Category: News and Events

Stanley Carlson-Thies, president of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, writes in the Nov. 4 IRFA Newsletter:

The races haven’t all even been decided yet, and, given the big changes, it will take considerable time for new directions to be settled, so it is far too soon to try to guess how the November 2nd voting will affect national policy. Just a few quick thoughts:

Two notable changes in Congress to the benefit of institutional religious freedom:

Dan Coats, who served in the Senate (R-IN) from 1989-1999, was just re-elected to the Senate. In his earlier service he was a noted champion of faith-based services, proposing (with William Bennett) a range of innovative civil society policies under the name “Project for American Renewal.”

Chet Edwards (D-TX), first elected to the House in 1991, was defeated. Edwards has been one of the fiercest congressional critics of the faith-based initiative and a harsh opponent of what he called “religious job discrimination” by faith-based organizations that receive federal funds.

Leadership of the House changes from Democrat to Republican:

Congressman John Boehner (R-OH), the likely new Speaker of the House, has been a strong supporter of religious freedom for persons and organizations. In general, the change from an aggressive progressive agenda to a conservative stance in the House will be positive: less governmental expansion means fewer pressures on organizations committed to historic religious values. That goes, too, for the “tea party” commitment to reigning in the growth of government spending and the government’s impact on life. Researchers have noted, too, that many tea partiers are strong religious believers.

However, in complex modern societies, religious freedom needs to be protected not only by restraining government intrusion where it doesn’t belong but also by making sure that when the government is active it takes positive steps to respect the exercise of religion by individuals and institutions. How well will the tea party and the resurgent Republicans do on this score?

An area for continual concern: how the administration will use its administrative discretion, its own ability to steer the government in the absence of congressional action? The move to abrogate the Bush administration’s “conscience” regulations at HHS, the extensive administrative discretion given to the HHS Secretary by the health reform law, and the adminstration’s commitment to progressive sexual politics all are reasons to be alert.

Carlson-Thies served in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001-2002, and assisted with writing “Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Participation by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs.” (August, 2001)

My recent posts on politics and austerity and this week’s Acton Commentary refer to a principled basis for limited government. I speak of “the limits of government rooted in a rich and variegated civil society.”

Here’s a good statement of that basis from Lord Acton:

There are many things government can’t do – many good purposes it must renounce. It must leave them to the enterprise of others. It cannot feed the people. It cannot enrich the people. It cannot teach the people. It cannot convert the people.

On October 21st at Acton’s 20th Anniversary Dinner, Richard M. DeVos – Co-Founder of Amway Corporation with his friend Jay Van Andel – was presented with the 2010 Faith and Freedom Award.  Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute, cited DeVos for his “decades-long exemplary leadership in business, his dedication to the promotion of liberty, his courage in maintaining and defending the free and virtuous society, and his conviction that the roots of liberty and the morally-charged life are to be found in the eternal truths of the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

In his remarks upon accepting the award, DeVos commented on his years in business, the impact that his Christian faith has had on his life, and on the crises faced by the United States in World War II and in the present day.  Portions of his comments are presented below:

An example of the impact that Rich DeVos spoke of at the end of his remarks came earlier in the evening from Nicole Boone, an alumna of Acton’s Toward a Free and Virtuous City conference and Executive Director of Goshen International, an educational ministry in South Africa:

Blog author: jcouretas
Wednesday, November 3, 2010

A new article from Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg published today in Acton News & Commentary. Sign up for the free, weekly email newsletter here.


A Tale of Two Europes

By Samuel Gregg

The word “crisis” is usually employed to indicate that a person or even an entire culture has reached a turning-point which demands decisions: choices that either propel those in crisis towards renewed growth or condemn them to remorseless decline.

These dynamics of crisis are especially pertinent for much of contemporary Europe. The continent’s well-documented economic problems are now forcing governments to decide between confronting deep-seated problems in their economic culture, or propping up the entitlement economies that have become unaffordable (and morally-questionable) relics in today’s global economy.

While some European governments have begun implementing long-overdue changes in the form of austerity-measures, welfare-reforms, and labor-market liberalization, the resistance is loud and fierce, as anyone who has visited France lately will attest.

No-one should be surprised by this. Such reforms clash directly with widespread expectations about employment, welfare, and the state’s economic role that have become profoundly imbedded in many European societies over the past 100 years. Yet it’s also arguable this is simply the latest bout of an on-going clash of economic ideas which goes back much further in European history than most people realize.

