National Lutheran Schools Week

   For schools that are part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, this week is National Lutheran Schools Week.  Having served in Lutheran schools for 38 years, I feel very strongly about the great benefits which come from schools which teach about Jesus and promote very high standards of education and morality. 
   I also know that there are tremendous challenges in keeping these schools funded and full of students.  Recent years have been very tough on Lutheran schools, and I suspect this trend to continue.  Here are some of the challenges as I see them.

• Most Lutheran schools operate with most of their income coming from tuition.  With the economy the way it is, schools find it necessary to raise tuition to cover the increased costs of operation.  If you ask administrators, they will tell you one of the biggest factors driving increased costs is the continuous rise in the cost of providing health care for its workers.  At the same time, parents are finding it more difficult to have the income necessary to afford sending their children to Lutheran schools.  Many parents would love to have their children receive the quality Christian education that is being offered in Lutheran schools, but the money is just not there  With regard to the economy, I put a lot of the blame for its poor condition squarely on the backs of politicians.  It angers me that the irresponsible actions in Washington, DC are having such a harmful impact on our Lutheran schools.  Parents reluctantly put their children into the government schools where they are not able to learn their Bible and instead are learning tenets which are part of the philosophy of secular humanism.
• While many forces working against our schools are external, I believe one of the biggest problems facing these schools is an internal one.  Members of churches and in some cases the pastors as well have started looking at their schools as being a drain on the finances to the congregations.  In other words, the support from our congregations for our schools is not at the level it once was.  I happen to be where a Lutheran school is supported by three congregations in which no tuition is charged to the parents.  Almost all of the students attending our school are members of these congregations.  It is a rare case nowadays to have a Lutheran school that charges no tuition.  Even here, however, you hear some grumbling about how the school is costing too much money.  I have served at other congregations where the support has been much  less.  The attitude in many situations is that it is acceptable to have a school as long as it pays for itself.  The result of having a tuition-only approach to a school is that many of the children of members of a congregation do not attend the school.  These schools also morph into schools which learn to depend on non-member students to attend the school, paying the higher non-member tuition rates that are part of most school's policies.  Then a few other dominoes fall.  Members of a congregation become even less supportive of the school because they lose their sense of "ownership" of the school.  Also, there are forces at play in the administration of the school which tend to make the school less "Lutheran".  In addition, when a school is run by tuition, parents who have put their own children through school by sacrificing much financially feel that they have done their "fair share" in supporting the school while their children attend.  Once their children are out of school, their support is no longer there.  

   Lutheran schools are such an important part of the spiritual life of a congregation.  The Lutheran school helps ensure that the next generation of members have a solid foundation in their Christian beliefs.  The passing on of the Lutheran doctrine to our children is vital to the life of a congregation.  Add to that the fact that our children would be subjected to teachings in the government schools which do not coincide with our Biblical beliefs.  The children would also not learn in an environment where Law and Gospel are taught and implemented.  Lutheran churches are going to need future leaders who are well-versed in their Lutheran doctrine.
  My wife and I plan to continue my support for Lutheran schools for the rest of our lives, and if there are any funds left, we plan to make it possible for our support to continue even after we die.  I urge you to do the same.  Do what you can to make sure those schools are operated in a fiscally responsible way.  Make sure the Lutheran doctrine continues to be taught there.  If you are parents, send your children there.  If you are grandparents, do what you can to make sure your grandchildren attend.  Give encouragement to the teachers in your Lutheran school.  Lutheran schools are important enough that it justifies us making sacrifices to keep them functioning.  Pray for our schools.  Pray for the staff of the schools.  Pray for the students and their parents.
   Join me in celebrating National Lutheran Schools Week.



