Are you 'the luckiest man on the face of the earth?

Are you ‘the luckiest man on the face of the earth?”

“Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth”. We all remember these immortal words of Lou Gehrig as he said good bye to baseball, the fans, his friends, and really—life. He did not bemoan his fate, lament that his career was being cut short by disease, but shared his gratefulness for his life and the opportunities afforded to him.

What a shining portrait of courage, of a wisdom filled perspective of life.
Can I say ‘today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth’? Can you?

To do so, we need to be at peace with ourselves, and God. Looking back, if our life is but brief or long, we need to have a sense of comfort, of tranquility, that only comes from knowing we did our best. We participated in the causes we believed important, we put our focus on the priorities we deemed absolutely essential. While on a day to day basis, we faced daunting challenges, we never lost sight of our purpose in life.

As the apostle Paul writes, ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith’. In Paul, we see a picture of contentment and confidence. He understands the huge challenges of the future. He must know how his passionate ministry might bring the gospel to more of the lost, but he humbly accepts God’s purpose for his life, and now must step aside. Paul must now place his confidence in those chosen by God to accept the mantle.

No matter what stage of our lives, you and I cannot allow the moment to pass us by. We may not know the time or place, but assuredly the opportunities to engage those life fulfilling missions in our life will come. If we recognize them and engage them with a good faith effort, our internal sense of peace will comfort us throughout our life.

Personally, I have encountered these life changing opportunities on numerous occasions. Most recently, in 2006 I was presented with the opportunity/challenge to lead the North Dakota Family Alliance. By God’s grace and providential wisdom I accepted, and now believe it was God’s plan and purpose all along that I might be prepared to advocate on behalf of Him and His plan for the family.

In Lou Gehrig’s final speech to a packed Yankee stadium in 1939, not once did he mention his records and achievements, but throughout he highlighted cherished relationships with friends and even adversaries, and most of all, his family. He spoke of the support of his wife, mother and father, and even from an unlikely source—his mother-in-law. He wanted his fans to know what was really important to him, as his life reflected.

So it is with us, our legacy is not determined in hindsight. It is put in place one day at a time as we travel through this journey we call life. If we fail to respond wisely and appropriately to opportunities placed before us, we may never have that chance again. Whether that be a career choice, a business decision, or something as foundational as being the spiritual leader of our family, our decision will determine our legacy.

Maybe the life changing opportunity for you is to immerse yourself into a cause, a ministry. Your passion, coupled with your time, talents, and treasure can truly make a difference. In some instances you might see immediate results, but in many cases your efforts will be realized by those in the future. The tree you plant today will offer shade for many generations in the future. Moses saw the Promised Land, but did not set foot on it—so it is with many whom so tirelessly labor to impact the legacy left to our children and grandchildren.

So can I say ‘today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth’? Yes. I am certain I will spend eternity with my Lord and Savior. Yes. With the NDFA I am able to fight the good fight to strengthen families and protect our family values and religious freedom. I can make a difference to save unborn lives, save marriages, to protect our right to share the gospel, and more. Whether I am able to set foot on the Promised Land or not, it is well with me.

So if you are looking for the peace of a Lou Gehrig or the confidence of a Paul, prayerfully petition the Creator in discerning your calling. And don’t pass up the opportunity; your legacy is waiting to be written.

Read more...

A deal, a compromise, or a solution?

The Debt Ceiling Misnomer

A deal, a compromise, or a solution?

Even though out of the office and somewhat secluded over the past week, I couldn’t escape the issue which consumed the media reports, the talk shows, and print media for the past month—the debt ceiling debate. Much of the media focused on the impending catastrophic ramifications of defaulting on our debt repayment and/or budget obligations. While these are very, very serious consequences to consider and are worthy of immediate action, the underlying foundational causes leading to the problem received far less attention. The real problem is excessive federal government spending.

We cannot believe that simply raising the debt limit, allowing the government to borrow more money—will solve the foundational problem, either short term or long term. To simply increase the debt ceiling or raise revenue by way of higher taxes, is not the answer, but only a formula to saddle our children and grandchildren with a burden which will last long after we are gone. Let’s be honest, what occurred was a ‘deal’, a ‘compromise’, not a solution.

In the political world you will hear, ‘it was the best deal we could get’, ‘everybody has to give some, all have to compromise’, ‘if nobody likes it, it is probably the best we could do’, and ‘I didn’t like it but we had to pass something’, and so on. I fully understand the necessity of compromise in the governance of the affairs of the nation, but when the political compromise is more about politics and less about governance—it makes deals instead of putting in place long term solutions.

