A Skin Problem versus a Sin Problem

I am usually not a very big fan of professional athletes.  But one today appears to stand out from the crowd.  I have never heard of Benjamin Watson, who plays for the New Orleans Saints, but a cursory examination of his Facebook page reveals that he is very open about his Christian faith, which I think is commendable.  His faith doesn't appear to have gotten him the level of attention that Tim Tebow had to deal with, but his most recent post is getting a lot of well deserved attention.

He has posted a reaction to the situation in Ferguson, both the legal proceedings and the violent reaction to the outcome.  He expresses emotions of anger, sadness and fear, acknowledges that he doesn't know all of the facts or the answers.  He writes a very balanced but emotionally honest reaction to the situation, which is good to see in contrast to the endless inflammatory remarks that are flying around on both sides.  But the real kicker is in the last paragraph.

"I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope."

I am quite impressed that his message is gaining traction, to the tune of half a million likes, and a quarter million shares on Facebook, considering that it is openly Christian.  The first thing that catches my attention is that he uses the word "SIN" in all caps.  I have been becoming increasingly aware that this word has fallen out of favor in our modern society.  It doesn't appear to be politically correct to use it in any context at all, since that would imply that morality may not be entirely relative.  And he is using it repeatedly and emphasizing it, but his message is not being dismissed out of hand, which gives me hope for the future.  He also addresses the solution to SIN, from God in the form of Jesus Christ.  And because the SIN problem can be dealt with, that is the source of hope.  Because if the SKIN problem were the true underlying issue, there would be no solution short of genocide.  But it is not the problem, SIN is the problem, and that, thanks to Jesus, is a solvable problem.  And Watson comes out and actually says this directly, and it is well received.

So hopefully something positive may come out of this fabricated crisis, instead of all the negative that the devil (and the media) intend.  Any further circulation of this message can only help the situation, but I hope that it is not drowned out by the overwhelming roar of hatred and ignorance that we have been hearing in response to the situation over the past few months.  Identifying the real problem is the first step to solving it.

An Interest in Interest

Most people seem to be unaware of the fact that lending money with interest is forbidden in the Old Testament.  Most of the prohibitions are technically aimed at the lender, who it is implied, should lend without interest.  “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him." (Exodus 22:25)  “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest." (Deut 23-19)  Most Christians view many Old Testament rules as replaced by the New Covenant, which supersedes the Law.  But many of those Laws were put into place for external reasons, and many of those reasons are still valid today.  God has recently been showing me how ignoring this particular principle at a massive level, has led to many of the issues that we find in American society.

I am not trying to say that lending or borrowing money for interest is still inherently morally wrong.  I am just pointing out that it may still be a bad idea, with consequences that God was trying to protect us from.  Many of those consequences of ignoring that idea only apply to the larger picture, which is why they are more difficult to directly connect to monetary lending.  Others are more personal, and directly affect those involved in the transaction.  I have long been aware that the prevalence of huge mortgages enslaves most homeowners to their jobs.  That is why I bought a much smaller house, with money I had available at the time.  I realize that most people can't do that in the current economic climate, but that is a result of that principle being ignored for so long in the past.  Widespread availability of high value mortgages has artificially increased the price of property across the country.  So now the regular price of an average home is far out of reach of the normal consumer.  Might this be what God was warning us against?

But the issue is larger than that.  Our entire economy is based on credit.  Credit is foundational to most modern business practices, and is the underlying force that drives the stock market.  The same principle that drove up home prices to artificial levels is one of the factors raising the cost of healthcare, and as a result, raising health insurance costs.  There are many economists who believe that a reasonable level of national debt is health for a country.  But this seems to be at odds with the ideals of a free society.  We need a government controlled by the people, and not by those it owes money to.  Modern credit scores are based on financing costs being paid, and therefore reward those who are borrowing money, penalizing those who settle their debt promptly or even immediately.

