Vision and guidelines for a prayer team ministry

1) The leadership of the church would come to rely on the prayer team for insight and revelation

2) Prayer would be a prominent part of the church in every part of its ministries

3) Training and teaching regarding prayer would happen from the pulpit and in small groups

4) The prayer team would participate in all prayer events, meetings, and worship times as central players

5) The prayer team would take the initiative in helping guide the church, via prayer, into realms of the Spirit

6) The prayer team would “guard the gate,” discerning spiritual matters and engaging in spiritual warfare

7) The prayer team would be in constant intercession for the issues the leadership brings to it

Pause Remember Ask Yield

Pause: Take a moment before praying or speaking.

Is it something God wants you to do or are you simply responding automatically to something you've discerned?

Make sure it's the right time or place.

Sometimes we think we hear from God & want it to be from God so badly that we won't allow any other words/thoughts to sway our thinking.

Just remember that Satan speaks as well.

Genesis 3:4

Remember: Our foremost objective is to worship God & to offer Him thanksgiving & praise.

Address our prayers to God.

Whatever you focus upon, you steer toward.

If it doesn't feel good, it's not from God.

I Corinthians 13:2 & 14:26

Ask: Ask the person if it's okay to pray for him/her.

Ask the Lord for confirmation.

Ask another person of prayer for confirmation. Just be careful who you ask as he/she may like you too much or not be strong enough to disagree with you.

Ask another person or people to pray with you. Don't be a lone ranger when it comes to serious issues. There is strength in numbers. Fix our eyes on Jesus & talk to Him.

Proverbs 2:6 James 1:5

Yield: We must submit ourselves to God & those in authority over us.

Instead of asking where does my church fit into my gift, ask where do I (& my gift) fit into the church.

How we listen to others indicates how we listen to God.

I Corinthians 8: 1-3

Avoid using phrases like "God told me" or "I believe the Lord is saying" etc. as it puts the emphasis on you instead of God.

God values your character more than He values your gift.

James 3:16-18 2 Chronicles 7:14

Prince Charles: reform capitalism to save the planet - By Emily Gosden

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold. Article found here.

-------------------------------------

Here we have a man who has never worked a day in his life, who has lived in the lap of luxury since birth, and who is worth a reported $60 million. This man is going to instruct us all on the merits of capitalism? Really?

Your Highness, have you ever been grocery shopping, drove a car, or bought a stereo? Ever pay a mortgage or file your taxes? Have you ever met a payroll or started a business? Have you ever sat down and did a budget? No?

So it should come as no surprise that a man who has never experienced capitalism and probably doesn't even know how it works is giving us nonsensical financial pronouncements. 

And he wants business to save the planet. Your Highness, how much have you personally contributed of your great wealth to reduce greenhouse gases? Do you really need four homes? As you jet all over the world, rubbing elbows with kings and sultans, has it ever once occurred to you to reduce your carbon footprint even a teensy amount?

 ------------------------------

Prince Charles has called for an end to capitalism as we know it in order to save the planet from global warming.

In a speech to business leaders in London, the Prince said that a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” was necessary in order to halt “dangerously accelerating climate change” that would “bring us to our own destruction”.

He called for companies to focus on “approaches that achieve lasting and meaningful returns” by protecting the environment, improving their employment practices and helping the vulnerable to develop a new "inclusive capitalism".

The Prince was taking part in his first major UK public engagement since sparking a diplomatic row last week by likening the behaviour of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to Adolf Hitler.

In a politically-charged speech at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, the Prince said: “I remember when the Iron Curtain came down there was a certain amount of shouting about the triumph of capitalism over communism. Being somewhat contrary, I didn't think it was quite as simple as that. I felt that unless the business world considered the social, community and environmental dimensions, we might end up coming full circle.”

The Prince, who has long been outspoken about the need to tackle climate change, said the world now stood at “a pivotal moment in history” ahead of major UN summit in Paris next year on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

“Over the next eighteen months, and bearing in mind the urgency of the situation confronting us, the world faces what is probably the last effective window of opportunity to vacate the insidious lure of the ‘last chance saloon’ in order to agree an ambitious, equitable and far-sighted multilateral settlement in the context of the post-2015 sustainable development goals and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,” he said.

“Either we continue along the path we seem collectively determined to follow, apparently at the mercy of those who so vociferously and aggressively deny that our current operating model has any effect upon dangerously accelerating climate change - which I fear will bring us to our own destruction - or we can choose to act now before it is finally too late, using all of the power and influence that each of you can bring to bear to create an inclusive, sustainable and resilient society,” he said.

The Prince was addressing an audience of 200 business leaders including Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and chief executives of multinational companies such as UBS, GlaxoSmithKline and Unilever.

He called on businesses to focus on the long-term and make “an authentic moral commitment to acting as true custodians of the Earth and architects of the well-being of current and future generations”.

“It is only by adopting a broader sense of value that our finances will be sustained and we can find new sources of profit,” he said.

His comments appear to align with those of Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, who has called for “responsible capitalism”.

The Prince suggested that companies must do more to put “young people properly at the heart of companies' employment practices and planning strategies, in order to tackle more effectively the world's growing youth unemployment crisis”.

Businesses must also “account properly for carbon dioxide emissions, the use of water and fertiliser, the pollution we produce and the biodiversity we lose”, he said.

