2 in 1 day?!

Six months of absence, & now 2 posts in 1 day! ;) I just read this blog post by Rev. Voddie Baucham & thought it was too good not to share. It's talking about John Piper's announced leave of absence, & I think there are some excellent points to be considered.

10 Things I Hope We Learn from John Piper’s Leave of Absence

John Piper has taught me much over the years. I consider it an honor to count him as a friend, and I am deeply saddened by his recent announcement that he will be taking a leave of absence for the remainder of 2010. In explaining his leave of absence, he writes:

The difference between this leave and the sabbatical I took four years ago is that I wrote a book on that sabbatical (What Jesus Demands from the World). In 30 years, I have never let go of the passion for public productivity. In this leave, I intend to let go of all of it. No book-writing. No sermon preparation or preaching. No blogging. No Twitter. No articles. No reports. No papers. And no speaking engagements. There is one stateside exception—the weekend devoted to the Desiring God National Conference combined with the inaugural convocation of Bethlehem College and Seminary in October. Noël thought I should keep three international commitments. Our reasoning is that if she could go along, and if we plan it right, these could be very special times of refreshment together.

As I contemplated Dr. Piper’s words, I could not help but realize that even in what must be a devastating moment for him, he is still teaching those of us who are listening. Here are a few things I hope we all learn:

1.I hope we learn that no man is indispensable, and that that it is the Lord, and not man who can proclaim, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt 16:18).

To read the rest of Rev. Baucham's post, go here.

Guilty!

I'm feeling more than a little guilty lately that I have virtually ignored my blog for the last 6 months! I think I just lost interest for a while but I hope to start posting more regularly again, even if it's just sharing daily devotionals I've come across, like before. Here's one for today that a friend sent me.

Psalm 142:3

When my spirit was overwhelmed within me, then You knew my path.

Hoping in God is hoping when there is no hope. Hoping in God is to trust that He will be there with us when we put our feet in places so godforsaken that He will be there holding us up when we are falling over the edge. Leading us through our private darkness. Being there--ahead of us, behind us, above us, under us, for us, and even in us.

--Lewis Smedes

Keeping Hope Alive

Sole Provider, Sole Comforter

Matthew 11:28
Come to me, all of you who are tired and have heavy loads, and I will give you rest.

As long as Jesus is one of many options, He is no option.
As long as you can carry your burdens alone, you don't need a burden bearer.
As long as your situation brings you no grief, you will receive no comfort.
And as long as you can take Him or leave Him, you might as well leave Him, because He won't be taken half-heartedly.
But when you mourn, when you get to the point of sorrow for your sins, when you admit that you have no other option but to cast all your cares on Him, and when there is truly no other name that you can call, then cast all your cares on Him, for He is waiting in the midst of the storm.

Max Lucado......The Applause of Heaven

Snow Plow

This email made me laugh, so I just thought I would share. :)

One winter morning a husband and wife in central South Dakota were listening to the radio during breakfast. They heard the announcer say, "We are going to have 8 to 10 inches of snow today. You must park your car on the even-numbered side of the street, so the Snowplows can get through." So the good wife went out and moved her car.

A week later while they are eating breakfast again, the radio announcer said, "We are expecting 10 to12 inches of snow today. You must park your car on the odd-numbered side of the street, so the Snowplows can get through." The good wife went out and moved her car again.

The next week they are again having breakfast, when the radio announcer says, "We are expecting 12 to 14 inches of snow today. You must park...." Then the electric power went out. The good wife was very upset, and with a worried look on her face she said, "Honey, I don't know what to do. Which side of the street do I need to park on so the Snowplows can get through?"

With the love and understanding in his voice that all men who are married to blondes' exhibit, the husband replied, "Why don't you just leave it in the garage this time?"

Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act

by Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009

According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center's web site, "Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the 'Firearms Freedom Act' (HB-315) seeks 'To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words "Made in Ohio" be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.'"

The report went on to say, "While the HB315's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:

"'The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.'

"Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as
not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution."

See the report at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-ohio

Two states have already passed their own Firearms Freedom Acts: Montana and Tennessee. And, along with Ohio, at least 7 other states have introduced similar bills. Those states are Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

More information regarding the status of these State bills can be seen at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa

As you might suspect, the federal government doesn't take too kindly to these State laws. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent an open letter to all Montana and Tennessee firearms dealers denouncing the State laws. ATF assistant director Carson Carroll wrote that "Federal law supersedes the Act."

The Tenth Amendment Center quotes constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman as correctly stating, "Their [ATF's] view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.

"This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit them."

Ah! But that's just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades--so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, "No." And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to "draw a line in the sand" for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

At the end of the day, the Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It has always been about protecting the people and states against federal tyranny.

The Second Amendment itself states, "A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." (Emphasis added.) Note that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to insure "the security of a FREE STATE." (Emphasis added.) "Free from what?" you ask. Free from federal tyranny. Free from an overbearing, encroaching, heavy-handed, would-be national government.

The founders--even the Centralists of the day--all acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms was, first of all, for the protection of the people against government tyranny. Observe:

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 29)

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny." (Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville [NC] Gazette, October 12, 1789)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? . . . Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress, Freeman's Journal, February 20, 1778)

Coxe also said, "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

So, for now, 10 states have proposed--and 2 have passed--a Firearms Freedom Act, properly declaring that federal authority granted in the Constitution regarding interstate commerce cannot apply to products (firearms, in this case) that are manufactured and sold within the territory of each respective State. In other words, 10 States are serving notice to Washington, D.C., that they are going to insist that the federal government stop ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

In the same vein, Tennessee State legislator Susan Lynn recently sent an open letter to the State legislative bodies of the other 49 states stating:

"On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

*Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
*Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
*Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
*Seek repeal of the assumption of the powers and the imposed mandates."

In the body of her letter, Rep. Lynn states, "The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored."

The Tennessee State representative continued by saying, "The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

"With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress' authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty--and unconstitutional."

See Rep. Lynn's letter at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-rep-lynn

This is a battle that is just beginning to heat up, but promises to get red-hot in the not-too-distant future. As for me and my house, we believe this showdown is long overdue. To quote Patrick Henry, "Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"

(c) Chuck Baldwin