The problem, the issue is very simple. We are spending more than we are taking in, deficit spending. Accumulated deficit spending requires borrowing in large amounts, trillions of dollars. As a family we understand the burden of debt, the albatross it creates, and the necessity of sound financial practices. Our families need to balance their budget, and now the federal government’s failure to balance its budget may well mean taking more from the family budget. That is not right, we deserve better.

While much has been made of China owning and controlling us as a result of their owning so much of the US debt instruments, the largest owner of our debt is us. The Social Security Trust Fund and the Treasury own by far the greatest portion of the debt, and as such have the most to lose. So the big losers of the president and congress ‘kicking the can down the road’ are us. You can’t rob the money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, replace it with IOUs, and hope to meet those obligations into the future.

At one time one of most secure investments we could make was US Treasuries, because it was backed by the full and good faith of the US Government. Today, that confidence has been shaken. This is true not only in the bond market, but as evidenced by the downturn in the overall market—accentuated by a one day 500 point plus drop in the DOW. This drop wipes out the year’s entire gains in just one day. This weakness in the markets reflects the public’s view of the ineffective federal governing policies. The people want solutions not a deal.

While the deal, the compromise may contain some worthy components—most are off in the distance, sometime in the future. Very little of the passed agreement affects current spending, with most of the spending cuts occurring later in the 10 year period. Unfortunately, past history documents few of these future, contingent cuts from ever coming to fruition.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary, and must be passed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, in the best case scenario, its enactment and benefits will be many years down the road. Putting in place a 12 member congressional commission to guide the process to putting our financial house in order—leaves me thinking we will get more of the same. Balancing spending cuts with future debt ceiling increases leave open huge opportunities to play games—equating a spending cut with a decrease in the proposed/requested increase. Government spending will continue to grow.

That’s government as usual, what we have come to expect. We cannot allow that to happen.

A government demonstrating trustworthy stewardship, providing the necessary services for the people it governs is a blessing. A government’s failure to be wise financial stewards is a heavy burden to the family, and the children and grandchildren to come.

Now that the debt ceiling legislation has passed, we must call on our congressional delegation to pursue implementation that will best address the real problems with real solutions. While the entitlement programs make up an overwhelming portion of the federal budget, the current legislation failed to address those issues. We must address the real issues of appropriate spending levels within our means. We must require our delegation to stand up for these common sense solutions. Many speak of taking the common sense values of North Dakota to Washington, now is the time to unapologetically represent these solid family values.

As our congressional delegation is back in North Dakota for a recess—talk to them—share you views.

Read more...

Marriage on the Rocks! Is it?

Marriage on the Rocks! Is it?

The US Census Bureau released the 2010 census data which shows only 48% of all households are being occupied by a married couple, down from 52% in 2000. The story reported on the “SayAnythingBlog” offers a list of reasons from the census department officials including: marriage is not a priority, higher incidence of widows, more divorces, getting married older, the difficulty and cost of divorce, no longer a stigma attached to cohabitation, and the perceived raw deal men get in divorce. These ‘matter of fact’ reasons are from the US Census Bureau.

While the report may be accurate, it leaves out a great deal of information. First, we have seen some improvement over the past 20 years, with the divorce rate frequency decreasing by 3%. The frequently trumpeted reports of ‘half the marriages among Christians and non-Christians alike end in divorce’ are being documented as false. Numerous studies show a spread of 20%, with a 38% divorce rate for those who attend church regularly and 60% for those that attend rarely.

Among all the benefits of marriage, one that is easily documented is the economic and financial status. Married couple families fare better in all categories, including; employment, income, net worth, poverty, receipt of welfare, and child economic well-being. In 2009, 5.8% of married couple families were living in poverty, compared to 29.9% of families with an unmarried female head of household. Pat Fagan with the Family Research Council reports that by digitally re-uniting these single mother households with the fathers—we would see an 80% reduction in poverty in the United States.

Sadly, more than 40% of births in the U.S. are to unmarried women. Even in this environment, a Pew study found that 2/3 of Americans say women having children without a dad to help raise them is bad for society. Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton, states “Americans do recognize that fatherhood does not end at conception, and children need lifelong contributions from both male and female parents.”

Since the 1960’s America has seen an astronomical increase in cohabitation rates, with a 25% increase just since 2000. Today, one out of every 10 couples is cohabitating. Obviously, the decision to remain abstinent and resist cohabitating, relates to one’s moral beliefs which in most cases are grounded in our religious teachings. But many cite economic conditions, namely money and jobs---“two can live cheaper together, than separately”.

