UPDATE: President Barack Obama has decided to take on the NFL instead of the GOP, agreeing with House Speaker John Boehner’s request to delay his address on jobs and the economy to a joint session of Congress until Sept. 8.

OUR EARLIER REPORT: President Obama has a decision to make: Go head-to-head with the GOP or the NFL.

In a bit of political one-upmanship, the president decided Wednesday to schedule his long-awaited speech outlining his jobs plan opposite a Republican presidential debate that had been scheduled for months.

Obama kicked off the controversy by sending a letter Wednesday to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid requesting to speak in front of a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, Sept. 7, at 8 p.m., the same time NBC News and Politico had planned to air their debate for GOP hopefuls from the Ronald Reagan National Library in Simi Valley, Calif. It will be the first debate to include Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has shot to the top of many polls as the Republican frontrunner.

Later in the day, Boehner, passed the ball back to Obama in a letter asking him to delay his speech until Thursday, Sept. 8, which would pit the president against the National Football League season opener between the Green Bay Packers and the New Orleans Saints, also on NBC. . . . MORE >>

Read Mickey McLean’s complete Web Extra report.

Despite all the talk about the conservative evangelical political consensus breaking up, Bible-believing Christians are still lodged in the Republican camp. Occasionally they become suspicious that maybe they are being catechized without realizing it by Fox News and Rupert Murdoch instead of by the Bible. So they look around for something to challenge their political assumptions.

Lisa Sharon Harper, my co-author in our forthcoming book, Left, Right, and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics (Russell Media), argued in an earlier book that an evangelical faith does not entail being either Republican or Democrat. But the position she articulates there would challenge the Democratic Party only by pulling it leftward. There are first principles that govern political life, and thus a logic to the policies that political parties advocate. So it is not surprising that Harper is writing starkly opposite me in Left, Right, and Christ.

Carl Trueman attempts to help the politically self-critical in Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative. He claims that when Christians support the entire platform of a party that is not committed to Christ, they are inevitably drawn into taking un-Christian positions and confuse the wisdom of men with the teachings of God. Point well taken. People who are concerned to live consistently for Christ will subject broad political theories as well as specific policy positions to the biblical test.

But anyone who looks to this book in search of, for example, a position on healthcare will find no guidance. That’s not Trueman’s purpose for the book. It is cautionary and critical, not prescriptive. Trueman, a professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary who brings a British perspective to American politics, wants to challenge Christians not to be led by the political passions of the day: “[T]he politics of nations and the destiny of God’s people, the church, must never be identified.” This is a welcome reminder.

But all too often he makes judgments based on highly disputable claims, like his identification of the profit motive with greed. He also focuses on the complexities of political questions (which are certainly real) to the neglect of the biblically justifiable principles that enable us to navigate our way through those complexities to a consistent underlying political theory. He also bypasses substantive biblical arguments that support the American political tradition and instead directs the reader’s attention to the apparent relativity of shifting historical positions. People in the Middle Ages thought feudalism was Christian. European imperialists thought that dominating the globe was their Christian duty. We think that liberal democracy is the biblically most consistent way. Who’s to say? Actually, there is a lot to say.

Of course Trueman is happy with our democratic and capitalist system because it seems to work better than all the others. But he sees no underlying principles that should unite all Christians behind it in an act of faith. “The bottom line,” he writes, “seems to be that politics as a whole is an art, not a science, and that individual political philosophies are generally eclectic.” So Trueman takes what appears to be a jumble of positions that cut across party lines in this country: He is against abortion and same-sex marriage but in favor of gun control and universal, government health insurance.

But if human beings are by nature made for community with one another, i.e., naturally political, why should a rational understanding of politics, i.e., a political science, be impossible? If God governs the universe and gives us government for our good (Romans 13), there must be government we can identify as definitively good and others as definitively bad. There must be identifiable degrees of good and bad, righteous and unrighteous. If political acts have moral content and political decisions are morally imputable decisions, then Christians should be able to work out a moral, biblically faithful political theory to guide them through the complexities of political issues. Prudence, or what Trueman here calls art, has an important place in politics, but prudence is helpless without principle to apply.

