Where is your treasure?

Below is a letter that I wrote to local Christian radio station after a comment made by one of morning show personalities.

I was listening to your station one morning and I heard a comment that you made about a man who built some kind of bomb shelter, possibly for the reason that he wanted to be safe in case of a nuclear attack or tornado or something.  To show that this man was not doing what is right, you quoted Matthew 6:19-21:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

And you also may have quoted Matthew 6:25-29:

Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?  Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Well, I have a few verses of my own.  (I hope that you will bear with me because this is a long letter.)  But first, I want to explain that I am what you call a “prepper”.  I do not have a bomb shelter, and I am not planning on building one any time soon.  But as a “prepper”, I do believe in preparing myself in case that there is a disaster.  I do store food with a long shelf life, I have means of storing and purifying water, and I am working on obtaining alternative power sources.  And I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with this for the following reasons. 

It is most obvious that Jesus is not teaching that people should not take reasonable precautions.  Notice he uses the word “treasure” in Matthew 6:19-21.  In my book, necessities like food, clothing, and shelter are not treasures (i.e. luxuries).  You may ask, “But what about verses 25-29?  Don’t they teach that “prepping” is unwise?”  No it doesn’t for this simple reason:  I am not worrying about what is going to happen.  I know that God will take care of me no matter what.  But that doesn’t mean you should completely throw caution to the wind.  I know that God can destroy even the best bomb shelter. And He can save someone from mortal harm who takes no precautions at all.  I know such people.  I know God takes care of them.  Some are not able to “prep” because they can barely get by even day to day.  But those who “prep” can be blessing to those who don’t if something happens.  God doesn’t call everyone to do this.  Some people He chooses to live by the seat of their pants (e.g. Matthew 10:9).

Think about this in terms of other precautions like smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and insurance policies of various kinds.  And what about saving money?  Is it wrong to have CDs, IRAs, 401Ks, saving accounts, annuities, stocks, bonds, or mutual funds?  Aren’t these also “stored treasures”? (See footnote below.)  When people do these things, it isn’t that they don’t trust God, they are just trying to be wise stewards of what God has given them just as many righteous people did in the Bible.  For example, Joseph took the precaution of storing lots of food in order to preserve the people from the forthcoming famine.  (See Genesis 41:28-36.)

“A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished.”  Proverbs 22:3

So I think that your real problem with what this “bomb shelter” man is doing is one or more of the following:

1. The measures that this man is taking are too extreme.  He is spending too much money on precautions which could be spent on advancing the Kingdom of God (i.e. evangelism, giving to the poor, and other ministries). 
2. The threat that this man is preparing for is too remote to justify this amount of preparedness.
3. The precautions would not succeed for very long (if at all) even if that type of disaster really did happen.

For reason number 1, I would say that that is up to God to judge.  As I indicated above, God uses different people for different purposes and just because what someone else is doing isn’t what God has called you to do, doesn’t mean that they are outside of God’s will.

For reason number 2, I would agree with you depending on the circumstances.  I blame the news media, politicians, and even some Christian preachers for using fear to drive people to such extremes.  The chances of Iran or any other nation hitting us with a nuclear weapon is zero.  This is just a case of people playing on your fears in order to promote the bottom line of the military-industrial complex.  It may also have to do with racism and hatred of Muslims. 

But on the other hand, if the reason for the underground bunker is a precaution against a tornado or hurricane, and if you live in area where such disasters are common, then I have no problem with it.

For reason number 3, again it depends on the circumstances.

Finally I would like to say that for me, preparedness isn’t just about surviving some impending disaster, but it’s about leverage and dependency.  There is nothing wrong with being dependent on God or the (local) church.  But the more you are dependent on the world, the more leverage the world has against you to cause you to stumble.  For example, if you have your own means of providing for your own healthcare needs instead of a health insurance policy or government program, then you don’t have to worry about your payments into the system being used for abortions or other sinful practices.  Your electric company may subsidize television programs which are not family friendly, so it’s better not to be absolutely dependent on them.  Think of it as keeping your options open so that you do not become a slave of evil.  I might even describe some people who unwilling to make the extra effort to divest themselves of the world in these ways as being lazy.  But I am not accusing any specific people because I also realize that not everyone is able to do these things.

Footnote:

All of the investments I mentioned are usually dependent on U.S. dollars.  This is legal tender that we have now in the U.S. and is called “Federal Reserve Notes”.  These are not backed by silver or gold as they once were.  They are subject to inflation and could be become worthless if the Federal Reserve Bank produces massive quantities of them, and it is in their power to do so.  This type of hyperinflation happened in Germany about 100 years ago.  People had to bring wheelbarrows full of cash to buy bread.  There is no reason to think that it can’t happen again in America.  If even gold (very stable element) can rust away and other tangible assets can likewise perish, how much more foolish is it to put your trust in “the full faith and credit of the United States” (mere pieces of paper with numbers printed on it!)

Respectfully,

Matthew Miller

Concerned Citizen

An Interpretation of the Obama-Medvedev Gaffe

Obama and Russian (Puppet) President Medvedev spoke without realizing that there was live mike right in front of them.  This reminds me of the Bush years.  Read below what they said and see the video above for an explanation of what it means for us.