The truth is that cohabitating couples have the lowest net worth growth of all family structures. From a state perspective, you have lower incomes, less income taxes being collected, and more government services required. From the cohabitating couple’s perspective, the lower income level places stress in the family and in many cases leads to separation. And in many cases, these separations involve dependent children.

The ‘matter of fact’ report from the US Census Bureau leaves out a vital component of the discussion—that component being “commitment”. A successful marriage requires commitment, both in preparation of marriage and during the marriage relationship. That strong commitment will be rewarded by a long lasting, successful marriage, which is in the best interests of the couple, their children, and society.

As a Christian organization, NDFA believes God ordained marriage. And as Christ is the cornerstone of our personal lives, marriage is the cornerstone of the family, and the family is the foundation of society. The cultural legacy we leave our children and grandchildren will in part largely be determined by how successful we are at preserving and defending the sanctity of marriage.

As Christians, will we allow the culture to influence us, or will we be the “Salt & Light” as we influence the culture?

Read more...

Was HB 1450 The Defense of Human Life unworthy of a vote?

HB 1450 The Defense of Human Life bill unworthy of a vote suggests Sen. Curtis Olafson in his public statement, click here to see letter.

Below see a response to Sen. Olafson’s comments from representatives from North Dakota Family Alliance, Concerned Women for America, and ND Right to Life.

By Paul Maloney, Tom Freier and Janne Myrdal

BISMARCK — In his letter about HB 1450, Sen. Curtis Olafson, R-Edinburg, tried to justify his procedural trick that prevented a roll-call vote by insisting the bill was “poorly worded” and the work of “out-of-state extremists” (“Bill set N.D. up for expensive failure,” Page A4, April 19).

As leaders of North Dakota’s pro-life community, we feel compelled to set the record straight.

Olafson’s suggestion that the Defense of Human Life Act was not worthy of a roll-call vote in the Senate is absurd. The bill overwhelmingly passed the North Dakota House, 68-25, and received a 5-1 “do pass” recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill was crafted and honed with the collaboration of former state and federal prosecutors along with attorneys from many organizations (both statewide and national) with experience crafting and successfully defending pro-life legislation.

We fully accept the fact that there is disagreement as to what will be the best approach to end the evil of abortion in our great state and nation. But it is shockingly audacious to suggest this bill did not deserve a roll-call vote.
Olafson insists that he is “pro-life,” but along with his supporters, he also asserts that “HB 1450 never would withstand a constitutional challenge.” This assertion is not only conceited, but also a tragic misunderstanding of the separation of powers in this country.

If the North Dakota senators who supported Olafson’s tabling of the bill are so above the rest of us in their knowledge of the judiciary process, then where can a citizen ever go with a grievance? If decades-old decisions such as Roe v. Wade are invoked to prohibit our Legislature from even holding a roll call vote, then what opportunity for righting a wrong can ever be found?

There is no way in which the Constitution prohibits equal protection under the law for all human beings. A legislator who claims otherwise cannot be pro-life in any meaningful sense.

But the real questions concern Olafson’s conduct regarding HB 1450 and the vast discrepancy between his conduct and his rhetoric. Why did Olafson cut off the Senate debate on HB 1450 before even mentioning his concerns of a possible legal challenge? Why did he not mention this concern during the three weeks in which he met with us and other pro-life leaders in what he claimed was a good faith effort to clarify the intent and effect of the bill?

At the end of those three weeks, the language that Olafson himself had requested and which the Legislative Council drafted for him was added to the bill in order to protect in-vitro fertilization and life-saving medical treatment while also adding a rape/incest exception. Olafson then voted for the amendments and motioned to approve the bill in committee only to kill the bill the next day with a procedural trick on the Senate floor.

Why such appalling duplicity from a senator who claims to be pro-life?

North Dakotans expect and deserve integrity in their legislators. The “initiated measure process” that Olafson recommends is not meant to be the only way voters can be fairly and accurately represented in the state government.

We expect and deserve honesty in the committee process and a transparent vote on each bill. Olafson’s refusal to grant either is a betrayal of his obligation not only to his district but also to the state.

Maloney is executive director of North Dakota Right to Life, Freier is executive director of North Dakota Family Alliance Action and Myrdal is state director of Concerned Women for America of North Dakota.

Read more...

