I am very happy that Bush won. This I am sure comes as a surprise to nobody familiar with me or my blog.

I am also especially happy that he has won with a majority, which will hopefully silence some of the “Selected, not Elected” talk. I say this because I am hopeful that this country will be somewhat more united now than it has been for the last few years.

I do not say any of this because I think Bush is a perfect candidate. I’m not sure that anyone does think that. But our democratic institutions are more important than any one man. I said before the election, and I’ll say it again- it would have been better for Kerry to win, than for Bush to win but our electoral system to be trashed in the process.

Also more important than any one candidate or any one party- the Christian’s love for his neighbor. I’m sure most of the people reading this are Bush supporters. Do me a favor- don’t gloat. Don’t rub it in your Democrat friends’ faces. Maybe we can rebuild a little bit of civility in this country. The folks over at Democratic Underground are talking about secession and leaving the country. I’m sure they’re a small minority. But a snotty winning side will push more moderate Democrats into that camp. So, let’s be nice.

Proverbs 24:17-18:

Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; Lest the LORD see it, and it displease Him, And He turn away His wrath from him.

I think it would be a little bit of a stretch to call the Republicans the “Party of God” right now. Let’s not act like it is.

My wife and I were in and out of the polling station in 10 minutes. No long lines for us!

Jollyblogger has posted the first ever, Carnival of the Reformation. He’s linked to one of my articles with some very kind words, too. Thanks, Jollyblogger! Go check it out. There are a lot of great posts linked, as we’d expect from a “carnival”.

Dead Men’s Voices comments on the reasons people trade away their liberty:

I have often wondered why the modern man is so quick to sacrifice his liberties to various luxuries, pleasures, fears, and mindless causes. I have wondered how a nation founded upon the principles of liberty and self-government through the pain and blood of its fathers could devolve to a welfare state and adopt as its guiding principle the most messianic, blatant statism. The courage of our fathers produced a powerful and resolute feeling of self-reliance firmly entrenched in the context of family, religion, and a decent society. Men who knew first hand the hypocrisy, uselessness, oppression, and pain of tyrannical rule were quite well aware that the messianic claims of the state were empty, daggers for the soul and chains for the mind. At what point did we begin to believe that the state should educate our children, care for our aging parents, direct our charitable efforts, make the lame walk, and, in short, cure our every ill and woe?

Read the rest for his answer.

Job 1:20

Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped.

21 And he said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; Blessed be the name of the LORD.”

22 In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong.

It is common for those suffering grief to become angry over their loss. That anger is ultimately directed at God because of our awareness of His rule over all things. Job himself became angry with God over the loss of his property, family and health but it is Job’s wife which expresses this sentiment fully- “Curse God and die.”

Job’s friends deal with Job’s anger by trying to blame Job for what happened. Their argument is that God’s actions could only be just if Job was a sinner.

NKJ Job 11:1 Then Zophar the Naamathite answered and said:

2 “Should not the multitude of words be answered? And should a man full of talk be vindicated?

3 Should your empty talk make men hold their peace? And when you mock, should no one rebuke you?

4 For you have said, ‘My doctrine is pure, And I am clean in your eyes.’

5 But oh, that God would speak, And open His lips against you,

6 That He would show you the secrets of wisdom! For they would double your prudence. Know therefore that God exacts from you Less than your iniquity deserves.

God rebukes Job’s friends for their words. It is not only insensitive, but false and wrong for us to declare that all suffering is the direct result of someone’s sin, though of course all suffering is the result of the curse. Job’s suffering was not the result of his sin, and Job’s friends had no way of knowing one way or another.

But this is what is known as a “theodicy”, an attempt to justify God. The friends believe that the only way to protect God from a charge of evil in Job’s life is to make Job’s own actions the cause of Job’s sufferings. The disciples take a similar approach when asking Jesus in John 9 whether the man was born blind because of his sins, or because of his parent’s sins.

There is another way open to justifying God against such a charge, however. And that is to say that God simply isn’t responsible for what happened. Some other force caused the suffering. But the problem with that approach, all too common in the Christian church today, is that it undermines God’s sovereignty. It is definitely not Job’s approach to the problem, for he says, “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.” He acknowledges that God was responsible for what happened, and yet never “charges God with evil.”

How could God be in control of what happened to Job, and yet not responsible for evil? Only if God, in doing it, was perfectly just. This is, in fact, the answer that the young man Elihu begins to elucidate in chapter 32. In Ch. 34 he says:

10 ” Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding: Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty to commit iniquity.

11 For He repays man according to his work, And makes man to find a reward according to his way.

12 Surely God will never do wickedly, Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.

13 Who gave Him charge over the earth? Or who appointed Him over the whole world?

14 If He should set His heart on it, If He should gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath,

15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

16 “If you have understanding, hear this; listen to the sound of my words:

17 Should one who hates justice govern? Will you condemn Him who is most just?

Elihu’s argument here is that it is impossible for God to commit injustice, since He is the judge. That is, it is God who determines what is right and wrong. There is no superior standard to Him. There is no one who set God up as the judge of the universe, or who appointed him King. He is king and judge by His own right and authority. How can we talk about God doing injustice to us, when we only exist by His decree? At His desire we would all cease to exist, and He would have taken nothing from us that He did not give in the first place.