Carl Trueman is one of the finest Reformed theologians of our day, and this book shows that he has also been a thoughtful observer of political life. It is well worth reading. It will challenge you. Christians should follow his call not to accept modern individualism uncritically, to resist with all our might individualism’s horrible offspring, consumerism, and to beware of an undue emphasis on economic prosperity. But with appreciation for that brotherly counsel I remain undisturbed in my conscientious though not uncritical embrace of conservative American politics.

Instead of complying with new state laws that place restrictions on abortions, Planned Parenthood has decided to stop offering abortion services in three Arizona cities. As of Aug. 19, women could no longer seek abortions through Planned Parenthood in Prescott Valley, Flagstaff, and Yuma.

Planned Parenthood’s decision came a week after an Arizona state appeals court allowed key parts of a 2009 state law restricting abortions to take effect. The pro-life measures require women to see a doctor in person the day before an abortion to learn about risks and alternatives. Plus, healthcare workers are permitted to refuse to participate in abortions for moral or religious reasons.

Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, said the group likely would appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Arizona laws are part of a wave of pro-life measures that state legislatures across the country have recently passed in an effort to reduce the number of abortions. These other state laws include the banning of late-term abortions and preventing abortion coverage in new insurance exchanges. More than half of the states now require waiting periods for abortions, typically 24 hours. A larger number require some type of counseling beforehand, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Kansas, two abortion providers are challenging new regulations for facilities performing five or more elective abortions a month. A North Dakota law, also being challenged, would prevent the state’s only abortion business from performing medication abortions.

North Carolina’s General Assembly cut funding for Planned Parenthood through a provision in this year’s state budget, but last week Judge James Beaty Jr. ruled that the state cannot withhold funding until a lawsuit over that provision is resolved. The next step in the lawsuit will depend largely on whether the state appeals Beaty’s injunction. Gov. Beverly Perdue vetoed the budget but the legislature was able to override the veto.

In arguments before Beaty earlier this month, state lawyers defending the General Assembly said the budgeting decision doesn’t unfairly punish Planned Parenthood because the group could apply directly to the federal government for family planning funds.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of Alabama’s new immigration law, ruling that she needed more time to decide whether the law opposed by the Obama administration, church leaders, and immigrant-rights groups is constitutional.

The brief order by U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn on Monday means the law will not take effect as scheduled on Thursday. The ruling was cheered both by state Republican leaders who were pleased the judge didn’t gut the law and by opponents who compare it to old Jim Crow-era statutes against racial integration.

Among other things, the law would require schools to verify the citizenship status of students, but it wouldn’t prevent illegal immigrants from attending public schools. It would also make it a crime to knowingly assist an illegal immigrant by providing them with a ride, a job, a place to live or most anything else—a section that church leaders fear would hamper public assistance ministries.

“We as citizens of Alabama, the people of our churches as citizens of Alabama, have a right to free exercise of religion,” Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi of Mobile told the National Catholic Reporter, “and this law is written so broadly that it basically [limits] who we can welcome to our churches.”

Since the law is designed to keep citizens from helping illegal immigrants settle in the state, Rodi said that “almost any church ministry can be interpreted as encouraging someone to live in Alabama.”

State House Majority Leader Micky Hammon, a Republican representing Decatur, said the ruling is just the first round in what will be a long judicial battle over immigration in Alabama: “To put it in sports terms, it is the first half-inning of the first game of a seven-game World Series.”

Judge Blackburn will issue a longer ruling by Sept. 28, and her temporary order will remain in effect until the day after.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I was recently reading John Warwick Montgomery’s classic article “Christian Apologetics in the Light of the Lutheran Confessions” and was struck by his emphasis on the fact that only the Holy Spirit can change someone’s heart and mind so that one accepts the Gospel. What a relief! It’s not the persuasiveness of our speech, the cleverness of our philosophical arguments, or the piling on of historical evidence or data that does the real work. In fact, those are all means that God uses to challenge a person’s worldview but ultimately it is the work of Holy Spirit that acts to change the heart. Apologetics, then, must be considered a wholly Trinitarian endeavor.