The Forum calls Divorce Reform a "Sham"

The Forum newspaper of Fargo called Divorce Reform legislation a "Sham". Our response is below.

SB 2367 Divorce Reform That Can Make A Difference

Comments offered by Tom Freier, North Dakota Family Alliance

As an entity which supports SB 2367, the North Dakota Family Alliance takes exception to the Forum’s characterization of this effort as a “sham”. This is a strong word meaning; a trick, false, silliness, counterfeit, and purporting to be genuine. None of these words apply to this effort. We need to ask ourselves a number of questions.

First, does the state have a vested interest in this issue? Whether we agree or not, the state currently is the grantor of both marriage licenses and divorce decrees. Chapter 14 of the North Dakota Century Code contains hundreds of pages of law dealing with domestic relations, including marriage, divorce, child custody, and parental rights and responsibilities, to mention just a few. The state, acting on behalf of its citizens has taken on the responsibility to put in place laws and rules that take into account the best interests and wellbeing of all, adults and children.

Second, does this issue rise to the level of need which should be addressed by the legislature?
Nationally, every year 1 million children are a product of divorce, On average in North Dakota, each year we have 4200 marriages, 1900 divorces, of which 900 will involve 1600 dependent children. Put in perspective, using the current trend of 1600 children per year, in 25 years that equates to 40,000 children, greater than the population of Minot.

Mounting evidence concludes that many, not all, but most children will experience the devastating physical, emotional, and financial effects associated with divorce which will last well into adulthood and affect future generations. To a degree many children of divorce will; have a higher incidence of crime and drug abuse, perform more poorly in school, have a higher incidence of being abused, be more likely to be raised in poverty, and they, themselves have a higher rate of divorce.

The reality is that divorce has a huge emotional impact on children. Most children fail to fully understand divorce. If adults struggle to piece together the components of the divorce, to come to grips with their feelings and emotions, how can we expect an 11 year old to? To those on the outside, the final divorce decree might seem like a new beginning, a time to move on, but to most children of divorce the ongoing challenge of how to deal with their feelings and emotions is only beginning.

The financial cost of divorce involving children is high, to the family and the state. The Heritage Foundation estimates costs to the state at $25,000 per divorce. Even using a more conservative figure of $20,000 here in North Dakota, the annual costs are in the millions. The annual cost just regarding those 900 divorces involving children would equate to $18 million. Depending on the success of a program to decrease the number of divorces, the cumulative savings over the years could well be in the millions. And this does not take into account the many and varied the costs to the individual families.

So a final question needs to be posed—would legislation such as SB 2367 have a positive influence on diminishing the number of divorces where dependent children are involved? Would requiring a 12 month waiting period as is in the bill, or even 6 months as some have suggested, make a difference? Would requiring counseling sessions, whether that be the 10 in the bill, or even 4 or 5 have an impact?

Recent information seems to indicate that a waiting period including appropriate counseling sessions may well be successful in certain situations, in those cases where abuse is not involved. There are no guarantees as to how many may reconsider their plans for divorce. The question is what is the necessary return on investment? Is it 10 marriages, or 50 marriages, or is it 75 children or is it 250 children? How can we measure the impact on those children?

And what is the investment this bill is asking for? It is requiring the married couple who entered into a legal contract, who have dependent children and now as they are seeking a divorce---that they would make the investment of attending counseling sessions during a waiting period---before reaching that final decision. A decision which will impact not only their future, but that of their children.

This is the policy decision before the legislature. Contrary to the view of the Forum, it is a legitimate discussion to have. Yes in general, it is about the benefits of marriage and family. I hope the Forum sees that as a good thing. But it specifically seeks to offer solutions to conflict and saving marriages, and especially taking into consideration the wellbeing of the children.

The Forum is correct when saying that divorce is personal, complicated, and traumatic—but it fails to understand the real reason for this legislation—to take into account the wellbeing of the children. If the Forum would see the overall intent of this legislation, they would not have called this measure a “sham”. They would not have accosted the legislators who introduced this bill as wanting “to bring the heavy boot of government intrusion”, when their genuine efforts should be applauded, not ridiculed for wanting North Dakota to be better for all, including the children.

Read more...

Defending Marriage is Bigotry

To deal with this issue, it is necessary to hear all the discussion.
From Chuck Colson's site--we see.

