The so-called “Fair Minimum Wage Act” (H.R. 1010 or S. 460) would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 over two years, and then progressively each year based on inflation (the consumer price index). Who could possibly be opposed to a law requiring employers to pay the nation’s poorest a little more? Those who care about the poor, that’s who.

Let’s keep the math simple for the sake of argument: If minimum wage goes from $7/hr. to $10/hr., a company with, say, a hundred minimum wage employees, would go from paying $700/hr. total to $1,000/hr. total. To avoid this expense increase, the company would be forced to cut its workforce by whatever equaled the $300/hr. difference. After the increase, this would amount to thirty employees. And who would be cut? Employees who are the least qualified or those who are least necessary to get the job done. The employer would then require those more skilled to pick up the slack. What a great idea! (Hint of sarcasm here.) Let’s help the most vulnerable by getting them fired! (Okay, call it “laid off” to sound less harsh.)

Two points before continuing: First, it bears mentioning as an aside that none of this is necessarily to say that poor people are always less skilled; but it is to say people who are less skilled tend, in general, to be poorer. (Moreover, “skill” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “formal” education.) Second, the company could also simply keep all one hundred employees and just raise the price of its product to make up the difference, but this might put the company out of business, especially if its competitors kept their prices the same and simply got by with fewer employees.

When the government engages in “price fixing,” it typically hurts the very people it is trying to help. Minimum wage laws are a form of price fixing; they “fix” the price of labor so that it doesn’t drop below a certain level. This forces employers not only to pay its employees more, but to cut employees to make up the difference, and the people who get cut are the poorest and least experienced. That is, the people who are cut are usually those who will be hurt the very worst by being cut. How, exactly, does this help the poor? It doesn’t. It actually helps those who are relatively better off!

In fact, in his excellent new book Intellectuals and Race (Philadelphia: Basic Books, 2013, ISBN: 9780465058723), Thomas Sowell mentions how minimum wage laws (specifically the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931) were “openly advocated by some members of Congress on grounds that it would stop black construction workers from taking jobs from white construction workers by working for less than the union wages of white workers” (pp.95-96). Canada did the same “in the 1920s, where the object was to price Japanese immigrants out of the labor market, and in South Africa in the era of apartheid, to price non-whites out of the labor market” (ibid. 96). None of this means today’s minimum wage laws are intended to hurt the poor or certain other groups of people, but such laws have that effect nonetheless.

Summarizing the point, Sowell says, “Any group whose labor is less in demand, whether for lack of skills or for other reasons, is disproportionately priced out of the labor markets when there are minimum wage laws, which are usually established in disregard of differences in skills or experience” (ibid.).

This blog site is “for Christ and culture,” and nearly everyone agrees Christ wants us to help the poor in our culture, so to put the point even more simply: when companies are required to pay their employees more, the companies typically figure out ways to get by on less numbers of employees. Conclusion: If you want to hurt the poor, raise the minimum wage.

Here’s a summary of this week’s For Christ and Culture radio broadcasts!

Faith in the Scientific Method (Friday, June 7)

Barry responds to a listener’s email about a debate he had with atheist David Smalley, further clarifying the point that everyone must choose to believe something to be true: faith is necessary even for an atheist to rely on the scientific method.

Biblical Interpretation Within Evangelicalism (Monday, June 10) 

Our favorite theologian returns for another discussion about the evangelical movement, this time broaching the subject of hermeneutics.

Our Story: Polycarp (Tuesday, June 11)

Barry introduces a new series with Bill Watson and Winston Hottman that surveys church history, acquainting us with other believers whose stories will inspire us as we seek to find our place in God’s story.

Worship (Wednesday, June 12)

A lively conversation about worship ensues when Winston Hottman brings up the topic with Barry and Bill Watson regarding different worship styles and atmospheres in church life.

Greater Expectations (Thursday, June 13)

Dr. David Henderson joins us to talk about our pursuit of dreams and how to deal with the reality of failed expectations.

Sometimes I feel like the Bible was written just for me. I know it’s crazy, but when its words speak to the very thing I’m facing at that particular moment, I can’t help it. There have even been times when, in desperation, I have opened its pages longing to hear from God… and I am not disappointed.

It wasn’t until I began to hang out with professional theologians that I discovered I was a “mystic.”  I was reminded of my mysticism the other day standing in the foyer of a little Baptist church. My kids were in the sanctuary preparing for their piano recital and I was loitering in the sun-warmed foyer finishing my root beer and enjoying that distinctive, memory-inducing small Baptist Church aroma.