The Prince said that businesses would be unpopular with their peers in the short term for going green but would reap “immense” rewards in the long term.

S.J.Res.19 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

Never missing an opportunity to expand the government's power, this Constitutional amendment is being offered by a veritable who's who of leftist politicians.

The first thing to note, the prelude to each section gives the purpose: "To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all." Apparently the congressmen have yet to read the Constitution they have sworn to uphold and defend: Article XIV, 1: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Constitution already addresses this.

Second, the whole idea is odd. The purpose of the Constitution is to define and limit the power of government. This amendment expands the power of government in a particular area, that being the advancing of "political equality." What precisely does that mean? What sort of power is required to advance "political equality?" It seems to me this opens the door to government scrutiny of the most minute details of our lives. It also provides the perfect vehicle for interest groups to push their agenda in the name of "equality."

Third, we note with some irony that this amendment grants Congress the "...power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections...," as if Congress is not already doing so. We can only conclude that Congress is presently violating the Constitution by having passed legislation that regulates campaign contributions. It must be if this amendment is required to empower Congress to do what it is already doing.

Fourth, the amendment identifies its problem (big money in campaigns) through a Leftist political lens and prescribes the solution (regulate the amount of money that can be given) without considering if other factors might be coming to bear. In fact, the amendment empowers government in a very specific way to act regarding something that might not even be the problem at all. 

Fifth, the Constitution is not the place where government's legislative prescriptions are codified. Legislative philosophy should be absent from the Constitution. In reality, the excesses of government ought to be dialed back by the Constitution. The government ought to be further restricted, not given even more power. We have overwhelming evidence regarding the failure of government as it exercises more and more power. 

But as is typical for the Left, they view government as the problem solver, the agent of good. Every day is a new day, and nothing has ever been done before to solve problems, therefore we need more programs, more spending, and more government intervention, as if government previously was not involved. 

But government is already heavily involved. There are many many laws regulating campaign contributions. Yet millions and billions are spent during the election season. And corruption reigns supreme. Can we conclude that government regulation of election spending has been a dismal failure?

The real solution is to roll back the power of government to its constitutional limits. The Constitution grants no power to solve social problems or redistribute wealth. There is no power granted to it to tell people what they can and cannot say, what they must buy, what they can or cannot do with their property or money if they are pursuing their private, legal interests.

If government was confined by the Constitution, its corruption would be less expensive and less impactful upon the People. If Congress did not have nearly unlimited power to spend money, then lobbyists and special interest groups would have nothing to influence, no congressman to buy, no way to steer money and favors their way. A Congress with limited power is a Congress with limited corruptibility. 

So this amendment moves in the opposite direction. It gives government more power, special interest groups more reason to lobby, and it give Congress even more opportunity to become even more corrupt. But more importantly, it attempts to identify and solve a problem, a process for which the Constitution is not suited..

--------------------------------------

``Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and
electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising
and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal
elections, including through setting limits on--
``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in
opposition to such candidates.
``Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and
electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the
raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to
State elections, including through setting limits on--
``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for
election to, or for election to, State office; and
``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in
opposition to such candidates.
``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
``Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

A common sense solution to lower CO2 - By KRISTEN WALSER

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------

More than 1,500 Montanans in 13 communities around the state (That is, 0.15% of the population.) showed their support for climate solutions this past April 26. From Red Lodge to Whitefish, Bozeman to Lame Deer, faith-based groups, volunteer groups and businesses signed on as co-sponsors with the same goal: Let’s reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that cause global warming, through individual and policy solutions. (A typical Leftist rhetorical technique: Attempting to make support for the cause seem broad-based and prevalent.)

Unfortunately, we have to act fast. ("We," meaning government. And of course it's always a crisis. Which it has been for 30 years. Al Gore famously warned we have 10 years left to act. Paul Erlich of "Population Bomb" fame made many hysterical predictions, none which have come true. Hansen's "hockey stick." Polar bear ice.

The climate change alarmists have gotten increasingly strident over the years, probably because the number of people who still believe them, after their many failed predictions, is falling. Now they're given to hyperbole and hysterics, which turns people off even more.)

The global scientific consensus is that we need a 40-70 percent reduction of fossil fuel emissions by 2050, and nearly 100 percent by the turn of the century. (Do the math. If you have tne apples and reduce them by 100 percent, how many apples do you have left? If you answered zero, go to the head of the class. Ms. Walser is calling for carbon emissions to be reduced to zero!) With no action, (That is, without even more big-government programs.) emissions by mid-century will be double those of the last 34 years, with consequences no one can avoid.

The good news is, the recommended reduction is possible with existing technologies. Germany is on track to meet the bottom range of that goal, 40-45 percent renewables by 2050, with less solar potential than the U.S.

The Solutions Project from Stanford University has mapped a 100 percent renewable energy profile for Montana of about 30 percent wind, solar, and hydro, and 10 percent geothermal, all using existing technology, by 2050. It is possible. (Notice that nothing in her list allows for vehicle usage?)

So what’s holding us back? (Well, probably us backward, narrow-minded destroyers of the planet, I'd guess.)  Investors and policy makers base decisions using short-term economic equations.

