Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

N-33-20

March 19, 2020

The Governor of California tonight issued Executive Order N-33-20.  It makes mandatory the closure of non-essential businesses, defining 16 key industries that MUST be maintained and are not subject to what amounts to a general business shutdown.  Those 16 industries are identified in this document.

The Executive Order lays out the rationale first off,  then explains that the Governor does, in fact, have the authority to make such Executive Orders and bring to bear governmental resources to enforce them.  It then references a Health Order  from the California Department of Public Health on the same issue.

Both the Governor’s order and the CDPH order it is based on deal primarily with the issue of who should be going to work and who should not.  If you aren’t in one of the 16 defined critical infrastructure industries, your job is non-essential and you should close your business.  Neither order specifies any cutoffs for gatherings, but simply indicates people should stay home except to work in one of the pre-defined industries, or to otherwise facilitate authorized necessary activities.  I cannot find a definition of authorized necessary activities that wouldn’t simply be repetitive with the key industry guidelines.

It seems people are allowed to go out for necessary things – to obtain medication or medical care, to buy food and other necessities of life from those places like grocery stores and convenience stores that aren’t simply allowed to continue operating but are commanded to.

None of which addresses the issue of what religious groups should do during this time.

I know quite a few churches in town and in nearby towns that made the decision to suspend worship even before this Executive Order.  The question in my mind is whether that is now mandatory by law, or whether it falls into the nebulous zone of authorized necessary activities.  I have little doubt the Governor and other state officials would say it does not.  But since they haven’t clarified the issue, it is undefined.

The Center for Disease Control has recommended no more than 50 people gather in any one place unless absolutely necessary, and the White House recommends no gatherings with more than 10 people, and churches that violate this are getting press attention.

But these are recommendations, not laws.  And in general, I think they are wise.

The question becomes is worship a necessary activity?  And by what definition?  Again, I have no doubt the government does not view worship (in any religion) as a necessary activity.  But how should Christians define worship?

I don’t fault congregations and pastors that have opted to suspend worship and other gatherings.  But I don’t personally feel called to follow that route.

At least not yet.

Should more clear language be forthcoming, or should someone explain to me how (since I’m not a lawyer) I am misunderstanding what the Executive Order says, then it seems to remain at my discretion as a religious leader as to whether I should suspend worship services.  As I read it, the language of the order seems to be as unclear as possible.  This prevents specific outrage (from, say, religious groups) but rather relies on a great deal of social pressure.

Worship is not a command for Christians, but it is a strong encouragement and a privilege we should not abandon lightly.  Hebrews 10:19-25 is very helpful in this regard.  It isn’t simply the legal technicality of must we worship, but the reminder that worship is a massive blessing.  It emphasizes the communal nature of our faith (note the we and us throughout).  It references confession and absolution (v.22).  It centers us in who and what our hope and faith is – hope and faith in Jesus Christ who has made forgiveness possible to us.  It is God the Father who holds us in his hands, and ultimately him who holds the power of all health and healing in his hands.  This is NOT to toss our worldly wisdom and knowledge out the door, but it is to hold in the proper tension.  Medicine and treatments and other things are blessings from God intended ultimately not simply to elongate our lives but to direct our hearts and minds back to the source of all life and health not simply temporally but eternally.  Worship is also an opportunity to focus us on what we are called to do each and every day – love God and love our neighbors (v.24).  This does not justify needless recklessness, but does remind us that many of the heroes of the faith were willing to set aside their own well-being in order to tend to the needs of others.

Because of all these things, we should not lightly abandon meeting together particularly during difficult and frightening times!  We can still be wise about close contact and social distancing as we gather for worship!

And of course the second text to consider here is Romans 13.  This passage insists that Christians are not exempt of civil authority, but should be subject to it.  Of course, this obedience is mandated up to the point at which civil authority contradicts the Word of God.  At that point, we must like Peter and the apostles insist that we must obey God rather than human beings! (Acts 5:29).

If this Executive Order does mean gathering for worship is illegal for the time being, then I in good conscience as a servant of Christ can (and should) cancel public worship.  For a period of time.  At some point though – whether a point defined by civil authority or not – I will also be equally compelled to begin calling the saints to gather for worship.  It is very possible for a civil law to begin as good and necessary but eventually be misused.  God-willing, that time will not come.

In the meantime, all of God’s people should be praying for the deliverance of the world from this new virus, and a speedy return to a healthier environment both spiritually as well as physically.

 

It’s Not About the Money (But it is)

March 5, 2020

California has suffered the first death from the corona virus.  News reports indicate an elderly adult with underlying health conditions died from this newly identified virus.