The room was empty except for a chair that propped open the door to the sanctuary and a sign on the wall that forbid food and drink in the sanctuary. There was also a large white desk, centered on the back wall, with a family-size Bible open on its stand. The pages were glowing in the sunlight and I found myself standing in front of them. Someone had opened it to Isaiah.  In the upper left-hand corner was the famous chapter 53. So I sipped my root beer and began to read the well-known words.

As I read, I remembered the eunuch who read these same words while riding in his chariot on the desert road, making his way home to Ethiopia. Phillip used these very words to introduce this eunuch to saving faith in Jesus Christ and then baptized him there in some water they found along the way (Acts 8).  Afterwards, the Bible says the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing.”  And here’s the mystical part—if the eunuch was reading Isaiah 53 before he met the Lord, then what do you think he did when he got back into his Chariot?

I cannot imagine that he did anything else other than to keep reading—54, 55, then to the words which begin Isaiah 56. I read them there in the sunlight of that small Baptist church.  I didn’t even have to turn a page.  They were shinning there in the lower right-hand corner. The same words I’m sure the eunuch read while still wet with baptismal water.  And I can’t help but imagine, in that time and place, the eunuch must have thought them mystical words written just for him:

For thus says the Lord,
To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, to them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off. ~ Isaiah 56:4-5

Though God’s Word has appeared in space and time, its power and application is not bound by space and time. God has dominion over both. I can imagine that as the eunuch was wondering about the timeliness of the words he was reading, Phillip was wondering about the “spaceliness” of being “snatched away” by the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 8:39).

Before God first spoke to this world it was dark, confused, and empty. And when we begin to believe that God no longer speaks, or we stop listening, the darkness and confusion and emptiness returns to our hearts… and to our culture.

Dear Heavenly Father, may my life hang on Your every word. Please keep me from falling in love with my own words and the sound of my own voice. And don’t let me get lost in the dark and confusing and empty words, and actions, that surround me on every side. Keep me faithful until the day I can hear Your voice and not just Your words.

Here’s a summary of this week’s For Christ and Culture radio broadcasts!

Seven Men, Manhood, and Culture (Friday, May 31)

Criswell College President, Dr. Jerry A. Johnson, interviews author Eric Metaxas about his new book, Seven Men, covering the inspiring lives of a U.S. President, a social reformer, a gold medalist, and a Pope, among others.

Acts 9: Part One (Monday, June 3)

Barry catches us up on the story of the early church as we head into Acts chapter 9, seeing God reaching out in grace to his followers as well as his enemies.

Acts 9: Part Two (Tuesday, June 4)

We return to Acts 9 and hear about both the reluctance and obedience of Ananias.

Acts 9: Part Three (Wednesday, June 5)

Barry continues talking through the story of the early church, reminding us that God intends to make the good news available to all people and will do so through his friends as well as his enemies.

Acts 9: Part Four (Thursday, June 6)

Barry finishes up Acts chapter 9, noticing that Luke shapes the stories to be more about the message (the good news) and less about the messenger.

What is a man?

What makes a man great?

These are the two questions that Eric Metaxas poses in his new book, Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness. Metaxas believes we are living in a culture with a masculinity crisis. In the introduction he presents two common but false ideas about masculinity. The first is the idea that masculinity means being macho – a real man is big shot. The second is the image of manhood that emasculates men by downplaying or denying  the differences between men and women. However, God’s idea of manhood is different. Metaxas states that God’s idea of masculinity finds its purpose in servant leadership, the model set forth by Jesus Christ. The book traces the lives of seven great men who embodied God’s idea of masculinity through the virtues of humility, courage, faithfulness, and servant leadership. The seven men are George Washington, William Wilberforce, Eric Liddell, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jackie Robinson, Pope John Paul II, and Charles Colson.

After finishing Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Martyr. Prophet. Spy a few months ago I was eager to read Seven Men. I can say I was not let down. For me, the author’s prayer at the beginning of the book set the stage:

I hope you would want to study these lives – and not just study them but emulate them. It is my prayer that those who read this book would be inspired to become real heroes, to become great men in their own generation. (xxvi).

Honest

One of the best aspects of the book is Metaxas’ engaging writing style that draws you into the story of each man. As you enter into each narrative you see their masculinity through the highlighting of their virtues. Rather than just talking about manhood the book showcases it in the real lives of great men (xiv).

