"To hear the voice of God in Holy Scripture oneself, and to help others to hear it, is a worthy cause to which to devote one's resources; to be commissioned to devote them to this cause is a sacred trust, not to be undertaken lightly, not to to be refused irresponsibly, but to be fulfilled thankfully."
– F.F. Bruce, In Retrospect, (Baker, Posthumous Edition) p. 312
"Read the Word! What a privilege! And what an obligation! And what a potential for seeing God! … God willed that the greatest mysteries of life be revealed through reading."
– John Piper, A Godward Life, Book Two (Multnomah Publishers, Inc. 1999) p. 182
“O Father, grant your church to love your glory more than gold – to cease her love affair with comfort and security. Grant that we seek the kingdom first and let other things come as you will. Grant that we move toward need and not toward ease. Grant that the firm finality of our security in Christ free us to risk our homes and health and money on the earth. Help us to see that if we try to guard our wealth, instead of using it to show it’s not our god, then we will waste our lives, however we succeed.”
- John Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life (Lighthouse Books, 2005) p. 188
Over at First Things I found this great C.S. Lewis quote:
To sacrifice the greater good for the less and then not to get the lesser good after all–that is the surprising folly. . . Every preference of a small good to a great, or a partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made. Apparently the world is made that way. If Esau really got his pottage in return for his birthright, then Esau was a lucky exception. You can’t get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first.”
First things first! Do that and you get everything else; don’t, and you lose everything. But C.S. Lewis was merely echoing the Master’s teaching: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matt. 6:33)
I'm a big fan of C.S. Lewis. The first book I ever read of his was The Screwtape Letters. I was then too young to really understand what it was all about. Later I began collecting all the C.S. Lewis books I could find, including biographies. Recently, I read his sermon "Learning in Wartime" in The Essential C.S. Lewis, which includes the famous quote,
"Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."
Christianity Today has an article entitled "What C.S. Lewis Sounded Like", which includes links to recordings of some C.S. Lewis' talks. Click here if you're interested.
PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation.
Previously, I wrote, “On my part I don’t read the constitution as requiring the president to proclaim martial law in cases of rebellion and invasion before she can call out the armed forces. The way I see it it’s optional on the part of the President to proclaim martial law in cases of rebellion and invasion. The Constitution simply says that if she thinks it necessary she can call out the armed forces in cases of lawless violence, rebellion and invasion, with or without proclaiming martial law. That’s her choice and she has a constitutional right to it.” That’s not exactly how the Supreme Court ruled but at least it did say that PP 1017 is not a declaration of martial law:
Some of the petitioners vehemently maintain that PP 1017 is actually a declaration of Martial Law. It is no so. What defines the character of PP 1017 are its wordings. It is plain therein that what the President invoked was her calling-out power … Based on the above disquisition, it is clear that PP 1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of President Arroyo’s calling-out power for the armed forces to assist her in preventing or suppressing lawless violence.
In a TV interview I opined that if there is anything unconstitutional in PP 1017 it will have to be that part that talks about enforcing “obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me [i.e., the President] personally or upon my direction…” I thought this was too vague and could lead to abuse. It turns out my suspicions were more or less right on target. The Supreme Court ruled that -
… the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate “decrees”. Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. Section 1, Article VI categorically states that “[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify President Arroyo’s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees.
Of course, PP 1017 is open to abuse by those who invoke its authority. But the fault then lies with those who seek to implement it in a way not countenanced by the words of the proclamation itself. The Supreme Court held –
Settled is the rule that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes invalid although they may be abused and misabused[135] and may afford an opportunity for abuse in the manner of application.[136] The validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiency to accomplish the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case.[137] PP 1017 is merely an invocation of the President’s calling-out power. Its general purpose is to command the AFP to suppress all forms of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. It had accomplished the end desired which prompted President Arroyo to issue PP 1021. But there is nothing in PP 1017 allowing the police, expressly or impliedly, to conduct illegal arrest, search or violate the citizens’ constitutional rights.
I am glad that this one is more or less behind us (although the country will be debating this for weeks until the next issue comes along, and although the decision is technically not yet final). I think the Supreme Court did a fine job balancing the interests of liberty (“without which, law becomes tyranny”) and the interests of law (“without which, liberty becomes license”). I was pleasantly surprised by the discussion in the decision of several political theorists on the power of the President in times of emergency: John Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill. For that alone it deserves to be printed out even if it means more than 70 pages of bond paper! Although a number of people won’t be happy with this decision, I for one found it very educational. Next week I’ll be lecturing on the powers of the president in my constitutional law class and of course PP 1017 will be the highlight. I’m looking forward to a lively discussion.
I just learned about a great apologetics website which contains audio and articles by heavyweight theologians and philosophers such as Don Carson, JP Moreland, etc. The site’s named bethinking.org. Check it out here.
" [W]hatever be the departure of a backsliding child of God, it is recoverable: not a step has he lost but may be retraced; not a grace has decayed but may be restored; not a joy has fled but may be won back …. [F]or every poor, self-condemned, heart-broken, returning soul, there is a lingering affection in the heart of the Father, a welcome in the blood of Jesus, and a restorative power in the operation of the Spirit, and therefore every encouragement to arise and to come to God."
- Octavius Winslow, Personal Declension and Revival of Religion in the Soul (The Banner of Truth Trust, reprinted 2000) p. 27
Sorry, sorry for no posts for a number of days. As I mentioned in a previous post I'm busy teaching constitutional law this summer and practicing law at the same time. I'm also busy preparing for the church history class that I'll be teaching when seminary opens in June. I'm halfway through Renwick and Harman's The Story of the Church which I hope to finish today, and next I'll be reading Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language. I finished David Well's Above All Earthly Pow'rs a couple of days ago. I hope to do some posts on his book sometime soon, but for now the following quote will have to do:
"The postmodern world, however, is neither ours to join nor ours to overcome. Despite its glitter and brilliance it conceals its own fallenness and unbelief and so we must not join it. And we cannot overcome it by marketing, or any other kind of technique because these techniques do not scratch the surface of its real issues, which are those of sin. Indeed, it is entirely unnecessary to even think about overcoming the postmodern world because it has already been overcome in its sin. It is only ours to see the victory of Christ on the Cross being realized afresh in the actual circumstances of our time."
– pp. 316-17