Fossil fuels have an unfair advantage (It's not fair! Can you imagine that fossil fuels themselves are taking advantage of solar power? They are so evil!) in these equations because they ("They." Fossil fuels are "they.") don’t have to account for the damage the carbon causes when it’s burned. They ("They.") don’t have to pay when extreme weather ruins your home, your business, your crops.

If these costs, which economists call the social cost of carbon, are rolled into the cost of mining fossil fuels, it would tip the profitability scale towards alternatives. (She's trying to sound like a capitalist but just can't pull it off. She seems to think the government should coerce us into making the "right" choices, and that this coercion is good because it's profitable. Huh?)

In British Columbia they have done just that.

It’s called a carbon pollution fee. (That would be a tax.) They collect a fee (A tax.) on fossil fuels at the site of extraction, based on tons of CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels that emit more carbon dioxide would be taxed (There, I knew she could say it.) more. Renewable sources would not be taxed. (Because there is no impact on the environment for manufacturing, erecting, or operating renewable resources, of course.)

Automatically the profitability equation changes, with investors deciding which alternatives to back, creating jobs and paying taxes just like the fossil fuel companies do now, while the dirtiest fuels would be left in the ground. (Once again she appeals to capitalism, but her conclusions rest on coercive government intervention. Sorry, that's not capitalism.)

It’s crucial to make sure workers, businesses, and households don’t get hurt in the transition.

That’s why Citizens Climate Lobby, a national, non-partisan organization of volunteers, advocates slowly increasing the price on carbon over 10 years, and directing 100 percent of the fees (Um, taxes.) collected back to households. (Does anyone really believe that government will collect an escalating amount of taxes from fossil fuel companies and turn 100 percent of it over to all of us? And even if they did, do you suppose a lot of people would spend that money on polluting flights to vacation destinations, carbon-spewing new cars, and T.V.s and other goods that waste precious resources?) As the prices go up, so would the rebate checks.

This makes it predictable for business, too. In fact, companies like Exxon and our own Northwestern Energy are banking on this new equation. In recent years, Exxon has transformed into the largest producer of natural gas in the U.S. because of its lower carbon content, and Northwestern aims to buy 11 Montana hydroelectric plants.

Of course the most important reason to adopt a carbon pollution fee is, it works! British Columbia passed a carbon pollution tax in 2008 and lowered its emissions by 20 percent per capita in 5 years, while maintaining a higher GDP than the rest of Canada. (This is typical for the Left as well. Ms. Walser compares British Columbia to the rest of Canada as if this is meaningful. We don't know what the GDP of Canada or British Columbia is, what factors are being measured, or what the numbers have historically been. It is specious to attribute economic performance to a single factor, especially a tax, and declare that the tax improved the economy. By that rationale, even more taxes ought to really get the economy booming, right?)

More and more politicians recognize the risks of inaction. In this free-market solution, the revenue doesn’t go to the government to choose whom to subsidize. (Does she really believe it's a free-market solution to have government impose taxes on certain industries in order to move individual choices to the non-taxed industries? This apparently is what it is like in the land of pink unicorns and rainbows.)

As George Schultz, the former Treasury Secretary for President Reagan, said last year, “It’s not a tax if it doesn’t go to the government.” (I googled this statement and received no hits. I did find this opinion piece advocating a carbon tax, however. Schultz makes the same erroneous case for it that Ms. Walser does. And by the way, there's nothing conservative about George Schultz, Reagan aside. 

This is also a common Leftist tactic, to suddenly become a fan of a supposed conservative when that conservative can be used to further the Leftist agenda. You can be sure that if Schultz came out tomorrow with a statement against gay marriage, today's support would be quickly forgotten.) This gives the proposal the miracle of possible bipartisan support and passage Once . people know about this commonsense solution, (Interestingly, Ms. Walser was given a previous platform by the Chronicle to write about her oppostion to fossil fuels. She reuses a favorite rhetorical device found in that previous editorial. The "common sense" solution is more taxes and more government, the default position of the Left on nearly everything.) they embrace it, and so will Rep. Daines, and Sens. Tester and Walsh, if enough of us ask them.

Kristen Walser represents the Bozeman chapter of the national Citizens Climate Lobby.

Decision-making in the local church - A criteria for the elders

1) Things for which nothing is required of the elders

a) Things for which the budget already provides for

b) Things undertaken by church ministries which do not impact the church as a whole

c) Personal decisions and actions of individuals which are not sin and do not come to bear on the spiritual condition of the church

d)

2) Things for which the elders should be notified in advance

a) Activities of ministries which they oversee

b) Events in the church undertaken by ministries

c) Sermon series

d) Things in formative/idea stage that affect the direction, ministry, or vision of church

e)

3) Things for which the elders should be notified after the fact

a) Ministry to troubled individuals

b) Complaints

c) Offering amounts

d)

4) Things for which the elders should be consulted/participate in

a) Prayer requests, particularly healing requests

b) Church discipline

c) Prophetic words

d) Benevolence

e) Activities/ministry opportunities where a particular elder has gifting

f)

5) Things for which the elders must vote upon

a) Changes in spiritual direction/vision

b) Changes to leadership procedure

c) Amendments to the constitution

d) Changes to operations, facilities

e) All matters which apply to the function of the eldership

f) All matters regarding the general condition of the church

g)

6) Things which should require a unanimous vote of the elders

a) Removal or discipline of an elder

b) Capital purchases

c) Ending the church

d)

A conversation with a friend about his wife's dissatisfaction with church

Friend: So did your wife fill you in on my latest dilemma?