But Metaxas does not shy away from the negative aspects of each man, conveying that it is important to recognize that our “heroes” were sinners too, yet by God’s grace they changed the world. One of the reasons why the book is so engaging is that one can see the virtues of each man expressed through their vulnerability.

Varied

Another aspect of Seven Men I enjoy is that each man is completely different. For example, you have a humble president, a passionate politician, a resilient athlete turned missionary, a courageous pastor, a heroic baseball player, a gentle pope, and finally a repentant criminal who helped shape the Christian worldview for an entire generation. The seven men presented in this book encountered different challenging circumstances that God used to shape them into the heroic men we know them as today.

Brief

Another added benefit is that each chapter is relatively short. The total number of pages amounts to less than 200, not counting end notes and index. While it may be daunting for someone to read Bonhoeffer, which amounts to almost 600 pages, or even Metaxas’ 300 page biography on Wilberforce, Seven Men presents a summary version of Bonhoeffer’s biography consisting of roughly 24 pages and a Wilberforce biography of 26 pages. Ideally, though, people will read this smaller book, develop an interest, and pick up Bonhoeffer and Amazing Grace.

Personal

The last aspect I would like to mention is the personalized touch Metaxas gives at the beginning of each biography. He begins each small bio with a brief description of his own thoughts regarding each man. For instance, in the chapter on Eric Liddell he recalls watching Chariots of Fire for the first time. In the chapter on Dietrich Bonhoeffer he mentions receiving the book The Cost of Discipleship. And the personal interaction between Metaxas and Colson was the finest. These personal reflections serve as points of connection between Metaxas and readers and spark a deeper desire to read each biography. As each biography is read, one sees that Metaxas isn’t writing a dry, dusty biographical book; he is writing about heroes who have personally impacted his life.

We All Need Heroes

As a boy I remember watching Batman, running around the house with my black cape, and playing with little action figures. I looked up to Batman. I’m sure all readers can relate.

But the call to heroism doesn’t fade as we grow older. As adult men, the reality is that we are actually called by God to be heroes for our families and communities. And in a similar way to which we looked up to Batman as children, we need heroes to emulate now. Metaxas’ book is a great place to find these heroes.

I would strongly recommend this book to any man. When I finished the book I was reminded of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians, “Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ.” As a husband and soon-to-be father, it is encouraging to read about men who heroically served Jesus in spite of the challenges they faced. I pray that I would be able to do so for my family.

*Don’t forget to listen to the For Christ and Culture interview with Eric Metaxas about Seven Men, Manhood, and Culture.

**Thanks to PR by the Book for providing a review copy.

A while back, I was listening to a talk-radio program and the DJ (or TJ in this case) brought up the topic of “co-habitation.” While listening, it became clear that there were at least two defining aspects of “cohabitation:” (1) not-being-married and (2) sleeping-together. This didn’t surprise me because the dominant media culture has made it clear that premarital, and extramarital, and postmarital sex is the “always pardonable sin.”  Or rather, in our current culture, the only thing sinful about extramarital sex is to talk about it in a derogatory way.

It also didn’t surprise me that everyone who called in to this Christian owned station with conservative programming was cohabiting or had tried it… even the radio host had tried it—twice. Christians regularly cohabitate in the movies—Bruce Almighty was living with his Christian girlfriend.  And, just the other day, I read this statement in Entertainment Weekly: “She’s a driven type A and devout Christian who has no qualms about lying to her live-in boyfriend about the nature of her undercover assignments.”  Notice that there is an implied problem with lying (she should have “qualms” about it), but the fact that she is a “devout Christian” and living with her boyfriend is just passed over as if there is no need for qualm or pardon.

There was one thing that did surprise me.  While discussing the nuts-and-bolts of cohabiting, several of the callers mentioned the fact that when it came time to renew their lease on the habitat they were cohabitating in, they were required to renew their commitment to each other, or at least their living arrangement.  One of the callers even measured the length of his relationships in “number of leases.” He proudly announced, “We have been together for four leases!”  Some say that marriage is the objectification of women. However, I could not help but think that renewing your relationship every few years with all your other leased objects is more of an objectification than a love which subjects itself to another for a lifetime.  But that’s just me.

The “best original song” in 1992 at both the Academy Awards and the Golden Globes was the song “Beauty and the Beast.”  The movie which featured this song, also titled “Beauty and the Beast,” was the first animated movie to ever receive a nomination for best picture at the Academy Awards.