So what is the best response to this problem that we can make as individuals?  It may be impossible for many people to avoid having a mortgage, but is your house bigger than you actually NEED, regardless of what you can actually afford?  Beyond that, I would avoid getting into debt at all.  What about the flip side, with money we do have?  That is the aspect that is directly addressed in the Bible.  I don't necessarily think it is wrong to store money in the bank, and was raised with a high value on saving money.  And accruing interest in savings accounts seems like a null issue at the moment.  But should we invest in stocks and bonds?  I don't think that is inherently wrong, but there may be a better way to use your resources, which honor this Biblical principle.

If we instead invest in income generating assets that can help other people, we retain the aspect of our resources working for us, while providing a service to others.  In my own case, that may end up looking like purchasing and rebuilding homes to sell or rent to others.  Then my resources are invested in hard assets, which still produce increase, but not based on the extending of credit, or profiting from the existing financial system.  It may look like something else if God shows me a better way, and it will certainly look like something else in other people's lives.  And having our wealth in less liquid forms increases our awareness of our dependence on God's provision.  We are no longer under the mistaken illusion that we can take care of ourselves based on the balance in our bank account.

The Value and Cost of Higher Education

I am realizing that I am a huge fan of growth and learning, but not necessarily of education.  Formal education can be good, but only to a point, and it always comes at a cost.  The question to ask is: at what point does the benefit cease to justify the cost.  Most any knowledge that can be acquired can be useful in some form, but some is more valuable than others.  Basic education should be widely applicable to daily life, and to develop critical thinking and analysis skills.

But beyond that, I do not think that education is inherently valuable.  If learned for a reason, anything can be valuable.  But the same things learned for their own sake are not inherently useful or valuable.  I am all for someone pursuing a degree if they feel called to be a lawyer or a doctor.  But if they are just going to college of grad school because they aren't sure what else to do, that isn't necessarily good.

There is a debate about how much the government should be subsidizing higher education.  On the one side, there are those who think that the government should help pay for college costs, because an educated population is good for society as a whole.  On the other side are people who think that people should pay for the costs of their own education, because they are the ones who stand to benefit the most from that opportunity.  And they are the ones who have to be responsible to put in the effort to actually succeed and learn in that environment.

I usually favor independent responsibility, and less government intrusion in the lives of its citizens, so I am not in favor of government funding, and therefore control, in education.  But I have been seeing some articles pointing out how Europe has successfully publicly funded their University systems.  And that caused me to wonder: if they have succeeded to do that, why can't we?  That doesn't seem like such a bad thing to do, instead of hordes of graduates with excessive debts flooding into the job market.  What is wrong with that idea?

I also saw another article comparing foreign exchange students to Americans in our universities.  The basic premise was that immigrants were seen as too busy studying to have any fun, and Americans were too busy drinking and partying to do any studying.  So I found myself wondering, how do we solve that problem.  And that is when some conversations I had with foreign students in college began to come to mind.

They had explained that they qualified and were chosen for the foreign exchange program, the same way they were selected to attend public university.  They had to pass certain tests in high school that determined if they would be given a spot at university, and if not they were not allowed to advance in their education.

In America, as a free country, we want people to have freedom and options.  That means that the government doesn't choose who is allowed to attend university, but to increase those potential options, we currently subsidize that option, with loans and grants.  So most individuals have the freedom to attend college, with fewer financial limits than would be natural.

So what if we copied a different aspect of the European system, and tied government financial assistance to ongoing academic performance?  Suddenly the issue of the average American college student wasting their time drinking and partying would be solved.  Some would wise up and work harder, and the others would be removed, where they could do their partying and drinking after they get off work from doing something loosely productive instead of pretending to learn.  Our tax dollars would get a much better return on investment, with those we do pay for actually learning more, for the benefit of society.  With fewer college graduates, who actually learned something in school, a degree would actually be meaningful in getting a good job.  And that would incentivize the whole system, to encourage it to improve, instead of devolve into the current mess.

Now there are some students who can afford to pay for their education without government assistance, and in a free country they shouldn't necessarily be excluded the opportunity.  And they may be ones who are partying it up, but that is less likely when they are spending their own money on the classes they are skipping.  And even if they aren't learning, they are paying into the system, so their irresponsible behavior is no more of a burden on the system than if they weren't there at all.