Me: Yes. What's going on?

Him: My wife doesn't feel comfortable at church anymore, she wants to leave. She will stick around as long as I say that's where we're going, but she doesn't want to. Do you have any wisdom?

Me: Is her decision an emotional one, or a spiritual one? Not to be condescending, but a "feeling" is not a basis for these kinds of decisions. I am wandering into dangerous territory, but I need to ask: Has she been actively ministering in the church, or has she come to get her needs met?

You'll probably hate me, but let me press further. What has God called her to, what are her spiritual gifts, and has she been pursuing these? Please forgive me for overstepping my boundaries.

Him: You're not overstepping, I asked you, remember? She has never been ministered to in the way she feels that the church should minister to her.

Except for a handful of people she doesn't feel welcomed in the church. Or that she is wanted there.

Me: Some people are outgoing and friends to everyone, while others are more reserved. Being reserved can be interpreted by the extroverts as being unapproachable. For me personally, I had to consciously choose to talk to people and get to know them. It's still terribly hard for me. But if I'm going to have relationships in the church, it's up to me. 

You should talk to K.D.. He's a severe introvert and really struggles with getting to know people. I know that feelings are difficult to overcome, but sometimes it takes more from us than we think we should expend in order to break through.

Him: I have been trying to get her to involve herself more in the church for years. I have even asked other women of the church to specifically invite her to events. I think she now is beyond the point of trying.

If she feels that she cannot grow as a Christian at this church, then do I continue to force her to go here? And do I continue to go if she doesn't? I'm not comfortable with dividing my family that way.

Me: One of the hardest things is to be what your title confers, a husband: "A prudent or frugal manager or steward." How do you best ensure the spiritual fruitfulness of that which you are charged with husbanding? Sometimes the answer is to insist on her embracing that to which she is called, even if she doesn't want to. Other times, it is to let her go the way she wants with the hope she'll realize her error at some point.

I agree, though. Separating the family is not a good idea. You also have a calling that you must not compromise. Is your wife Scripturally submissive? Or will she rebel when you take leadership in a way she doesn't like? Are you fearful of repercussions from her? All these must be answered before you can make your choice.

This appears to be a long standing problem, rather than something related to our church. Somehow you'll need to get at the root of it and not accept the offered excuse.

Email from John Lewis, candidate for US house, on college loans

Apparently Candidate John Lewis is going to kick butt if he's elected. I wonder if he realizes that the student loan problem was conceived, implemented and subsequently modified by the US Congress. Does he know he's going to try to fix a problem created by the very people who he identifies with ideologically?

He notes that college has increased in cost by 1000% in the last thirty years, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't know why. Student loans! The very program he wants to fix has caused the cost of college to increase.

You see, when something becomes artificially more affordable, like being able to borrow money to pay for it, demand increases which increases the cost. College is hugely expensive because so many people want access. So if Mr. Lewis is successful, college will be even more expensive and people will be borrowing even more money to attend.

Yet he wants all Americans to have the option of attending college. Ho-boy. If he's elected, I hope he quickly discovers that the solutions to problems are not found in Washington.
------------------------ 

Friend --

I believe earning a college degree and having a shot at a good-paying job should be an option for all Americans. Instead, that opportunity is getting further and further out of reach for working families.

Consider this: in the last three decades, the cost of going to college and getting a degree has gone up by over 1000%!

That means more and more students are forced to take out massive loans to pay for college. In Montana alone, the average student loan debt is over $20,000.

Here’s the really troubling part: unlike home and car loans, student loans can’t be refinanced. Unfortunately, instead of empowering our students, we’re crippling them with a mountain of debt and refusing to let them refinance it at lower rates.

I won’t stand for this. I’m joining leaders across the country to demand Congress allow students to refinance their loans at lower rates. Will you join me?

Soon enough, my own two kids will be ready for college, and if we don’t fix this problem, getting a college degree could be out of their reach.

We can’t let partisanship get in the way of good policy -- but some politicians in Washington won’t give up easy. We’ve got to send them a loud and clear message.

Letter to the editor: NDO arguments don't hold water - By Peg Wherry

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

Here is yet another post regarding the NDO.  I must apologize. I am reluctant to continue discussing this issue, but the advocates continue hammering false memes and non sequiturs in a vain search for an argument. Read on:

-----------------------
I have noticed that one prominent theme in objections to creating a non-discrimination ordinance for Bozeman has been that homosexuality is a sin and as such is not appropriate to recognize in some contexts. I don’t happen to agree that homosexuality is a sin, but I’m willing to entertain the concept of how sins and sinners are to be regarded in our public life. If sin is the basis for continuing to exempt LGBT individuals from the requirement that all Americans be treated without discrimination, what shall we do with other sinners? (Notice the misdirection. This is what is so frustrating about debating leftists. They can't seem to understand even the most basic things about their opposition's positions. It's like they deliberately choose not to understand. It frequently makes them look foolish at best or deliberately ignorant at worst.

First, the writer characterizes the opposition as being concerned solely with sin, a particular sin. However, quite simply, opponents of the NDO don't want to be forced by the government to do things, including things they find offensive. It may indeed be a moral objection, but that doesn't matter. Government does not have authority to calculate the validity of someone's personal morals. Nor can government make laws about what should be voluntary associations. No one should be forced to do things they don't want to do. 