Maybe the popular appeal of this song and movie was because, as the song says, it is a “tale as old as time/a song as old as rhyme.”  This line of the song is literally true.  The Beauty-Tames-the-Beast motif is found in the ancient tale of Gilgamesh, one of the first stories ever written down.  In the story of Gilgamesh, there is a beast of a man who was raised by animals. His name is “Enkidu” and he falls for a woman who tames and civilizes him, transforming him from a beast into a man. This idea of the masculine being civilized by the feminine continues to appear in literature from the Classical Greek comedy “Lysistrata” to the Medieval concept of Courtly Love—it even crosses species boundaries in the modern story of King Kong.

Throughout history (up until quite recently), women made men better by requiring them to act less like beasts in order to win their hand (and other things).  However, over the last generation, in the wake of the sexual revolution, rather than making “beasts” behave like men, the sexual liberation of the feminine has “liberated” women to be “beasts” too.  The feminine objectified itself in fearing to be objectified and what was once a revolutionary experiment finally has begun to settle into society, quietly. Un-chaperoned courting brought forth dating, and dating—now that it is full grown—is giving birth to “hooking-up.”   Free-love is finally really free (or at least cheap).  It no longer cost a lifetime, not even a suppertime.

In terms of consequences, free-love is free for beasts—for humans there is a cost.  When the hook-up is over, and the unhooking begins, emptiness and regret returns.  In time, vain human ambivalence devolves back into animal indifference, making love-making just another thing to do…and post about. [1]  And amid all the howling, it is often forgotten that trading our life for a lifetime with another is not just a life-time lease but a new lease-on-life.  Cohabitation is a living arrangement.  Marriage is a way of living…a way of life.  It is the making of true human love.

My wife is an extremely creative and resourceful person. She can dress a room with a pair of socks, duct tape, and three spoons and make the room look extravagant. This type of genius does not come without disadvantage. For instance, one month, my wife rearranged and decorated our 120 square foot living room, three times. You may ask wherein lies the disadvantage—I was the one who moved the furniture!

The Pastor’s Vision and the Church’s Tradition

More recently, my wife and I purchased a house and immediately she had a vision as to what she wanted each room to look like. The walls were bare and the paint was plain. She had a blank canvas and could carry out her vision as fast as her help would allow her. As pastors, we may not be visionaries regarding home makeovers but God has given us a vision for the church He has called us to serve. However, majority of pastors arrive at a church that has been in existence for some time and the walls are anything but bare. These churches have been around for over one hundred years and those who makeup the church have done certain things in a certain way just as long as the church has been in existence. As a result, the pastor, who is seeking to carry out the vision that God has placed upon his heart and revitalize the church he is pastoring, finds himself in very treacherous waters and must steer the church through the sharp rocks of stagnant tradition without sinking the ship and his ability to lead and serve the church.

The Remodeling Vision

When my wife and I first visited Trenton FBC, it was easy to see the correlation between the physical condition of the church building and the spiritual condition of the church. The windows were colored like Pepto-Bismol, the carpet was a sundried faded pink, the baptistery had an oddly painted scenic view, the pews were falling apart and there was a massive pipe organ that had not been played on for many years. It was clear that the building was in need of an overhaul, but who permitted the building to become such a state—the congregation. The church watched the building’s condition deteriorate, but that was the least of their problems. They had endured several spiritual hardships that worn them down, just as the building was worn down.

When God brought my family and I to Trenton, His vision was close to follow. The trouble was, I had only just arrived and those in the congregation had been there all their lives. How was I to lead a congregation who has enjoyed the condition they have been in for so long? Too many times pastors enter into a church with both guns-a-blazing, initiating change as they see fit without any consideration to the damage inflicted on the long existing congregation. The collateral damage done by the newly appointed pastor is often deemed necessary to carry out the Lord’s work and vision for the church, so there is usually very little consideration for the possible harm that can befall the flock. Often times, the result of such reckless leadership is that the church rejects the called pastor and his leadership, and sinks further into the problems they have grown accustomed to.

What Vision Should Create

While it is true that the pastor receives the vision from God and is responsible for carrying that vision out, he is also responsible for the church and leading the church to fulfill this vision. The vision should not create division. This mission will remain unfinished if the pastor isolates himself from the congregation by making aggressive changes without properly preparing and leading the church. There are a few things that vision should create within the pastor that can help keep him from any unnecessary collateral damage and enable the pastor to navigate the church through waters of change.  

1.      Vision should create patience

As God provides the pastor a vision for the church, this vision should create patience within the pastor. He should recognize that the church is the recipient of a longstanding tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation and that it has cherished this tradition, be it good or bad. The pastor’s vision is a process that will take time to carry out and will not be immediately fulfilled.