Certainly the contemporary controversy partly concerns the government’s role during recessions. From this standpoint, Europe (and America) is rehashing the famous dispute between the economists Friedrich von Hayek and John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s about how to respond to the Great Depression. Should we, as Hayek maintained, react by giving markets the flexibility they need to self-correct? Or do we prime the pump à la Keynes? (more…)

For those PowerBlog readers in the Chicago area, I’ll be in town next Tuesday for a luncheon where I’ll be discussing the topic, “How Ideology Destroys Biblical Ecumenism.”

The event is sponsored by the Chicago-based ministry ACT 3 and will be held at St. Paul United Church of Christ, 118 S. First Street, Bloomingdale, IL. The event will begin at 11:45am (Tuesday, November 9) and you can register for the luncheon at the ACT 3 website.

The point of departure for my talk will be my new book, Ecumenical Babel: Confusing Economic Ideology and the Church’s Social Witness, and those who are able to attend the luncheon will receive a complimentary copy.

Robert Joustra, a researcher at the Canadian think tank Cardus, says this about the book and the contemporary ecumenical debate about globalization:

Ballor is spot-on when worrying that narrowly framing the debate this way can obscure the fact that globalization is about a great deal more than economics or politics. Isn’t it ironic that the ecclesial conversation is essentially a thinly-baptized version of exactly the same disagreements in the secular world, but with less technical capacity and more theological abstraction? This is Ballor’s most important point.

My friend John Armstrong, who runs ACT 3 and is organizing the luncheon, recommends Ecumenical Babel as “a truly readable and wonderful book. All who love Christian unity centered in the witness of the church and the gospel of Christ will benefit from this fine new book.”

Last week Jordan Ballor and I offered short addresses to the crowd that gathered for Acton on Tap in Grand Rapids. This is an essay that closely mirrors my comments from the event. It’s a sermon of sorts, and a personal testimonial too.

— — — — — —
Remarks on the “Limit of Politics” for Acton on Tap:

I love elections. Elections produce drama, conflict, and intrigue. It produces statements like this by the former Louisiana governor and federal convict Edwin Edwards: “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.”

When I was in high school and college my biggest dream besides being a Congressman with an office full of young SEC cheerleader interns, was to be a campaign super consultant, just like two heroes of mine Ed Rollins and Lee Atwater. I idolized them through books and television. You should read Bareknuckles and Backrooms by Ed Rollins and the bio of Lee Atwater titled Bad Boy to get some of the behind the scenes ugliness, conflict, and humor of American politics.

Acton On The AirActon President Rev. Robert A. Sirico took to the airwaves this morning in Chicago on WVON’s Launching Chicago with Lenny McAllister to discuss today’s elections across the country from a Christian perspective.  You can listen to the interview using the audio player below, and don’t forget to follow Rev. Sirico on Twitter right here.

And don’t forget to vote!

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Last week Ray Nothstine and I hosted an Acton on Tap focused on the topic, “Putting Politics in its Place.” For those not able to join us at Derby Station here in Grand Rapids, I’m passing along this essay based on my comments. You can find Ray’s comments here.

— — — — — —
“Three Questions for Putting Politics in its Place”

In my attempt to articulate a way to put politics in its proper place I want to pursue three interrelated questions. First, I’m going to ask and answer, “What is politics supposed to do?” Second, I’m going to ask and answer, “What does politics do today?” And finally in light of those two concerns I’m going to ask and give some tentative answers for the question, “What should we do as Christians?”

Blog author: jcouretas
Tuesday, November 2, 2010

“Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” — Abraham Lincoln (HT: PBS)

Blog author: jballor
Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The title of this post borrows from a phrase I employ in the conclusion of tomorrow’s Acton Commentary on the prospects for austerity in America after today’s mid-term elections. (I can’t claim to have coined the term, since about 4,270 other instances of the phrase show up in a Google search, but I like it nonetheless.)

Today I’ll simply highlight a few of the relevant stories that I’ve noted on this theme over recent weeks and months.

As Samuelson notes, austerity is by its very nature unpopular. Speaking of the dilemma facing governments, he writes, “Without unpopular spending cuts and tax increases, unmanageable deficits may choke their economies.”

Tomorrow I’ll discuss the treatment of austerity as a leitmotif in the writings of Paul Krugman, who most recently dubbed austerity proponents “moralizers.” The significance of this will be made more clear tomorrow in relation to my commentary, “‘A’ for Austerity: The New Scarlet Letter.”