Second, she attempts to make it something about "public life." The "public" nature of this is an artificial distinction, as if by allowing people to enter your business premises is somehow a matter of interest to the government, but allowing people to enter your church is not. Why a person should be forbidden from voluntary associations in their business yet be allowed them in other environments is a mystery.  In fact, neither is of interest to government, and it should not be allowed to meddle.

Third, she assets that there exists a requirement that all Americans be treated without discrimination. This is preposterous on its face. There are many times and places where discrimination takes place for all sorts of reasons. 12 year olds cannot drive. There are around sixty women-only colleges in the U.S.. A person cannot enter a Stones concert without a ticket. One must be black to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Discrimination is not only allowed, it is desired.

She then concludes from this faulty procession of logic that other kinds of sinners need to be considered. However, "we" don't need to do anything with other sinners. There is no "we," unless "we" means government. And government doesn't need to do anything.)

Just to start with the sins outlined in the Ten Commandments, should it be permissible to ban from public accommodations those who covet? Ought I to worry that the person in the next restroom stall might be an adulterer? Should a religious school be able to discriminate in hiring against those who bear false witness? Should MSU be allowed to ban from its residence halls students who do not keep the Sabbath? (The writer appears to be saying that people who commit other sins also need legally-enforced access to "public accommodations." This is the conclusion that follows from her argument. If to avoid discrimination LGBTs need to have the force of government applied in their favor, then so do other sinners, right?)   

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7) (Ok, since we're now appealing to Scripture, I guess all I need to do is offer more Scripture.

Lk. 12:57 “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?"

Jn. 5:30 "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

Once again we have a self-appointed theological expert informing us regarding as to what is correct belief, who ironically judges those with whom she disagrees. I for one wish that she would stop attempting to legislate her morality.)

Peg Wherry, Bozeman

Editorial: Higher bed tax makes sense for Bozeman - The Bozeman Chronicle

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------
I almost thought this was satire. It reads like a caricature of leftist talking points interspersed with inane assertions and logic-less expository. Read on:
------------------------ 

The Bozeman City Commission’s consideration of increasing the city bed tax by a dollar begs a question: Why stop there? (Yes, why? If a little tax increase is good, why not have a big one? In fact, why not simply increase the tax to 100%? Imagine the revenue THAT will raise!)

The commission voted this week to draft an ordinance raising the local tax on hotel rooms from $1 to $2 a night. Billings and Missoula charge $2, and Billings is considering raising the tax to $3. Apparently the $3 figure met resistance from Bozeman hotel and motel owners. (Funny, why don't the media in Billings and Missoula advocate that their cities be more like Bozeman?) But this resistance isn’t rational. (Yes, of course. It isn't rational to decline participating in picking the pockets of visitors. It isn't rational to oppose increasing the coffers of this city government which is hostile to businesses. It isn't rational to stand against the all the wonders that higher taxation brings us.)

The money raised is used to promote the area as a tourist destination. The $1 bed tax raised more than $450,000 last year. (Yes, yes, yes. The government SHOULD be involved in the advertising business. It has shown its competence in so many other endeavors. Hotel owners should be happy to fork over even more tax money because the city is helping them.)

This is a no-brainer. There is certainly a price point at which tourists will balk and make plans to vacation elsewhere. But an increase of $1 per room is not it, and neither would a bump of $2. And the increased revenue would produce even more tourist traffic. (A no-brainer. That is, the editorialists have not used their brains. Because only in the cloistered environment of a news room does it make sense to increase taxes on a business so that business can make more money. I'd really like to know what the Chronicle considers to be a too high level of taxes. $5, $10? $50? 

Nowhere in the discussion is there any desire to ask a few simple questions, questions that any thinking adult should want to ask: Why does the city involve itself in the activities of these private businesses? Why does the city care that hotels should make more money? And why is the city the default choice to perform this function?

And especially, does the city care about the extra carbon emissions generated by all those extra visitors?)

In any case, the bed tax question raises a larger issue: Why doesn’t Bozeman have the authority to tax tourists on a wider range of purchases? (Having never seen a tax they didn't like, the obvious question that comes to their minds is why aren't even more things taxed? Ignoring the obvious function of taxes, to fund the necessary activities of government as the law prescribes, the editors of the Chronicle want the city even more involved in the activities of private business. Oh how they love their government!) 

In the 1980s, state lawmakers authorized a resort sales tax in very narrowly defined communities that depended heavily on tourism. The institution of a 3 percent tax in West Yellowstone made possible infrastructure improvements that transformed the town’s appearance seemingly overnight. (Infrastructure made necessary by the increased traffic caused by promoting the town, perhaps?)

Since then legislators have widened resort tax authority incrementally to include other communities. And now resort taxes in Virginia City, Red Lodge, Big Sky, Whitefish, Seeley Lake and St. Regis have provided millions of dollars for public service improvements and tax relief for property owners. (Incredibly, the Chronicle is justifying this tax increase because of the burden of the onerous property tax. In the land of pink unicorns and rainbows can this only make sense.) The taxes are widely supported in those communities but, so far, the taxing authority only extends to communities with populations under 5,500. (Widely supported by mind-numbed leftists who have bought in to this idiotic tax.)