So we find that as usual, irresponsible government spending with no accountability is not only wasteful, but leads to much larger problems than they were originally intended to solve.  But the process of changing it will be very unpopular due to the fact that Americans don't understand the difference between the right to freedom of access to something, and deserving to have it blindly provided to them free of charge.

When Does Life Cease to be Valuable?

We recently saw the conclusion of what was probably the highest profile assisted suicide case in history.  A young woman who recently moved to Oregon to legally acquire a prescription poison, deliberately ended her life before her terminal brain cancer destroyed her mind on body.  She not only committed suicide, but she publicized the entire process leading up to it, in an effort to encourage other people to do the same, and for the rest of us to fully support and condone that process.  But should we?

Clearly there is no denying that God gave us the ability to commit suicide.  But he gave us the ability to do all sorts of things we shouldn't do.  Not everything we have the ability to do, we have the right to do.  Nearly everyone has the ability to commit suicide, but do we have the right?  And more to the point, should we as a society be facilitating that process, or trying to prevent it?

Should we allow assistance to those committing suicide, or consider that to be akin to murder?  And beyond that, should we give people the right to assistance, compelling medical professionals to provide that service, regardless of their beliefs on the issue?  The Hippocratic oath, which has been a tradition honored in the medical profession for thousands of years, clearly conflicts with idea of doctors prescribing deadly poisons, or doing any other harm to their patients.

Should you need to have a terminal illness before suicide is legal?  That is why the medical profession is involved in the first place.  Otherwise it could be something that you get at the hardware store, like rat poison.  Should you need a prescription to kill yourself?  Obviously you don't really need one; there are lots of unsanctioned ways to kill yourself.  But the medical profession offers a solution that is "peaceful" and "dignified," in the form of some specially formulated drug.  Who develops these anyway, and how do they test them?  Probably the same people who develop drugs for lethal injection, designed not to be "cruel or unusual" punishment.  Which leads to another important question: "How do we reconcile the two views that a lethal overdose is the ultimate punishment for a convicted murderer and, at the same time, the ultimate blessing for an innocent terminally ill or disabled person?"

The opposing view, is that people who seem fated to die a long painful death based on medical prognosis, should be given the merciful option to end things quickly.  And if you believe in the value of freedom, then it seems to logically follow that the opportunity should be made available to them, to allow them to make their own decision and deal with the consequences.  I would concede that if you remove the religious belief elements from the equation, from an individual perspective, one could make equally strong cases either way.

But I have been learning recently how over focused Western culture is becoming on individuals and their rights as opposed to the good of the society at large.  If we look at the issue from a social perspective, we see a totally different picture.  Should any nurse or doctor be forced to provide a "treatment" that they personally believe to be unethical.  Even if they weren't opposed to the concept, what would their participation due to them at a psychological level.  What would happen to the Hippocratic oath?

Should insurance companies cover that "treatment?"  Should they be able to promote that option over a painful $100K operation with limited potential for success?  Will making that option available eventually create a social pressure for the terminally ill and disabled to remove the burden of their care from their families?  Does this place within society the value that our personal convenience is more important than the lives of other people? (As with abortion)  How far of a step is it from assisted suicide, to removing the decision from the patient and to the doctors or insurance company?  Europe has legalized various forms of euthanasia, which are unquestionably wrong.  So if we look at the larger picture, it is easy to see that an issue that could be argued either way from a personal rights point of view presents a significant potential cost and risk to society at large.  What kind of world do you want to live in?

Taxes, Authority, and Control

Taxes are usually a pretty controversial issue, which few people seem to give much thought to beyond "higher" or "lower."  What are the purpose of taxes?  And how should they be levied.  Originally, taxes were created to fund the government.  In modern times, they have become one of the main tools for the government to encourage or discourage behavior.  IRAs encourage retirement saving, alcohol taxes discourage drinking, etc.  Recently the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental parts of Obamacare, because it was only enforced through taxation.  That explicitly endorsed this method of implementing change, and got around the existing constitutional limitations on government power.  But how should we be taxed?