The interest in apologetics has surged in recent years, but I’m beginning to wonder if many Christians who engage skeptics, antagonists, and those who are apathetic about the claims of Christ see themselves, first and foremost, as a part of the means that God might use to persuade their friends about the Gospel. Warwick observes:

“Salvation is a gift, and is brought home to the heart only by the sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit. . . . [T]he confessional apologist will see himself not as a Holy-Spirit-substitute but as a John the Baptist in the wilderness of a secular age, preparing the way of the Lord, making the paths intellectually straight which lead to the Lamb of God—to the only One who can take away the sins of the world.”

Does this mean that Christians should do nothing? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit normally works through the explaining of the Scriptures to impart belief, so there is a need for His people to do the work of explaining, clarify, and challenging. Montgomery says, “[T]hough only the Holy Spirit can apply Biblical texts in a salvatory way to human hearts, believers can and should employ Scripture to convince unbelievers of the nature and truth of God’s message.”

Sometimes we forget what the Bible actually teaches on the subject. I have found the following passages to be a helpful orientation in the work of engaging non-Christians in discussions:

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:5-6).

“. . . For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:10-13).

“You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus is accursed!’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:2-3).

What do these passages reveal? They demonstrate that explaining Christianity to those who do not accept its claims is an exercise in prayerfully requesting the presence of the Third Person of the Trinity. This wonderfully takes the pressure off of those who feel incompetent to be apologists with polished arguments or theologically sophisticated answers. The Holy Spirit is more than capable of using our imperfections and limitations to explain Christian truth because ultimately God defends and reveals Himself.

So the next time you are attending a conference on apologetics and there is no emphasis on the necessity of the Holy Spirit, it may simply be a gathering of people who enjoy being quarrelsome and argumentative instead of a group seeking the active work of the God to bring people in loving union with His Son, which might be a waste of your time.

There are plenty of times when “judge not” does not apply. For example, we are to make judgments about the kind of person we want to marry—or to hire to roof our house, for that matter.

But there are plenty of times when “judge not” does apply. I’m sure I have often judged someone without knowing all the facts or extenuating circumstances. But of course I don’t tend to think in terms of extenuating circumstances unless I am the “judgee” rather than the judger.

God reminded me of all this on two recent occasions. One was a few Sundays ago when my son, who lays tile for a living, drove from Philadelphia’s center city on Saturday night to go to church with me on Sunday morning. He forgot his good shoes at home (45 minutes away) and so had only his cruddy grout-encrusted boots to wear.

My son was mortified as we drove to the worship service. But when we considered the alternative to going to worship (which was: not going to worship), it was clear to both of us that the sin of abstaining from joining the assembly because of dirty shoes was greater than the “sin” of joining the assembly with dirty shoes. At some point in the calculation, fear of man was a foe to be confronted and repelled. We just hoped that the other people in church that day would be better people than we have often been.

The other teachable moment occurred when I walked into a pharmacy-convenience store with my granddaughter and purchased three packs of candy cigarettes. They were for my mother, to help her quit smoking. (Ours is a three-pronged approach, applying prayer, the “patch,” and the cigarette-shaped confections for the oral fixation component of the addiction.)

After I had paid my money and walked out of the store with my granddaughter and my cigarettes, I wondered if the sales attendant thought me a monster for setting my child up to be a smoker by letting her pretend to be one with kid-imitations.

“Love believes all things” (1 Corinthians 13). Love gives the benefit of the doubt.

Good morning!

This is our daily (except for Sundays) open thread, where you are free to talk about anything you want, as long as you are courteous to one another.

Last week I presented an example of a voluntary market transaction with negative externalities for the local community. With a pack of journalists trailing behind him day and night, it must have been easy for Sofia’s mayor to crunch the numbers. How many politicians would take the side of one landowner against the interests of hundreds of parents with more than a million potential voters watching the evening news? He met with the protestors girded by a reputation of being a problem-solver from his days as a firefighter and chief of police.

The mayor made a promise and consequently used all of the available executive powers at his disposal to stop construction—one of his many swift actions in response to popular demand that won him the office of the prime minister during national elections that year. But was there a “market failure” that necessitated his intervention? Classical liberals like Friedrich Hayek would most likely disagree since in this case property rights were clearly established; there was a well-functioning market for land and easy access to information. The neighbors were free to form an alliance, raise funds, and negotiate the purchase of the land or sign a long-term lease.