Opponents to expanding the resort tax fear that it will eventually morph into what is essentially a statewide sales tax – something some Montanans quake at the thought of.

This is irrational. (Yes, of course it is irrational. Because taxes NEVER spread, increase, or include more people than originally conceived. Government activities NEVER extend their reach. Government NEVER oppresses people.

Notice they claim it's irrational, but no explanation as to why it is irrational is offered.)

Montana hosted some 11 million visitors last year, and they spent about $3.6 billion, according to the state Department of Commerce. Those visitors wore out roads and used tax-funded public services just like we all do, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t help pay for those things. (I thought the Chronicle was justifying the tax because it brought more tourists. Now they are complaining about the fallout from the very thing they advocate. This here is the textbook example of irrationality.) 

Lawmakers need to get past their anti-sales-tax zealotry and give cities the authority to cash in. (Um, yeah. Perhaps the Chronicle editorialists have not read the Montana Constitution: 
Article VIII, Section 16: "The rate of a general statewide sales tax or use tax may not exceed 4%." So, unfortunately for them, that "anti-sales-tax zealotry" is even found in the state constitution. 

And of course it's crucial that government "cash in" and soak as many people as possible. Hey, maybe we should stop them at the state border and shake them down for cash right on the spot! Better still, why not tax them before they even think about coming to the state, so that we can fatten government coffers without any extra damage at all to our infrastructure?

As long as government is getting as much money as they can possibly get, then nothing else matters.)

Bozeman should stand for diversity and justice for all - By Rabbi Ed Stafman

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------
This author is emblematic of the leftist mindset. By means of term-switching, bare assertions, misdirection, and misrepresentation of the opponents of the NDO, he is able to construct a straw man of gigantic proportions. Read on:
-----------------------------------

I am proud to be among the more than 30 Bozeman religious leaders who publicly support a Bozeman NDO (First leftist rhetorical manipulation: Make it seem like there's widespread support in the religious community by citing unnamed sympathizers with unknown positions in the community. Are they pastors? Buddhists? Sunday School teachers? Do they have any standing, credentials, or history? Who exactly are these people and why should we honor them?)

because our (Note use of feel-good inclusive.) highest religious and ethical principles call for human dignity and justice for all. (And why should we value the rabbi's religious principles above others? I thought the problem was that his opponents are trying to impose their religion. Is there some particular reason that the City of Bozeman should compel his religious values over the religious values of others?) 

The most repeated command in the Hebrew Bible demands we not oppress others because we know what that feels like, having been oppressed in Egypt. (Because there is evidence of widespread oppression that rivals biblical accounts? This is just silly. But can we ask, since the esteemed rabbi apparently believes Scripture and is in fact treating it authoritatively, what does the he do with Leviticus 18?) 

Jesus describes loving God and loving one’s neighbor as the two great commandments. (Um, yeah. A rabbi, who does not believe Jesus is the Messiah or that the N.T. is valid, is now telling us all what Jesus really meant. And of course we know that Jesus made no other commands, right? 

So perhaps the rabbi could explain to us Jesus' words in Mt. 15:19-20: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality [porneia, "illicit sexual activity"], theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man `unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him `unclean’." Note that Jesus is refuting the Jewish teachers of the law by telling them that certain things they do and think are really what make them unclean. And I'm sure the rabbi understands the concept of ceremonial cleanliness? 

We must therefore ask, if the rabbi views Jesus' words as authoritative, does he agree with Jesus that sexual immorality makes a person unclean?)  

Letter to the editor: Christians should support NDO - By Kimmelin Hull

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------
I know, I'm posting yet another letter telling Christians how they should believe. I'm publishing this one because it makes some new assertions. Read on...
-----------------------

Many have spoken against the ordinance in the name of Christianity. They certainly don't represent my interpretation of Christianity (Well, at least Ms. Hull has the honesty to admit that it's her interpretation, a refreshing dose of reality. At least for the moment, because she certainly believes that her interpretation is the only correct one.) 

 – or what we, as Christians, are called to do, by Christ, himself. (Ok, so Ms. Hull will now tell us the gospel truth. Here we go.)

From the documentation we have in the gospels, (You know, that book no one should take literally...)

Jesus spent much of his time with – and lifting up – the marginalized in his community. (By marginalized, does Ms. Hull mean the sick, the poor, and the hungry? What does she mean by "lifting up?" Was Jesus' ministry really restricted to "his community?" These questions are important, yet she leaves them undefined. They are merely amorphous feel-good buzzwords upon which she builds her argument.)  

At the last supper, He gave us two new commandments to add to – and supersede – (Supersede? I don't think so. But since the assertion is undocumented, it's hard to know what the source of her interpretation is.)

the previous 10: To gather together on a frequent basis in his name, (I was unable to locate this "new commandment.")

and to love one another as he loved us. (I'll provide the actual quote, since she misrepresents its contents: Jn. 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” In other words, the Christian community is commanded to love each other as an example to the world.)

How then, can maintaining a community in which discrimination is allowed against one sector of the marginalized (LGBT) be considered following this final commandment? (See, she draws an incorrect conclusion that quoted new commandment means we should love to non-Christians. It doesn't.