Mathematically, there will be an optimal tax rate that generates the most revenue for the government, but not one can accurately determine what that is, due to the complexity of the equation, and the numerous variables involved.  The conservative claim that lowering taxes stimulates the economy enough to increase total revenues is not always true, nor is the liberal claim that raising taxes is a good idea.  A 0% tax rate raises zero revenue, as does a 100% tax rate. (Removing all incentive for a currency economy.)  If we were to graph that, it would give us a Y-value of 0 for input values of 0 and 100, and various positive results in between, forming a curve.  The peak of that curve would be the tax rate that returns the highest total revenue to the government, but the precise shape of that curve is impossible to know with certainty.  Conservatives usually believe that we are past it, while liberals believe we have not yet reached it.

That leads to the next question, which is should the government be trying to receive the maximum possible revenue.  On principle I would say no, only enough to cover the necessary expenses.  But given the $16Trillion debt, I think that at this point that is a reasonable point to aim for.  I don't claim to know what the ideal rate is, I just want to hear a decent debate about it, which would never include the phrases "(raising/lowering) taxes ALWAYS (increases/decreases) tax revenue," which is never a true statement.

Personally, I'd like to pay less in taxes, but I am not opposed to paying "my fair share," whatever that in reality actually is.  But I oppose expanding government, which would lead me to advocate lower rates if it weren't for the fact that the US government never hesitates to borrow money to cover whatever expansion the existing tax revenues don't cover.

But there is one area in particular where I have been examining the effect of the level of authority taxation gives the government.  Churches have traditionally been tax exempt in America, to prevent the government from using excessive taxes as a way of influencing of controlling churches.  But as taxes have become more extensive and valuable, that has had some interesting side effects.  Typically, church donations are tax deductions for the donor, income tax free for the church, which also doesn't pay property taxes, sales taxes, or employment taxes to ministers, who are exempt from income tax as well.  There is nothing necessarily inherently wrong with this, but it leads to an interesting paradox.

The value of these exempted taxes is quite high, and if the government was to change the rules, that would alter the budgets of churches drastically.  The threat to revoke certain church's tax exempt status is now being used by the government to exert authority over them.  I consider this to be a huge threat to the independence of the church, and the separation between church and state.  All anyone needs to do is look to Europe to see the result of that line being blurred.  The Queen of England appoints the leaders of the Church of England, without regard for God or any other spiritual factors.  So how can we remove this threat to the independence of churches?

Ironically the answers seem to be to make what is threatened actually happen.  The original threat appeals to the greed of the church leadership, who don't want to see their church growth limited by tax expenses.  But if churches were already paying the same taxes as everyone else, this wouldn't be a potential threat.  I am not advocating getting rid of tax deductions for donations, just the tax exemptions that churches have.  They could pay property taxes, and sales tax, and employment tax just like everyone else.  There shouldn't necessarily be an income tax for it as a non-profit institution, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for ministers could pay income taxes.  They receive the same citizenship benefits as everyone else does.

I was very opposed to this idea when I first heard it suggested, since it doesn't initially appear to promote church independence from government intervention.  But after pondering it for a while, I began to see the wisdom in it.  And Mark 12:17 could be used to support it from a Biblical perspective.  Now what if the government tries to abuse this power we give them to collect taxes from churches, to influence or control the church?  Well then we fight it as a violation of the separation of church and state, just like we would fight anything else.  But our case would be much clearer in that situation, and it is not like they aren't already trying to abuse the current exempt status to influence churches and their leaders, so we would be no worse off in that regard.  But any abuse of churches would be much more obvious if churches were on the same playing field as all other non-profit entities.

Healthcare and Freedom

The American Revolution was started under the slogan "give me liberty or give me death."  So we can safely conclude that our country was founded on the idea that freedom is more important than survival itself.  But freedom inherently entails a certain level of responsibility for one's self, and one's decisions freely made.