2.      Vision should create humility

In many instances, the pastor finds opposition to the vision he is casting because of his own pride. The “we are doing this because I am the pastor and I said so” mentality will not squelch the conflict or lead the church to see the vision through; but rather, it will create a divergence from the vision and lead the church to revolt. As pastors, we must remain humble, knowing that God has given us the vision and will enable us to see the vision through.

3.      Vision should create sincerity

As a pastor, no one can deny the passion, heart, and motivation we have to carry out God’s vision in the church. Many sleepless nights are had due to the anticipation and careful planning of this vision. However, if we are going to see this vision come to fruition, we must first show the church our sincere concern for them and their spiritual well-being and also that the vision God has for the church is for their good and that they can be a part of it.

In the beginning, when God created everything, He had a blank canvas. If anyone could fill emptiness immediately, it was God. However, His vision for creation was intricate and extensive and was carried out over six days and on the final day He rested from His work. Likewise, God did not rush His work in regards to salvation history. He has carried out His vision with patience, humility, and sincerity for a world that has been set in its sin since the rebellion in the garden. Pastor, do not allow the vision God has given you to hinder your ability to minister to the people God has called you to serve. Take the time to share the vision, teach the vision, and empower others to participate in the vision, and perhaps you may gain the support of the church you have been led to serve.

Here’s a summary of this week’s For Christ and Culture radio broadcasts.

The Eternal State (Friday, May 24)

Barry talks with Dr. Everett Berry and Scott Shiffer about the Christian hope.

Send North America (Monday, May 27)

Dr. Tiffany Smith from the North American Mission Board joins us to talk about the Southern Baptist Convention’s work to reach the lost in the United States. For more information about the upcoming NAMB conference go to: www.sendconference.com.

The State of Evangelicalism (Tuesday, May 28)

Barry talks with our favorite theologian, Dr. Everett Berry, about the current state of the evangelical movement, including characteristics of fundamentalism and liberalism.

The Future of Evangelicalism (Wednesday, May 29)

Our theologian, Everett Berry, returns to continue the conversation about the path of the evangelical movement, reminding us of the importance of harmony among believers.

A Hope and Legacy: Part 2 (Thursday, May 30)

Dr. David Henderson is joined by Sandy Glahn, author and Adjunct Professor of Christian Education and Pastoral Ministries at DTS, to talk more about the faithfulness of God to lead his people through difficulties and some ways we can minister to others during those hard times. To find out more about Sandy’s story and ministry visit her website: www.aspire2.com

Free speech isn’t free.  I am never more conscious of this fact than when I hear these ominous words: “We need to talk!?” I know that if I am not very careful in how I use my freedom of speech, I will definitely pay for it. In our relationship with the government (or any authority over us) there are very often rewards (appropriations) and punishments (taxations) based upon the perceived appropriateness of our speech by those in authority.  In short, the State can punish the “less worthy” by taking money away from them through taxation and reward the “more worthy” by directing this money (appropriations) to them. As our country and our culture becomes more and more amoral, we will see more and more decisions of who is worthy, and who is not, based upon who will (the worthy) and will not (the unworthy) vote for the particular persons in power. Political opponents of those in power will be targeted for punishment and supporters rewarded. Politicians will be in continuous campaign and will use their power to maintain their power.  In the process, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will become the Internal “Retribution” Service. [1]  [2]  [3]  [4]  [5]

The Church has been preserved from such power-brokering by its tax-exempt status. Recently, however, as the power-brokers are pushing the edge of the proverbial tax envelope, some are using their free speech to attempt to take away the free speech of others by saying such things as:

“If churches do not pay taxes they should keep their collective noses out of the business of the State!”

“If the Church does not allow ______ they should have their tax-exempt status revoked!”

It is a clever way of using the tax-exempt status of the Church to both keep the Church out of the State’s business and insinuate the State into the Church’s business.  I would like to say this about that… Pre-Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary pastors used their pulpits and the newspapers and free speech to speak freely on the moral and political conditions in America. They believed it was their sacred duty to preach against immorality and corruption wherever it was found, whether in the State or in the Church. As such, the Church has been active in the State’s business throughout history; from Abolition, to Women’s Suffrage, to Prohibition, to Civil Rights. The recent state of affairs, where the State is insinuating itself into the affairs of the Church, began in 1954 when Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) added an amendments to legislation making its way through Congress. This amendment, “the 1954 Johnson Amendment,” was designed to stop two specific not-for-profit organizations in Texas from campaigning against Johnson in his re-election to the Senate. The amendment forbade the involvement of any not-for-profit organization in political campaigns.  The amendment process took only a few minutes. There was no discussion. After a quick (and cowardly) voice vote, the Johnson Amendment was passed into law. To silence the opponents of a particular politician, to win a particular re-election, at a particular time in history, every church in America was forbidden by federal law from campaigning for specific candidates and lobbying for specific legislation. [6]  The State now claims the authority to determine when the Church’s speech becomes too “political.”  The State can now interfere with religious instruction, violating both freedom of speech and religion.

