirded by moral absolutes, becomes a way of life.”

If we bind government officials to the Constitution and the proper method for amending it, then we enjoy true freedom and the unlimited opportunity to prosper. But when we permit them to deviate from the Constitution to pursue social experiments for the alleged advancement of mankind or other rationales that appear proper, taking shortcuts and bypassing the procedure for making such deviations correspond with the Constitution as properly amended we allow them to imperil our liberty, property and even our lives.

When a new proposed law falls outside the federal government’s Constitutionally declared powers, we can, of course, discuss the potential benefits of the proposal. But until three-fourths of our state legislatures ratify a Constitutional amendment to allow that new law, we should not even acknowledge the proposed law as a possibility, regardless of the asserted social and economic benefits or other rationale for it. Such a proposal is not possible because it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Prohibited deviations from the Constitution began soon after its ratification. These deviations have snowballed over the past 100 years. This historical reality does not, however alter the fact that the Constitution always was and remains the Supreme Law of the Land.

As Steven Covey says, “the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” The Constitution and not what government and politicians distort it to mean for their own purposes, is the “main thing.” The supremacy of the Constitution, not the government or of the people in power is the rock upon which our liberty rests. This principle grants freedom derived from the rule of a law, a written law that is unchangeable other than by three-fourths of the state legislatures rather than by those in the federal government alone.

The Constitution’s supremacy is enforced by an oath required of all government officials to be faithful to the Constitution rather than to the invalid distortion imposed upon the Constitution by government officials—or their own fallible human wisdom.