 

Nice Disadvantage

   A disadvantage that is inherent in the GOP is that they are just too nice.  They are proponents of legislation which promotes responsibility.  In the pursuit of doing the right thing and promoting high standards of behavior, this often keeps the GOP from being mean and hard-nosed.  And I would support this attitude as being the correct one.  The GOP should take the higher ground, being ethical and civil in their behavior and discourse.
   One of their opponents, the media, which are primarily made up of people who support the Democrats, often takes advantage of this mindset of the conservatives.  I guess they know that the GOP will take the meek approach when they unfairly paint the conservatives as being the mean, hateful ones.  Just look at the image that has been projected onto the Tea Party.  I have been to a Tea Party Rally.  It was one of the most patriotic, civilized events I have ever attended.  They went to extremes to make sure the event was respectful, civil, and clean.  I trust that other Tea Party events have been conducted in similar manners.  Yet the media has portrayed the Tea Party as being evil, racist, hateful, obstructionists, and the list goes on.  On the other hand, look at the image that has been created by the media about the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  They are the ones being accorded such adjectives as patriotic, civil, and respectful, even though these protests have resulted in many forms of disobedience, unlawful and immoral behavior, and filth. 
   Although the folks on the right have spoken publicly about how unfair this portrayal is, they have done it with class, not resorting to retribution.  For the most part, they keep doing the right thing.  Of course, the right SHOULD be passionate about their beliefs and willing to promote their philosophy with enthusiasm.  However, they must do so with complete understanding that true journalism is practically dead in America.  The right can also take comfort in the knowledge that their beliefs are ones that are in a majority in America.  If this were not true, we would not have ALL of the candidates fighting over who is the most conservative.
   Rush Limbaugh is enduring the wrath of the liberal media right now.  The reason he is being attacked so vehemently is that the GOP is supposed to be the moral party, and his choice of words was considered immoral.  He could have used different words.  However the liberal media is always listening and watching, waiting to pounce on any perceived mistake made by a conservative.  The same kind of actions on the part of a liberal is overlooked.  The exact same word Rush used was also used by a liberal TV personality referring to a female conservative talk show host prior to Rush's recent words.  Nothing was said.  She received no call from the President either.  The double standard is incredibly obvious.
   I guess if you used a Biblical parallel, you could say that this double standard is a cross the conservatives must bear.  My friends and acquaintances are mostly conservative, and I can vouch for the fact that they are fine, decent people, as are the few liberal people that I know.  For the most part, I think conservatives bear that cross rather well.
   The upcoming Presidential election will be vicious.  Whoever the Republican candidate is will be portrayed unfairly.  The conservatives must continue to speak the truth without lowering themselves to use the tactics of the left.

Government as Charity

   Lately, President Obama has been talking about how important it is that we ought to care about our brothers and sisters in need.  I agree with the President on this one.  However, I disagree with him on how that care ought to be put into action.  Liberals in this country, as well as the President, think that the Federal government is the agency which should be providing the care for the needy.  In other words, they consider the government to be a giant charitable organization.  The big difference is that contributions to this charity are mandatory.  I, on the other hand, see churches as being the primary agency to be involved in the care of the needy.
   One thing is obvious to me.  The US Constitution does not describe the government as a charitable agency.  I do not see any place in the Constitution where it describes how it should be taking care of people, other than to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Historically, the time when the government became a charity seems to have taken place during the administration of FDR when the government became involved in such things as the New Deal and Social Security.  Once that precedent had been set, it opened the door to many other government programs that had goals of helping the needy.  The latest example of this is Obamacare.  While it may sound wonderful to say that we have such a caring government, these kinds of programs also carry with them the loss of our freedoms.  The government is taking more and more control of our lives.  They also encourage irresponsibility. Another aspect of this dilemma is that government has been shown to be a lousy manager of these charitable programs.
   I am aware of several studies which have been done over the years which show that there is quite a bit of difference between the giving habits of liberals and conservatives.  All of the studies show that conservatives are more charitable in their giving than liberals.  I think there is a basic reason for this.  Liberals want the government to be a charity and therefore consider their taxes to be their charitable contributions.  Conservatives have the opposite opinion.  They believe the government should be limited to the powers given to it in the Constitution and do not view their taxes as charitable contributions.  They consider their charitable giving to be to other agencies which are caring for the needs of others.
   Another insidious aspect of this is the fact that liberal party, the Democratic Party, consists of a larger percentage of the people who are recipients of the government's charitable help.  In other words, their party likes the idea of the government being a charity, while the conservatives, the Republican Party, who do not consider the government to be a charity, become the ones who provide the funds to support this giant charity.
   The huge problem is how to get us out of this mess without tearing our country apart.  But we must.  Otherwise, this country will no longer continue as the great country it has been.  I do know this. The current efforts to drive a wedge between the rich and the poor is not going to heal our nation.  Also, if we do manage to get the government out of the charity business, religious organizations are going to have to step up boldly to provide for the needs of the poor.