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Imagine that…

Imagine that all trade to and from the U.S. came under the supervision of a superpower nation or international organization so that no products could be imported or exported without its approval and inspection. Imagine that the President, the Congress, and all other government officials were forbidden from traveling abroad unless they agree to certain conditions imposed by the superpower nation or world organization. Imagine that anyone traveling to and from the U.S. would also be subject to inspection under the supervision of a foreign power. What if this foreign power also prohibited the Armed Forces from developing certain weapons? What should we do if this were to happen? I would hope that Americans would see this as tyranny and defy the rules imposed upon it by this foreign power. The Declaration of Independence contains grievances against these very things and things even less tyrannical than this.

But this is what the majority of our short-sighted congressmen are in favor of doing to Iran. The bill which would authorize this action is called H. CON. RES. 362. (If the link doesn’t work, find it here.) It has 247 cosponsors which is more than enough votes to pass the House. The authors of this legislation insist that this is not a blockade. What else would you call it? This is the kind of language that is being used to justify this tyranny:

“Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009…”

“…the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others…”

Are we so depraved that we are going to attack a nation just because of “could haves” and “possibilities”? (Here we go again.) So what if Iran does have nukes. What gives us the right to attack them just because they have nukes? They are surrounded by other nations which either have nukes or are occupied by nations that have nukes (India, China, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel). Iran has been inspected nine times since 2003 and there have been no violations of the agreements they made with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They may be in violation of U.N. resolutions, but so what? The U.S. is in violation of the resolutions of that tyrannical organization. And I’m glad that we are—we need to stand up to those tyrants.

The legislation also cites Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah as a reason for this aggressive maneuver. If you don’t believe that this is hypocritical, click here.

Some people are saying that we should do this because of threats made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and has said that the holocaust is a myth. But he is just a mouth. The Mullahs have the real power in Iran. We should not go to war unless a real violation of the sovereignty of the United States (not Israel) has occurred and only against nations guilty of such a violation. Jesus said, “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matthew 5:39)

“No options have been taken off the table.” This is an obvious prelude to war—as if the two that we are already in aren’t enough! Supporters of the bill are saying that this blockade will weaken Iran the way that the sanctions against Iraq weakened it, and then it will be easier to win a war against them. But mark my words, this will different (even bloodier). Saddam Hussein was not religious, but was just a greedy tyrant who didn’t care about the sanctions, just as long as he could dominate and terrorize his own people. Iraq was a deeply divided nation. But people of Iran are fully behind their government and driven by their nationalism and their common (Shi’a) religion. This time, we will have a war against a much stronger opponent and we will not “win the war” so easily this time, if at all. This nation is already literally bankrupt, and in desperate need of a budget overhaul. I predict that this will cost multi-trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of U.S. service men will be killed in this conflict.

Neoconservatives Tom Tancredo and my own congressman, Steve Chabot, are on the list of cosponsors for this bill, but so are ultraliberals like Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. One congressman who would never support such legislation is Ron Paul. It is interesting that neither Duncan Hunter’s name nor Nancy Pelosi’s is on the list (yet). I will never vote for anyone who supports this bill unless they change positions. I am pro-life.

So, for whom should you vote for president? It doesn’t matter. McCain and even Obama are likely to support this bipartisan death bill. The Illinois senator clearly stated that we “cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon”. Barring divine intervention, we are headed for the worst war since WW II. But there is hope. This is a sign of Christ’s return. Jesus said, “And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that you are not troubled: for all these things must come to pass...” (Matthew 24:6) Be ready. If you need to get right with God, click here.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Did George W. Bush Lose His Conservative Mind Or Did He Really Ever Have It At All?

President George Bush, when he took over in 2001, tried to get authorization for increased drilling for oil around the nation from the Gulf of Mexico to the California coastal waters to Alaska and was stopped by Congress. He wanted more refining and an increase in nuclear power plants. He also called the concept of global warming by reason of CO2 gas junk science.

Today, six years later, he’s calling for a reduction of 20% in gasoline use in the next several years. No longer is he attempting to increase the drilling in America or increasing the refineries or the nuclear power plants. He is calling for the decrease of CO2 emissions to stop global warming. The President has gone from good thinking to false thinking. Whatever global warming there is comes from the sun. Each day the earth radiates back into space the energy it has received from the sun. Water vapor in the form of clouds reflects heat back to earth in the local area where the clouds cover. This is not a global phenomenon. Why does the President seem to have changed his position?

Does the United States Supreme Court saying that the President has to do more to combat global warming caused by carbon dioxide cause him to change his position. In Roe vs. Wade the Supreme Court could not decide when new life began. How can you think they know anything about global warming and CO2 gas? Since the Supreme Court is wrong, why do what they say, especially when one is the President of the United States. The Supreme Court was not given that authority in the Constitution. Therefore, they have overstepped their authority. Congress and the President are supposed to be the check on the Supreme Court. They are not doing their jobs. One thing America does not need is laws and regulations based on lies.

Over the years the Supreme Court has promoted injustice may times over justice. Because the Supreme Court speaks, it doesn’t make them correct.

Sandy Burger stole government documents from the archives and all he got was the loss of his law license. Why didn’t the Justice Department under Bush give him jail time? Representative Jefferson from New Orleans, Louisiana took bribe money and the Justice Department has not done anything to him yet.

It seems that President Bush has lost some of his drive to do what is right on some of his domestic policy.

After 911, President Bush seemed concerned about the safety of the citizens of this nation. Now he is promoting the North American Union, giving all international water to the United Nations, and open borders to all that would steal into the nation. It seems that the sovereignty of the United States is of no concern to the President!