In the meantime, without much fanfare and despite increasingly dramatic efforts to convince the population of the benefits of  flu shots, over 10,000 Americans have died from the flu so far this influenza season.  Ten thousand deaths, 180,000 hospitalizations and 19 million estimated cases of the flu this flu season, but California declares a state of emergency over one death.

Governor Newsom insists the move isn’t about money, but about mobilizing resources.  Said resources including additional Federal support, of course.  The City of Los Angeles also declared a health emergency as they have seven reported cases.  All of which certainly has nothing to do, I’m sure, with the fact that the US House of Representatives approved a bill for $8.3 billion dollars to be used in dealing with corona virus issues, and President Trump could sign off on it as soon as Friday.

The flu doesn’t qualify as a health emergency apparently.  Otherwise the more than 150 flu deaths in the state alone surely would have prompted a state of emergency declaration.  Money appears to be plentiful, as just a few weeks ago Governor Newsom was demanding $1.4 billion in new appropriations to fight homelessness.   And of course he wants to expand health care coverage to undocumented senior citizens at a cost tag of perhaps $80 million.  And facing the prospect of reduced incoming Federal funds because California doesn’t want to go along with Federal immigration laws, I can totally see how the decision to declare a state of emergency has nothing at all to do with money.

We’re apparently swimming in that.

 

(Not) Paying the Piper

February 26, 2020

It’s refreshing to see the recent court ruling indicating the Federal Government does have the right to deny certain grants and funding to states or cities that refuse to cooperate in enforcing Federal Law.  At issue is the matter of immigration policy and sanctuary cities or states that explicitly mandate local law enforcement to not assist Federal agents in any way not dictated explicitly by law.  These cities or states set themselves in opposition to Federal Law in an area (immigration) that is clearly a Federal rather than a state or local matter, and then expect there be no ramifications – particularly financial – to their defiance.

I don’t consider myself an advocate of big government at all, but clearly immigration policy is a Federal issue and should be.  The idea that 50 different states could determine 50 different policies is ridiculous and dangerous.  So is the misguided notion that we are assisting people by requiring them to live in enclaves of half-protection instead of offering a clear and direct path to citizenship if that is their intention.

Hopefully there will be some recognition, if this ability to withhold Federal funding from non-compliant cities and states continues and  gains momentum, that we are indeed ruled by Federal as well as State law, and individual states should not have the arbitrary right to flout this reality without facing consequences.  If people are unhappy with our immigration policies, the solution is to push for change, not to simply claim we won’t abide by the particular rules we don’t like.

Meanwhile, in Britain…

February 10, 2020

Franklin Graham, son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, has been banned from a speaking tour in Britain because all seven of the venues he was scheduled to speak at have cancelled.  Lawmakers there several years ago wanted to deny Graham a visa to enter the country.  At issue is the Biblical stance on gender and sexuality which Graham has the audacity to adhere to.

What’s really disturbing is not just how quickly society and culture have changed in the last century.  I mean, Billy Graham visited Britain many times between 1955 and 1989, where millions of people came out to listen to him.  Billy Graham met with Queen Elizabeth on several occasions over the course of his career, and was knighted in 2001.  One wonders if he would be as warmly welcomed today.  Based on his son’s treatment, I’d wager not.  The Queen’s silence on this current manifestation is telling.

But the more disturbing thing is that Christianity and the Bible are being redefined by a small but vocal group of Christians who wish to eradicate clear Biblical teaching on gender and sexuality.  Nearly 2000 years of nearly unanimous teaching and doctrine in this regard are being classified as hate speech because of a small group of Christians in the past few decades who have decided they are free to make such an assertion.

The Church should welcome LGBTQ people.  As the church should welcome adulterers, liars, thieves, murderers, and, well, everyone.  Sin is sin.  The problem is when a small group decides the Bible can be ignored regarding sin.  That we are free to declare sin as not-sin.   That current public opinion overrides the Word of God.

Sinners need to hear the Word of God, because only there will they find the cure for sin and the death it leads to.  That solution is not a demotion of sin to a lesser or non-existent issue, or to determine some sins are no longer sinful.  Jesus is clear this is not acceptable (Matthew 5:17-20).  So I would welcome all kinds of sinners to come and hear the Word of God.  All of that Word.  Because that Word has power, as I suspect those who rejected Graham understand.  Because that Word diagnoses us with a terrible and lethal condition to which there is only on cure.