They also knew that the building would be worth more than a million dollars to the future homeowners. The parents loved their children but none of them thought it was worth it to pay their share of the market price in order to keep the playground. And so they abused the political system, acting as a tyrannical majority against the inalienable rights of their fellow men. Fortunately for the landowner, the courts acted in defense of the law that respects those rights (the outcome may have been different had the judge been up for reelection instead of appointed).

The walnut tree that protected me and my friends from the sun and the rain during so many games of marbles is gone. It makes me sad to see that playground replaced by a building. Nevertheless, as an economist I salute the fact that a government intervention without economic justification was overturned. What is more, the natural rights philosopher in me knows that in this tiny case Bulgaria’s independent judicial system has done its job of serving blind justice.

Around 10 percent of eligible voters turned out for Virginia’s primary races last week, but those few voters could end up having an outsized impact on politics nationwide if Republicans end up taking the state Senate this November with their new slate of strongly conservative candidates.

The House is likely to remain in control of the GOP, which holds a 59-39 edge, not counting two independents who caucus with the Republicans. In the Senate, Democrats hold 22 of 40 seats. With Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling casting tie-breaking votes, the GOP need to pick up only two seats to regain control of both houses of the General Assembly.

Even for the eight years when Republicans had outright rule of the clubby, 40-member upper chamber of Virginia’s General Assembly, GOP moderates and Democrats bottled up bills favored by social and grassroots conservatives. But the Republican candidates on the current ballot have enthused social conservatives. . . . MORE >>

Read Les Sillars complete WORLD Virginia report.

In my high school days before sex and environmental education and the general dumbing down of the population, memorization of some Shakespeare was expected in Miss Kauffman’s 12th-grade English class. A favorite I still recall is this line spoken by Brutus in Julius Caesar: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. . . .”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., repeatedly says in various ways it is too soon or he isn’t ready for higher office, such as vice president. He’s been in the U.S. Senate for a little more than seven months and has delivered only two major speeches: his maiden speech on the Senate floor and one last week at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

In the Reagan Library speech, Rubio laid out his philosophical foundation, something that must be at the heart of any policy.

Defining the proper role of government ought to be the central issue in the coming presidential campaign. Indeed, it should occupy our thoughts between campaigns because those of us who pay income tax are not getting a good return on our investment.

Here’s Rubio: “We have the opportunity—within our lifetimes—to actually craft a proper role for government in our nation that will allow us to come closer than any Americans have ever come to our collective vision of a nation where both prosperity and compassion exist side by side.”

That takes the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush to a different level. To Rubio, prosperity is not the opposite of compassion. Rather, the two are—or should be—joined. Prosperity provides the means by which people can be compassionate to those truly in need, such as the disabled and elderly. It is also the ticket out of dependency for people who can work but have been robbed of their dignity by addiction to a government check. Dignity leads to many other character qualities, which advance the true welfare of an individual, benefiting society. Someone with dignity, self-regard, and respect for others is unlikely to take part in a flash mob attack.

Rubio points to a path beyond the familiar “either-or” debate, beyond envy of the wealthy and multiple and ineffective programs to liberate the “poor.” This repetitive scenario has produced, said Rubio, “a government that not even the richest and most prosperous nation on the face of the Earth can fund or afford to pay for. An extraordinary tragic accomplishment, if you can call it that.”

Rubio went further than what might be expected of a Republican, acknowledging his party is partly responsible for the growth of government: “I know that it is popular in my party to blame the president, the current president. But the truth is the only thing this president has done is accelerate policies that were already in place and were doomed to fail. All he is doing through his policies is making the day of reckoning come faster, but it was coming nonetheless.”

And then there is this, which shatters the left’s stereotype about the right: “Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools . . . that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. And our programs to help them should reflect that.”

If this is not a speech that lays the foundation for a Rubio run for higher office, it is a speech that ought to begin a major transition from costly and ineffective government programs to a renewed empowerment of individuals.

No one, perhaps not even Rubio, can know for certain whether he is “ready” for higher office. President Obama has proven he wasn’t ready. Some leaders don’t know they can lead until leadership is thrust upon them. The right philosophy is key and the Reagan Library speech proves that Rubio has the most important ingredient of any leader: vision. Watch it (or read the transcript), be inspired, and then consider whether Rubio’s tide is rising.

© 2011 Tribune Media Services Inc.