Defending Marriage Is Bigotry?
All Things Examined
By: Regis Nicoll|Published: December 3, 2010 12:17 PM
Topics: Arts & Media, Church Issues, Marriage & Family, Sexual Ethics

The only thing motivating opposition to gay “marriage” is bigotry and hate. If it were really about the sacredness of the institution, Kirsten Powers wonders, where is the Christian activism against divorce and promiscuity among heterosexuals?

Powers, a Fox News political analyst, explains that this double standard is important “because it reinforces the idea among Christians that gay people are morally inferior and don’t deserve to be treated fairly.” I'll come back to this "double standard" in a moment, but right now I want to consider Ms. Powers' rather strong suggestion that judgmental rhetoric by Christians is responsible for the upsurge of teen bullying and gay suicide.

To support that line of thought, Powers voices some incautious judgments of her own, starting with the allegation that Purpose-Driven pastor Rick Warren compared “same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.” That’s a charge that packs high emotional impact among gays and gay “marriage” supporters. So what did Rick Warren actually say?

What he said

In a lengthy interview, covering numerous topics, the Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet asked Warren what he thought about partnership benefits, like insurance coverage and hospital visitation. Warren’s response:

“You know, not a problem for me. I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital.”

Warren, remember, is one of those who believe that homosexuals “don’t deserve to be treated equally.” He went to explain,

“The issue to me… [is the] redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

As the transcript makes clear, Rick Warren was voicing his opposition to any social arrangement that would fundamentally change the nature of marriage as it has been defined and valued in every civilization throughout recorded history.

Yet, the inconvenient truth of the matter is that, if legalized, an adult-child or brother-sister union would be on equal legal and social footing with same-sex “marriage,” such that anyone referring to them pejoratively as “pedophilic” or “incestuous” would be libel for hate speech. What’s more, if we follow the numbing drumbeat of the gay lobby—namely, that marriage is the civil right to marry whomever one chooses—there will be no legal or logical barrier to limit it to non-relatives or adults, or even to two people.

Those who pooh-pooh that last prospect have not been paying attention to what has been happening in Canada.

Lesson from Canada

In 2005 Canada redefined marriage to accommodate same-sex couples. Today, five years later, a challenge to further “modernize” the nation’s marriage laws is heading to the Supreme Court. The modernization called for is the legalization of “multiple conjugal relationships,” or polyamory.

The arguments advanced for polyamory in Canada are the same as those being made in the U.S. for same-sex “marriage”: Polyamorous unions are loving, committed, consensual, and egalitarian; laws prohibiting them are discriminatory and unconstitutional; there is no evidence that polyamory is harmful to society or the individuals involved.

To see where Canada’s modernization is heading, here is a description of the living arrangements of some of the plaintiffs involved:

(1) a woman and her male partner who live and have relationships with two other adults in the household (they also have a child living in the home) and who have agreed that each can pursue relationships with others, (2) a woman who lives with two other men (two of her teenage sons also live in the home), (3) a husband and wife who live with another adult (and the married couples' two young children and the third person's teenage children), and (4) a man who lives with a woman and another man (with whom he is raising a two-year-old child).

These types of relationships (and more) would become legal should the plaintiffs prevail. The take-away from Canada is that once marriage is redefined, it is not a question of if, but when political pressure will be applied to extend it to any constellation of relationships that mankind can imagine.

Gay “marriage” is a social juggernaut that, once launched, can be hampered only by an arbitrary and coercive act of law.

A Bible lecture

After Ms. Powers charges Christians with “heaping condemnation and judgment on others,” she lectures them with this bit of learned biblical insight: “Let’s remember, Satan wasn’t kicked out of heaven for being gay; it was pride.”

As I recall, neither was he kicked out for judgmentalism, bigotry, or a host of other sins. But what Satan was or wasn’t guilty of is beside the point. If the Bible is marshaled in defense of some human behavior, the foremost authority is Jesus and what he said about the matter.

For the matter at hand, Jesus warned his disciples that extramarital sex, including willful lust, put a person in risk of damnation. And since Jesus never saw fit to modernize marriage Canadian style but, rather, re-affirmed the institution as originally given, his warning would include same-sex behaviors whether or not they are committed within a legally-recognized, or church-blessed, relationship.

Continuing her lecture, Powers writes, “The people who really ticked Jesus off were the Pharisees, who were self-righteous and hypocritical, which would fairly describe many of today’s Christians.”

It would also fairly describe many of today’s social progressives whose outrage against social injustice goes strangely mute against the injustice done to the smallest, youngest, and most powerless among us; or the advocates of tolerance whose intolerance for the views of others is expressed in vandalizing churches, threatening and assaulting opponents, and storming into worship services throwing condoms on the altar and shouting insults at the congregation; or of those who play fast and loose with the hypocrisy card.