Enter modern healthcare, which has become increasingly expensive, as newer treatments and drugs are developed.  Higher prices have made healthcare prohibitively expensive without insurance.  Inflated prices allow companies to overcharge each other for "out of network" services.  Individual consumers are always "out-of network" and therefore always overcharged.  On top of this, insurance costs have gone through the roof, both for patients, and doctors who fear massive lawsuits if they make a mistake.

So what is to be done about the problem?  One approach is to look to the government to solve the problem.  Now this is necessary to an extent, since they are part of the existing problem, but that doesn't make them the solution.  We do need some changes in regulation that will bring down the cost of healthcare, not just health insurance.  I wouldn't be opposed to banning health insurance for regular preventative care. (Only covering injury and catastrophic illness)  Limiting the costs of liability litigation would be helpful as well.

Instead we see a solution being brought about where the government is being looked to to pay for the costs of healthcare.  This idea is kind of ludicrous since the US government is already the most indebted entity in the history of the world.  So what is the rest of the world doing to solve this problem?  Many have implemented a socialized medicine solution, where the government manages and pays for the entire healthcare system.  So why not do that here?

Because none of those are free countries, not a single one.  How do I know this?  It is impossible for a country to be free if the government runs the health care system.  If the government is paying for your healthcare, they control your healthcare.  If they control your healthcare, they control you.  And therefore, you are no longer free.  Being a free citizen will inherently require that you take responsibility for your own health and healthcare.  And this is why we see such fierce debate about Obamacare and the ACA.  Something much more important than healthcare is at stake here.  Because so many Americans have been willing to die for freedom, we see that freedom is more valuable than health, and it would dishonor their sacrifice to give up our freedom to improve our healthcare.   It's really very simple.

God's Favor Resting on his Followers

I heard an interesting teaching a while back, which isn't explicitly biblical, but that doesn't make it untrue.  It is difficult to prove, and may be self fulfilling at the anecdotal level, but still worth examining.  It relates to God's favor, and how it rests on his followers and is shared by them.  Traditionally certain aspects of God's favor and calling have been shared with others through prayer, and direct contact through the laying on of hands.  But can that favor be shared in other ways?

Someone proposed the idea that we can bring that favor to places we go to, or where we do certain things.  The basic claim was that choosing one option over another either led to, or was a result of, God's favor of that option.  If you are travelling, and stop to get something to eat, there are usually multiple fast food options in a given area.  Besides habitual preference, which one do you choose?  And then what happens?  Have you ever showed up at a business that was totally devoid of customers, and gotten served at once?  And then as you were receiving service looked behind you to find that a line had formed?  The intuitive and natural response to that is: "wow, I got here just in time, before it got busy."  But that assumes that you have no effect on the world around you.  Is it possible that your conscious choice to go their affected others and their decisions of timing?  You definitely didn't force them to, as that would violate free will, but what determines which options occur to us or feel favorable at any given moment?

Once you have been conscious of this possibility for a few months, you will observe all sorts of possible applications of it, but each individual one could easily have been a coincidence.  But being familiar with the principles of blind probability, I would be inclined to think not, even accounting for the fact that people usually ignore the number of examples that don't illustrate their point.  But the most extreme case happened to me last week.

I needed to get my car smogged, and had no idea where I should get it done.  I had coupons to two places, but was discouraged from one option by a former employee.  In the same conversation, another option was recommended to me, because the owners went to my church.  I think choosing it for that reason may have magnified the effect, if it exists at all.  The same place was recommended on a random FB feed from an unrelated friend the next day, so I figured that might be a good place to check out.

I showed up without an appointment, late in the afternoon, fully prepared to come back later if I needed a prior appointment, but hoping that I could get it taken care of all at once.  When I arrived there were no other customers there, and the employees were all sitting around waiting for something to do.  When I went inside I realized the owners were a couple who usually sit right next to me at church, but we had never really talked past basic introductions.  Within minutes people started arriving, and their cars were lining up.  By the time my car was finished 15 minutes later, at least eight other customers arrived, some of whom had to be deferred to future appointments since it was late in the afternoon.  I don't claim to have caused that to happen, but it seemed like a pretty solid illustration of that idea of God's favor resting on his followers, if there is any truth to it at all.