The cure for sin and the death it leads to are in repentance and trust in the resurrected Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth.  Simply declaring we are no longer in need of a cure, or that we can dictate the cure on our terms arbitrarily is ridiculous.  Only when the underlying assumption is that there is no such God and therefore no Word of God and no Savior can we possibly presume to override God’s Word.  The results of this are and will continue to be disastrous.

Telling people what they are doing is sinful is no more hateful than a doctor diagnosing a patient with cancer.  Certainly some Christians and congregations do this poorly.  But to pretend people aren’t dying from sin – whatever that sin might be – is as unloving as a doctor holding back the prognosis from someone with cancer so their feelings aren’t hurt.

Franklin Graham may not get to preach in Britain, but the Word of God continues to go out in myriad forms and through myriad channels.  And when all is said and done, that Word will be the only and final word that stands.  May the world continue to seek solace and peace there, now and eternally.

Picture Language

October 24, 2019

Here’s a fascinating image gallery of anti-Christian propaganda posters produced during the time of the Soviet Union.  Hopefully it isn’t lost that some of the same caricatures of religion as backwards compared to the progressive movement of the State are being utilized today.

In our own country.

 

Income Disparity!

October 14, 2019

When I was a kid, we couldn’t afford to purchase school lunches.  Every day I brought my lunch to school in a pretty cool lunch box.  My preferred sandwich was peanut butter and jelly.  I ate that pretty much every school day for lunch from as far back as I can remember to sometime probably in late high school when I started working and could afford to – from time to time – eat out.

I never really gave this much thought.  Some people could afford to buy school lunches, just like some people – once we hit junior high and high school age – could afford to buy shakes and french fries and other luxuries for lunch.  It was a reality of my life.  Yes, it meant I wasn’t part of the in crowd (although there were plenty of other, non-economic reasons why I would never be invited into that hallowed clique).  I learned to deal with that.  As generations of kids did before me and after me.

Yet politicians today are outraged that not everyone can afford to buy school lunches.  Or some people sign their kids up for them but then fall behind in their payments, racking up debts with the school.  This has apparently been handled up till now by those children getting a “cheaper, alternative” lunch.  And this stigmatizes them.  They stick out from their peers who can afford the pricier lunches, or can afford to have the luxury of choosing what they want to eat for lunch instead of just having something handed to them.

Note that everyone is getting a lunch.  But some get to choose what they have for lunch while others are denied a choice, or their choice is less desirable.

So our state has decided to eliminate the stigma for these children by assuring that all kids – whether their parents can afford to pay their lunch debts off or not – get the same lunch.  No mention is made in the article about how this decision will be paid for.  I presume it will be paid for with yet another sob-story appeal to the voters about how the school systems can’t make ends meet and need more money in taxes and bonds to ensure all children receive a quality education.

Seems as though education is in order, indeed.

Starting with the hard, cold reality – both present and historical – that some people make more than others.  Some people have more than others.  In my studies of history, this has always been the case.  Even including efforts at socialism and communism in the 20th century, a basic fact of life is that some people are always going to be a little better off than others.  Or a lot.  Whether they’re supposed to be or not.  That’s the way life works.

Yet news stories today present this as though it’s some sort of newly discovered corruption in our society.  Did you know that some people can afford to buy portable generators when faced with possible power outages?  Did you know this is evidence of income disparity?!  Wait – you mean some people live paycheck to paycheck?  How is it that reporters and politicians are so surprised by this?  For pretty much all of my life, myself and the vast majority of people I’ve known live more or less paycheck to paycheck.  We don’t have vast sums of money in the bank.  Sometimes we have a little more.  Sometimes a little less.

But we live in a country founded on the principle that if you worked hard, you could improve your situation.  You might start out with not much, but you could try to do better.  It wasn’t handed to you.  It wasn’t paid for by other people.  But you had the chance to try and improve your lot in life.  Generations of people have done just that.  Millions of people from around the world have undertaken great risk and expense to come to our country because of that principle.  And many, many, many of them have found that principle isn’t just a nice marketing gimmick.  It’s true.  They’re witnesses to it, and that reality is what continues to fuel the desire to come to our country.

That’s not good enough for our politicians, apparently.

Maybe more of them needed to bring their lunches to school.  Maybe more of them needed to deal with the fact that some people don’t eat fancy lunches every day at school.  Some people don’t wear the latest designer fashions to school every day.  Some people aren’t invited to the cool parties and hang out with the popular kids every day.  That income disparity is just one of the pervasive realities of life, and despite good (or bad) intentions to the contrary, is amazingly difficult (or impossible) to eliminate.

Now that lunches are free, I guess we can move on to mandating a fashion fund so kids with parents who can’t afford to shop at all the cool stores aren’t stigmatized by having to wear off-brand clothing.  Maybe another fund to help poor families buy nicer cars so they don’t stand out when they’re dropping off and picking up junior from school.  The list could go on and on.