The double standard

But this is only the set up for Powers’ main point, which comes straight from the social progressive playbook: The anti-gay marriage movement is driven not by reasoned argument, but by bigotry. Else, Powers suggests, Christians would be “running around confronting their sexually active heterosexual co-workers and friends about their ‘lifestyle.’”

While it is true that Christians have been sorely remiss in living out the teachings of Jesus and holding each other accountable to them, collectively Christians have done more than any group to address the myriad problems associated with extramarital sex through abstinence programs like Aspire and True Love Waits and healthy marriage programs like Marriage Encounter, Marriage Savers, Smart Marriages, and Preventing Divorce.

On top of that, many churches require premarital counseling for engaged couples and offer free counseling to married couples. And if it weren’t for Christian authors, there would be scarcely any books on the shelves promoting monogamous intimacy and fidelity.

Yes, Christian individuals have a long way to go in practicing the faith they profess and in supporting, encouraging, challenging, and, when necessary, confronting each other in their Christian walk. Sadly, in some isolated and highly publicized incidences, Christian individuals have been guilty of hurtful and judgmental confrontations with homosexuals, as have homosexuals with those who hold opposing views.

Nevertheless, the Christian pro-marriage movement, on which Powers breezily heaps her own judgment, is not about confronting individuals; it is about defending a time-honored institution through public discourse and civic involvement.

That includes educating the public and elected officials about same-sex “marriage” and the seismic implications it has for society, and exercising the right of free speech and the right to vote for laws and political leaders that uphold marriage as the exclusive, life-long, life-welcoming union between one man and one woman. And there is nothing hypocritical or bigoted about that.

Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a BreakPoint Centurion. His "All Things Examined" column appears on BreakPoint every other Friday. Serving as a men’s ministry leader and worldview teacher in his community, Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at centurion51@aol.com.
Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or BreakPoint. Outside links are for informational purposes and do not necessarily imply endors

Read more...

Come Now, Let Us Reason Together

Come Now, Let Us Reason Together

As we contemplate the recent past and anticipate the immediate future, many are unsure about what may happen in North Dakota, or even in this land we call America. As we approach this Holy season, it may be time to reflect, a time put all in perspective.

The elections in November provided two new faces in the North Dakota congressional delegation, as well as placing the Republicans in control in the US House of Representatives. Republicans made substantial gains in the North Dakota legislature and especially in the senate where the margin is now 35-12.

As in the aftermath of most elections, the victor claims a mandate—citing “the voters have spoken”. President Obama made this claim in 2008, and now Republicans in 2010. To a great degree this is how things have gone for years, on all levels, state, federal, and local.

The losing party develops an immense liking of compromise, and castigates the majority as some sort of evil force if it fails to give in proportionately. On the national level, today—President Obama and the Democratic Party are expecting compromise. The same scenario will play out in the 2011 North Dakota legislative session—compromise will be expected.

While compromise in and of itself is not unacceptable, the foundational reasoning for the compromise may be of concern. If that reasoning does not have its basis in the constitution, or in firm principled standards, but is responding to the temporary whim of a poll—it is not sound or wise. Ours is a republic which places supreme power with the people.

As we seek even greater guidance, looking to Isaiah 1:18 may provide some profound wisdom, applicable centuries before Christ’s birth, as well as today. “Come now, let us reason together”, says the Lord. In response to His people turning away, rejecting Him, He offers to reason with them.

Was He offering to compromise? The short answer is ‘no’. The offer is to reason. The verb reason is to think or argue logically. The noun reason is defined as a motive or basis for an action, decision, or conviction. God is asking those in 700BC to bring their thoughts, requests, and arguments to Him. The basis for the response is measuring their arguments in relation to His standards, His will. Isaiah documents His response.

Today, whether in the public policy arena or in our personal lives, we fail to measure our arguments against His standards. Compromise in most cases is limited to the viewpoints of this world, the standards of this world. The culture of the flesh determines the parameters of our discussion, and the eventual compromise.

So what can we learn from Isaiah 1:18? We can utilize His call to reason. Whether in our personal lives or as an elected public official, we must carry with us the values, beliefs, principles, and standards of our faith. Doing so we will be able to reason in all environments; dealing with a family matter, a business transaction, or a public policy decision on the state, local, or federal level.

As Christians, being of good courage, reflecting truth and grace, “Come now, let us Reason together”.

Read more...