Therefore, it is not necessary to insist that Job’s sins are the cause for Job’s suffering. But it is also not acceptable for Job to question God’s reasons for doing what He did. Job should have justified God instead of himself, and not because Job knew the reasons for what God did, but because Job knew the character of God, who is always perfectly holy.

But it is God Himself who provides the final answer for the controversy:

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

2 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge?

3 Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.

4 ” Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?

6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone,

7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

God here questions Job’s right to ask the question in the first place, as well as the sufficiency of Job’s knowledge or power to understand the answer. Job is not the equal of God, and Job lacks the necessary perspective to judge God’s behavior. God created all things for His own glory, and we can do nothing more than tremble in awe and worship.

Job 40:7 “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me:

8 “Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?

This is the answer of Scripture everywhere. God is the definition of righteousness, and what He does is right because of who He is. He asks Job if Job would attempt to annul God’s decision, as if Job believed that he were a superior authority to God. Job is properly humbled:

Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:

2 “I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.

3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

4 Listen, please, and let me speak; You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’

5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You.

6 Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.”

He has learned that he simply lacks the capacity to even ask the question in the first place, and has repented. He has learned wisdom.

But note something very important: God never told Job why the suffering came on him. God never told him about the contest between Him and Satan in front of the angels. And God never told Job that He intended to restore his family and possessions to him. God defends Himself only in one way: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Job repents and realizes his great foolishness, even though he is no closer to understanding why God did what He did. The one thing he learned was that whatever God did, it must be righteous, not because it conforms to Job’s ideas of righteousness, but because God is Himself the standard of righteousness.

Jesus answers the disciples in John 9 in a similar way. He says that the man was born blind not because of anyone’s sins, but purely so that God could be glorified when Jesus healed the man. God had done the man no injustice by taking his sight, since it is God who gives every man his sight in the first place. All things come from God’s hand, and if He takes them from us, they were His to begin with.

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Check out the Belmont Club today, in case any of you aren’t reading it already. He’s got the Iraqi strategy down cold. The only way Saddam could beat us:

The major modern innovation of the Arab Way of War has been its radical new conception of defense in depth. The concept made its debut in Algeria; it was subsequently refined in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Checnya and the West Bank. Unlike Ushijima’s Shuri Line with its tunnels in rock, the Arab redoubt was founded on establishing an underground of terror in the civilian populace. From the anonymity of crowds, they could emerge to attack the enemy from the rear as the Imperial Japanese Army once had done from tunnels. Faced with superior United States forces, this 21st century War Plan Orange was the natural choice of the Arab strategists. By denying the United States proof of its WMDs and grinding them down through occupation warfare — the one mode of combat at which they excelled, they had a reasonable hope of holding America until a politician willing to treat with them was elected into office. There was no need for despair because, as James Lileks put it, “hope is on the way” — a reference to the eventual actions of the antiwar Left. In Iraq the ultimate blitzkrieg force met the ultimate protracted war army and the protracted war army awaited events confidently.

The only way we can lose is if the antiwar left talks us into committing suicide.

Check out Instapundit here, quoting the excellent kausfiles (who doesn’t seem to have permalinks or I’d link him directly), quoting the somewhat less-than-excellent John F Kerry from October 2001:

I have no doubt, I’ve never had any doubt — and I’ve said this publicly — about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?

Blowing with the wind, as always.

Take a look at Dead Men’s Voices. Andy is an old buddy from seminary, and he just started the blog, but it sure looks promising so far, which is no surprise to me, knowing Andy.

You know that show that Sinclair Broadcasting is airing that slams Kerry?

If that is an “in-kind contribution”, how is Springsteen’s Vote For Change tour not an in-kind contribution?

Don’t get me wrong. I think they all ought to be legal. But this is just exactly the kind of gamemanship that people predicted when Campaign Finance was passed. I hope McCain has woken up- his bill is just being used as a way of shutting some people up (conservatives) while liberals still get to shout as loud as they want.

Along with my statement earlier on this subject, read this, by The Dawn Treader:

Most of my frustration with the stem-cell discussion in this country is the indifference and apathy toward stem cell therapy that is already at work delivering cures today.

That is right. I am not talking about research. I am talking about cures. From stem cells. Today. Already.

Why do we not hear about these cures?

Answer: human embryos were not destroyed to produce the cures. Adult stem cells were used. Inexplicably, this invalidates hope in the minds of some.

Instead, they would rather hurl invectives at Laura Bush and her husband for stealing their hope.

Ultimately, this is not about medical treatments for disease. This is about whether any moral or ethical restraint on “science” will be allowed.