Life is not fair.  Not in income and not in a stunning variety of other ways.  Kids can be very cruel, it’s true.  And if it isn’t school lunches, it will be something else where they demonstrate this truth generation after generation.

Because the real issue isn’t school lunches or portable generators or even income disparity as a whole.  The real problem, the real root of cruelty and social and economic stratification is sin.  Brokenness that can’t be legislated away.  Sin that can’t be taxed out of existence.  We have to be saved from it, but the government isn’t up to that task.  Never has been.  Isn’t now.  Never will be.  We can seek to make improvements, to be sure.  And I know that good intentions are at the basis of writing about income disparity and trying to give free lunches to everyone.  But what we really need is a God willing to enter into our world to save us from the sin we can’t always see and sometimes don’t want to get rid of, as well as the sin we’d be happy to do without.  Jesus has done this.  My state – or Federal – government can’t.  They can’t fix the level of brokenness that leads to hurt feelings and social stigmatization.  At best, they can try to give away more free lunches.

But that’s something I learned in school as well, along with the fact that some people have more money than others.  There’s no such thing as a free lunch in this world.  Somebody, somewhere, always pays.

What’s Good For You

September 17, 2019

A lovely article about politics in the great state of California.

Reasons cited for parental reticence on vaccinations include complacency, the inconvenience of accessing vaccines and a lack of confidence in vaccines’ effectiveness.

I would be interested in knowing how the World Health Organization gets the statistic of 2-3 million lives saved via vaccines.  I’ll also point out how it’s a bit misleading to quote a global vaccination statistic rather than a national one, or even a state one.  I wonder if those are accessible, and if so, why they weren’t cited instead?  I’m assuming the numbers are lower (logically) and not as compelling.

I’m not anti-vaccinations per se, but I am deeply suspicious of global and national documentation regarding them.  I’m suspicious of a field that seems intent on criminalizing or delegitimizing any opposition or concern over vaccinations.  And I’m very opposed to the idea of the government forcing me or my children to have things injected into our bodies without being given the right of refusal or even the right to say which vaccinations we do or don’t want.  The State of California passed vaccination legislation a few years ago to make vaccinations mandatory, but provided  no opportunity or mechanism for public awareness or education about what vaccinations were being mandated.  A list was published at the time of the currently mandated vaccines, but it was  also clear that  list could  be amended by a committee at their discretion, and no mention was made about consulting constituents for their agreement.

That’s a recipe for potential disaster on a scale far exceeding a measles outbreak – which was the non-lethal illness that prompted the forcing through of  mandatory vaccination laws and now laws excluding religious  and philosophical objections and actively trying to cull or investigate doctors that might have some good reasons for providing medical exemptions.

I’m grateful for the benefits of health science, but vary wary of the government insisting I partake of the alleged benefits.  I’d prefer that to be listed as a reason as well, rather than lumping people with vaccination concerns together with the  woman throwing used feminine hygiene products at our lawmakers.  Questioning authority is not necessarily crazy.

Free Tuition?

August 12, 2019

Democratic candidates are stumbling over themselves in a bid to offer the most sweeping promises of college student loan debt to young voters.  Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the most detailed and perhaps the most generous of the candidates in this respect, offering partial loan forgiveness based on current earnings (Warren) or complete forgiveness of all debt regardless of current earning levels (Sanders).

It’s a smart ploy, of course.  College tuition has skyrocketed in the past 40 years and now even in-state students can easily rack up tens of thousands of dollars in loan debt – per year – at a public institution.  The local state university near me estimates $30,000 a year for an incoming, in-state freshman living off-site.  Just tuition is over $12,000 a year.  What a campaign pledge – imagine not having your student loan payment any more!

Funny how none of the candidates are questioning the outrageous tuition rates.  Funny how none of them are questioning whether it is reasonable, rationale, or moral to set a 4-year degree as an expectation for every single person in our country, regardless of their aptitude or the necessity or applicability of such a degree to the work they’d like to do.  Funny how the party that likes to portray itself on the side of the working person presumes that the average working person should be a college graduate no matter what the cost.  In fact, the cost is irrelevant because if you vote for us, we’ll eliminate the cost!  Well, the upfront cost.  In reality, you’ll still be paying college tuition not  just for yourself but for everyone else through higher taxes and other fees imposed either personally on you or the financial institutions you rely on who will pass the costs on to you.  For the rest of your life.  But right now?  When you’re 18 or 25?  Poof!  No more $500 student loan payment a month!  You’re instantly richer!  If you vote for us, that is.