But another passage does. Here's the correct relevant reference: Lk. 6:27 “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who ill-treat you." This is from the Sermon on the Mount, not the Last Supper. So can we ask, if we can't trust her in this, why should we trust anything else she says?

Beyond that, notice the unwarranted conclusions she jumps to. 1) LGBT are marginalized, 2) the commandment to love is being violated, and 3) discrimination is unloving. These are all non seqiturs.)

For those who claim, "there is no discrimination here," I admonish you to sit down with several members of the LGBT community and invite their stories. (I'm sure there are real stories out there. But we can only accept these claims on face value. We have no way of knowing if LGBT claims are real. Can we really trust the veracity of these claims when we know that these activists will make things up? 

LGBTs don't seem to realize that forcing people to agree with them will bear little fruit and simply increase animosity. The great majority of people don't care who you sleep with. But they do care when their disagreement is labeled hate, their personal choices are labeled discrimination, and their right to assembly is dictated by government. LGBTs should not be surprised that their extreme rhetoric has consequences.) 

For those who fear abuse of children in bathrooms by transgendered folks, I encourage you to base your opinions on fact – can you actually find any scientific studies that validate this risk? (Spokespersons from our own Haven and MSU's VOICE Center have clearly discredited this concern in this forum – and both organizations specialize in sexual harassment, assault, and violence against women, among other things.)

As Christians – and community members – we are called to lift up the marginalized members of society until marginalization no longer exists. (A truly odd sentence. And a false one. First, "we" doesn't me you and me, it means government. Ms. Hull is not calling for individuals to help people. She is solely concerned with bringing the coercive power of government to bear on the situation.   

Second, this does not build relationships, understanding, tolerance, or good will, it tears them down by the force of law. There is nothing Christian about such an act. 

Third, it isn't possible to eliminate "marginalization," partly because we don't live in a perfect world, but mostly because there is a vested interest in the "marginalized community to perpetuate their complaint no matter how much capitulation there is. The goal of LGBTs is not fairness or equality, it is to wipe out all disagreement and opposition to their agenda, right up to and including Christian doctrine. They intend to silence all dissent, and it will not stop because there is a lot of money at stake.)

I, for one, plan to do just that. And I hope others, in the name of whatever religion you do – or do not – practice, will see past your fear of the unknown, and do the same. (Yes, of course. Any opposition to the LGBT agenda can only be fear. Principled opposition doesn't exist. People who disagree are simply ignorant. The only sensible thing a Christian can do is agree. Anything else is hateful and bigoted.)


Kimmelin Hull, Bozeman

Protesters in Seattle - FB conversation

FB friend R.W. posted this:

So I'm listening to Komo news say that none of the protestors in Down town Seattle have Permits to march, block traffic, set fires, vandalize, intimidate, or attack the police, and then COMMEND the police for not interfering with their RIGHT to protest! I'm sorry, isn't that right granted by the PERMIT?!

Me: Actually, requiring permits interferes with rights.

R.W.: I see that point, but I also don't think they have the right to impede others. A permit should keep them in certain areas, out of the middle of the street, and allow law enforcement to keep everyone safe. You have the right to protest, but not in front of my car. Or ON my car. If you can require a permit to have a parade, then I see no problem with requiring one to protest. Or maybe I should say, you don't need a permit to protest, but you need permit to limit when and WHERE you can protest.

Me: Agreed. However, like almost every government attempt at "regulating" rights, it doesn't take long for excess to show up. Free speech zones, set back distances for abortion clinics, banning free speech from certain places. "Congress shall make no law" seems pretty clear to me.

R.W.: blocking a street used by first responders is equal to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If your protest endangers public safety, the courts have found it not to be protected speech. A parade must have a ROUTE and not be during high volume traffic times. There is nothing about these anarchist protests that resemble "Peaceful assembly". You have the right to free speech but not ANYWHERE or anytime you like. Try marching onto a military base to protest their nukes, see how far you get. I agree that it can be abused like so many of our rights routinely are. I am NOT in favor of banning free speech on college campuses or schools or anyplace like that. Just not in the street where the safety of the protestors are at risk. And they should never block entrances to business or even abortion clinics. Remember one groups rights should never interfere with another's.

Me: Once again, agreed. You are talking about things that are not rights. I am talking abut government interfering with rights. The larger danger is government interference.

R.W.: then maybe we are saying the same thing. My grievance is not with protesting, it is with the interference of those of us NOT protesting. I think the government has the right to protect the non-protestors, and to set certain limits on the who, when and where, but they have no authority to stop the protest outright.

On eldership and walking with the Spirit: Lift Your Vision Higher

Having been recently installed as an elder in my church, I come to the position with an awareness of how all my prior experiences have prepared me for this. I have been an elder in churches twice before, once in my twenties, once in my thirties, and now in my fifties. I was unofficially a spiritual leader in my forties in a church where the official eldership were not the spiritual leaders of the church.

So why do I think these experiences have prepared me? Well, I'm in a young church with an inexperienced pastor, attended by young Christians, and I'm the oldest elder by a decade. The issues we are dealing with are all familiar ground for me. I've been through them before. Where others are worried and panicking, I am not concerned.

However, I am not serene because I can supply a tried-and-proven solution, it is because I am more keenly aware of how God intervenes in situations. My continuing refrain in elders meetings is, "What is the Holy Spirit saying?" When we stop following the ways of the flesh, or conventional wisdom, or what seems obvious or logical, we start keeping in step with the Spirit (Galatians 5:25), and many of our problems and issues seem to fade away.