Deflection

Five well-respected leaders of mainstream religions reluctantly testified before a Congressional hearing because the HHS mandate is violating their beliefs and their freedom of religion.
One unknown women's rights activist coed testifies before another committee saying she needs to have her contraceptives provided to her because she cannot afford them. She wants them free so she can continue having sex. As far as I know, she is not married.
Which of these people gets the most attention? Which one gets a call from the President? Which one is portrayed by the liberal media as the biggest victim? Which one gets the most respect from the President and the liberal media? The answer is obvious.
It is all an attempt to deflect the attention from the issue being one of religious freedom to one of what somehow gets described as women's healthcare, which wasn't threatened in the first place. It's also part of the strategy being used by the Obama re-election campaign.

Mandater-in-Chief

I really do not think we have ever had a President who has been involved in MANDATING so many things. Just remember...the more the mandates, the fewer the freedoms.

Picking Winners and Losers

   The Federal government has been granting subsidies to "green" energy companies, many  of which have turned into absolute failures.  At the same time, this administration has been pushing for taking away tax breaks from the oil companies.  They also always refer to these tax breaks as subsidies.  I happen to think these two terms are not the same.  With a subsidy, money is given to a company.  With a tax break, money is NOT taken from a company.  The bottom line may be the same, but the terms are different. 
   At a time when gasoline prices are outrageously high and appear to be heading higher, it makes no sense to me that the solution is to punish the oil companies. The President simply does not want the oil industry to succeed.  The threat to take away tax breaks is just one example to illustrate this.  There are so many others as well.
   What it boils down to is that  President Obama feels he can be the one who determines who is going to succeed in this country and who is going to fail.  I feel that if we are going to be in the business of subsidies or tax breaks, they ought to be made the same for all.  This administration is always talking about being fair, but in some of its policies, it is attempting to do the opposite of being fair.  The President's record at picking winners is also abysmal.  Just look at how many "green" energy companies that received subsidies that are now going bankrupt.  You could even make an argument that President Obama is attempting to make winners out of his cronies.  "Crony Socialism" seems to be an accurate description of what is going on.
   I would rather see our government stay out of trying to impact businesses altogether.  Let the free market work. American would be better off for it.
   Another BIG question would be this:  Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should be determining winners and losers in the business world?
  Oh, by the way, this is also part of President Obama's re-election campaign.  His base is made up of people who like to think of themselves as victims who look to the government to take care of them.  This requires the manufacturing of as many villains as possible.  I certainly hope there are enough Americans who are wise enough to recognize this as something which is not good for America.  America has never been about victim-hood, it's been about freedom and opportunities to succeed with hard work.

Random Questions

• When did pregnancy become a disease?  If indeed contraceptives and abortifacients are considered a "women's health" issue, then it logically follows that what is prevented or cured by these drugs must be some sort of disease.  That would be pregnancy.
• Why does the Congress need to pass a bill which basically says that the Executive Branch cannot do something which is against the Constitution?  In other words, why does the Congress have to pass a bill which says that the freedom of religion is still applicable?
• Is the HHS mandate a part of the Obama Campaign's re-election effort?  Was this issue brought up just to deflect political discourse which was focused on the President's record to a discussion of social issues that the campaign thought would paint the GOP as religious extremists? And was the media part of the plot?
• Are gas prices increasing now a calculated effort to make them high now so that they can be manipulated later this year at a time when it may get more votes for Democrats in the election?