This is what I call the short-term view of the situation, though.  Trading student loan forgiveness for short-term votes.  What I believe is going on though is a much bigger and long-term play for votes.

Universities and colleges – especially public ones – are overwhelmingly liberal/progressive/Democratic in outlook and philosophy, both as institutions as well as in terms of the personal views espoused in and out of the classroom by professors as well as in the textbooks used.  Of course Democrats are going to push for everyone to go to college, because by and large everyone will be exposed to the ideologies and assumptions that undergird progressive/liberal platforms.  While this will obviously be the case at public institutions, it will also be the case at many private ones as well.  I’ve talked with multiple recent graduates from the local private, Christian university in town.  They jokingly laugh about how they entered the school with one set of ideas – generally more conservative and traditional both politically and spiritually –  and emerged with a more progressive/liberal set.  Some can recognize this and chuckle about it – sometimes.  But I don’t see many of them resisting it very much or very well.  To get through the system you need to at least be able to repeat what they want you to say, even if you don’t believe it or agree with it.  Do that often enough, and it’s hard not to internalize the ideas you are required to regurgitate.

So of course Democrats want to subsidize higher education.  It’s in their best interests in the short term (since once this becomes a policy, there will be a gradually decreasing level of  support and therefore votes specifically for the Democrats as the ones that inaugurated the policy).  But it is also in their best interests for the long haul.  They have the best chance of creating people who agree with their policies if everyone goes to college.  That’s a frightening reality, but not a very far-fetched one, unfortunately.

As a former college educator I highly value education.  But I question the outrageous costs associated with it, and I question why nobody wants to tackle that question seriously.  I also question the honesty of trying to prep everyone for college as though this is the path to financial success.  The past decade at the very least has shown this is not necessarily the case any longer.  While there are some  professions that legitimately require not just a four-year degree but more advanced degrees beyond this, for many professions and companies a 4-year degree is just a box to be checked off on a job application rather than a directly relevant matter of knowledge and experience.

Voters should be skeptical of the plan to offer free college education.  Not just financially but ideologically.  On both fronts, this isn’t nearly as good a deal as it sounds (and frankly it shouldn’t sound like a very good deal to anyone with the ability to think clearly – college-educated or otherwise!).  The government offering to subsidize an industry is pretty much a guarantee that costs will rise and quality will drop in that industry – at least if health care is any gauge.

Holding Companies Accountable

August 10, 2019

Thanks to Ken for this excellent editorial from the Wall Street Journal.

At issue is how to deal with companies like YouTube or Google who censor not based on offensive content (profanity, nudity, etc.) but based on ideological bent.  This is not the first time I’ve brought up this issue.  Conservative or traditional voices are increasingly being muzzled online.  The awkwardness is that conservatives often do not decry this very strongly because of their strong commitment to minimizing government interference.  Since these entities aren’t the government, they are free to print or publish what they want.

Is that really the case?  Dennis Prager in this editorial answers no, it isn’t the case, and we need to hold these companies accountable for who and what they are in reality, rather than in theory.  Definitely worth the read, even if you have to subscribe to the WSJ in order to access it!

People of the State

June 26, 2019

Our state legislature is considering adopting an assembly concurrent resolution encouraging religious leaders to reject conversion therapy and not recommend or promote it within their circles.  ACR-99 has no binding effect – it does not create a law.  It’s simply an encouragement from both houses of the state legislature indicating the hope of the people of the state.  The governor is not required to sign an ACR, but I’m sure he will sign this one.

What I find interesting is how religious leaders are encouraged to act in the best interests of the people of the state by rejecting conversion therapy as an option for people with same-sex attraction.

I’m a citizen of the state, and yet I’m being told my best interests arbitrarily are not to be considered.  Likewise, those desiring conversion therapy in hopes of mitgating  or eliminating same-sex attraction are being told that their best interests are not considered, despite them being citizens as well.

Religious leaders do  not interact with people primarily in terms of their citizenship of a state or a country for that matter.  At least in the Biblical Christian understanding, ministers are ultimately to deal with people as children of God.  Creations and creatures being their most fundamental identity rather than the state flag on their drivers license or their voter registration cards.  And as such, how I interact with people will be driven by that level of identity understanding, not the whims of the current cultural or political climate.  It is not possible for me to adequately love people – as the ACR indicates – reliably from any other source or through any other identity.

I haven’t had to refer anyone for counseling for same-sex attraction issues.  Yet.  But I take issue with the state implying I should take my cues on how to do this from them rather than from the Word of God.