So my experience has not supplied me with answers, but with ways of thinking. Romans 12:2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." This verse has been a favorite of mine for a long time, but it continually surprises me afresh as God brings new revelation about what it means to be transformed. So that's where my attention is concentrated. The mind corrupted by the world vs. the mind transformed.

Even the charismatics, who to a person would claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, fall into this trap. After all, how many of them think that the move of the Holy Spirit must mean being slain in the spirit or receiving the gift of tongues? We are all stuck in these patterns, these paradigms, which become rigid ways of interpreting spiritual things. We become bound up by what God did yesterday to the point that we cannot see what He is doing today.

God recently gave me a Word, which continues to resonate through our church: "Lift your vision higher." This came to mind as I thought back to a song we used to do years ago with the same title. I realized that our eyes are fixed on the wrong things, and we need to lift our vision higher. We need to be ready to challenge our understandings and recognize what the Holy Spirit is doing today. 

So I watched in amazement as a critical issue of the church solved itself without human intervention. This has happened more than once. The elders, including me, were ready to knock some heads. Our list of complaints was long. But one by one, each item was checked off by the Holy Spirit. The people involved, while presenting their ideas for their ministry, repeated almost verbatim the things we needed to see changed. It was astonishing.

"Lift your vision higher." What are we looking at? What are we allowing to divert our attention? As Paul asks in Galatians 5:7: "You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth?" Lift your vision higher. What is God saying right now? Lift your vision higher. Does it violate your paradigm? It's probably the Holy Spirit.

I'm a little wiser (I hope) as time passes. I desperately don't want to become an old geezer stuck in my ways. I want to be on the cutting edge of what the Holy Spirit is doing today. I want to lead as an elder to places no one has seen, if that's where God is. I question everything. Why do we meet on Sunday? Why do we have a worship band? Why do we have an offering? Sunday school? Preaching? We might want some or all these things, but just because we do them doesn't mean we should keep doing them.

Lift your vision higher. 

Unfair to selectively apply the tenents of Christianity - By Piet Martens

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------------------

This is another installment in the continuing saga of the NDO (non-discrimination ordinance) being considered by the City of Bozeman. 

Mr.  Martens is a frequent contributor to the opinion pages, and he is invariably Left. He asks if it is "fair" to decline to serve Christians, so at least he's philosophically consistent. He apparently is opposed to discrimination against Christians just as much as gays. Or so it would seem.

The problem, of course, is when two opposing opinions butt heads. Selecting in favor of one discriminates against the other, by definition. So it is impossible to be against discrimination because as soon as the choice is made, discrimination against the non-chosen has occurred. 

So let's answer the questions Mr. Martens poses. The answer to every one of them is "yes." A free people have the right to peaceably assemble, which means they and only they should get to choose with whom they assemble. They can decline to assemble based on any reason or no reason, so long as it is for a lawful purpose. 

Therefore, non-discrimination laws, though well-intended, impinge on private choices. I'm not arguing for the ability to oppress people, far from it, but the role of government in guiding peoples' choices ought to be extremely limited. Or does anyone really think that discrimination can simply be eliminated by passing a law?

Mr. Martens notes that there is a variety of expressions in Christianity, in other words, a diversity of choices and and understandings. From that he concludes that those who oppose homosexuality are "entitled to that view," but apparently not entitled to exercise that view with all the attendant ramifications. 

This is why I wonder if Leftists really actually think about their opinions before committing them to paper. Rather than conclude that because there is a variety of understandings, there will be a variety of expressions, he concludes that the expression he agrees with is the proper one.

One last point. Mr. Martens suggests "we cannot take every Bible verse literally," yet he's happy to provide us with a verse. On what basis did he conclude that this verse should be taken literally? Why should we allow him to impose his religious perspective on others? Why is his version of Christianity worthy of being enforced by law?

-----------------------------------------

Suppose I object to the Christian "lifestyle." Should I, as a small business owner, then be allowed to refuse to serve Christians in my establishment? Should I be allowed to fire employees as soon as they show the symptoms of the Christian lifestyle? Should I be allowed to refuse to print T-shirts with Christian symbols? Should I be allowed to refuse to sell "Christian" wedding cakes (whatever those may be), or refuse to take pictures at a Christian wedding?

I definitely don't think so, and we have broadly supported laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. So what is different about our love preference? Some argue that it is a choice, unlike skin color or gender. There is plenty of evidence that that is actually not the case, but even if it were, how is that different from being Christian? Certainly that is a choice, otherwise it would be meaningless. So "choice" versus "being born that way" is clearly not the issue. Many conservative Christians would argue that in their biblical view, living gay is a sin. They are entitled to that view but there are also plenty of Christians that see it very differently, with many protestant denominations happily performing gay weddings, and the Catholic pope recently stating "Who am I to judge?" One can quote verses from the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality, but I prefer John 13:34: "A new command I give you: Love one another." If you call that picking and choosing, my response is that we cannot take every Bible verse literally, otherwise we'd have to believe that the Earth is flat and slavery acceptable. So let us love our gay brothers and sisters and pass the NDO to protect them.

Piet Martens

Bozeman