In the generation following the passage of the Johnson Amendment, both the courts and the culture have accepted that without taxation you are not allowed to campaign for representation or lobby for legislation. More than that, the progressives have progressively pressed this miscreation to the point that the public is convinced that the State, not only forbids the Church to lobby and campaign, but church leaders (and even Christians in general) cannot engage in any kind of political speech. This misperception has become so common that there are many Americans that believe that Christians cannot exercise free speech because the Church has not paid for it with taxes.

To say that the Church cannot speak because it has not paid is curious… from Constantine to English Common Law, the Church has been exempted from paying taxes because of the recognition that the church has paid so much already to the community in both money and labor. The far reaching charitable work of Churches across this country has continuously invested in the material, moral, mental, economic and spiritual improvement of their communities and beyond.  This fact has been recognized in every branch of government, in the media, and in the culture in general throughout the history of our country. And it has been recognized (until recently) that if the Church did not make these investments, the State would be responsible to pay for them.

Anti-Federalists and constitutionalists have also recognized that allowing tax exemption and donor tax deductions for subsiding works of charity has an important decentralizing effect. This decentralization of the provision and distribution of pubic goods keeps power from being concentrated and thus abused. Also it has been recognized that the church and other charitable organizations, as community based entities, are much more efficient at distributing such goods. And lastly, tax-exemptions and charitable deductions support minority rights in that anyone could give to any program without majority approval and redistribution. In other words, it assures that there is a portion of the distribution of public goods that is not sent to Washington and thus is not dominated by the will of the majority.  Local distribution was considered a good thing because it worked in opposition to a government that wishes to control the majority will through public distribution of goods. (These are such obvious and important considerations that any leader who attempts to remove these tax exemptions and tax breaks for charitable donations should be examined to see if she or he has engaged in other activities to centralize power and abuse constitutional provisions related to division of power and sharing of powers.)

Lastly, even the courts have recognized that ending the tax-exemption extended to the Church would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which bars government interference in religious affairs. At least one method of such manipulation has become apparent as of late, and will become even more apparent in the days ahead:  If the State will use the threat of taxation to manipulate the Church, then it would certainly use taxation rates and regulations themselves to manipulate the church. [7] [8] [9] [10] Even now, the IRS has begun monitoring the content of prayers. [11]

We should remember, especially on Memorial Day, those who have already paid for our free speech with their lives.  We should also remember on Memorial Day, what John Philpot Curran said when our country was young:

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.[12]

The recent outbreak of such obvious and shameless “power-brokering” that turns our constitution on its head and begins to take away our liberty may be a sign of the “fundamental transformation” we have been promised. However, because such opportunism has appeared perennially in the recent past, I personally believe that the true fundamental transformation has not occurred, as-of-yet. The transformation will occur—not when these things happen—but when we finally no longer care that they are happening.

Here’s a summary of this week’s For Christ and Culture radio broadcasts. I encourage you to take a listen!

Suburbia’s Trappings (Friday, May 17)

Barry talks with Winston Hottman about the good, the bad, and the ugly of suburban living.

Lifting Moloch to Heaven (Monday, May 20)

Professor Kirk Spencer drops by to discuss a recent post he has on the Criswell blog about current affairs in the pro-choice movement.

Christianity and Capitalism: Part 7 (Tuesday, May 21)

Dr. Wooddell finishes up his series on economics from a Christian worldview and answers the question: If we keep using the earth’s resources for a growing population, won’t they run out?

Public and Private Lives (Wednesday, May 22)

Winston Hottman talks with Bill Watson about the public and private lives of politicians and how society’s current focus on social media should affect the lives of believers.

A Hope and Legacy: Part 1 (Thursday, May 23)

Dr. David Henderson is joined by Sandy Glahn, author and Adjunct Professor of Christian Education and Pastoral Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary, about the struggles and breakthroughs women encounter in the midst of infertility. To find out more about Sandy’s story and ministry visit her website: www.aspire2.com.