What is an Oligarchy?

“That’s why, in my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is the dangerous concer- — and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.

Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.

We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before, more than a century ago. But the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts.

They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy pay the by — play by the rules everybody else had to. Workers won rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class and the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen, and we’ve got to do that again.”

President Joe Biden, Farewell Address, January 15, 2025

President Biden delivered his farewell address on January 15, 2025.  While Biden himself would admit he is not the greatest orator, the speech is a good speech.  It’s well written and reflective and accomplishes what a farewell address is supposed to do.  He highlighted America’s strengths and reflected on the accomplishments of his administration.  Then he provided a warning for the future.  One in which he warned Americans of the concentration of power in the hands of select few.  

He warned Americans of an oligarchy taking root.

And so, for the rest of the day and into January 16, 2025, the top trending search no Google was “what is an oligarchy?”

I don’t know if this speaks more to interest or to a failure in our Civics education that we are googling the answer, but here we are.  Our first Big Question of 2025.   One whose importance was highlighted at Trump’s second inauguration.

And one I wish I still had my notes from a certain “-Isms” test to answer, but I’ll do my best in the interim.  For at least this question has a definitional answer.  We can talk about what constitutes an oligarchy and discuss examples of it.  Beyond that, we also have to discuss why it matters now.

First, definitions.

An oligarchy is government by the few.  A power structure in which the power rests with a small number of people.  We contrast this with a monarchy, in which power rests with one person, or a democracy, where power rests with a large number of people.  The oligarchy rests somewhere in between.  No set number, but just recognizing all the power rests with a defined subset of people.

The people in the group are usually distinguishable from the general populace in certain specific ways.  Nobility, education, fame, wealth, or some sort of degree of control.  Military control, religious control, economic control, political control.

Generally, today, we focus on economic control.  A group of the wealthy.  As it goes, money makes the world go round.  Money buys influence and political power.  Money can buy fame.  

This puts us in a subset of the oligarchy - the plutocracy.  Rule by the wealthy elite, where wealth rather than merit controls.

Our most recognized current example is Russia.  Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the general view is that Russia has been ruled by a class of individuals with significant economic power intertwined with the role of the President. A group of individual leaders in the energy, natural resources, and metals sectors, overseeing and working through President Putin.  A list of around 13 individuals controlling the direction of the Russian Federation.  These are the people our sanctions against Russia have targeted - not the country specifically, but these wealthy individuals that can effectuate change in the country.

In America, we can look at examples in our past of economic oligarchies.  We called these trusts or monopolies.  Collusion by a few companies to control a particular market.  Standard Oil, American Tobacco, US Steel.  Power in the hands of specific conglomerates, allowing for rampant abuse in the market.  Price fixing, income inequality, strong arm elimination of competition, worker abuse.  All so the small group in charge could remain in charge.

Commentators have been more recently rising alarms about an oligarchy in modern America, as we’ve seen continued increases in the power of the financial elites.  The Supreme Court in Citizens United removed campaign donation limits, seemingly okay with the wealthy being able to buy politicians.  Former President Jimmy Carter described America afterwards as “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.” 

A 2014 political science study found evidence that the United States’ political system does not primarily reflect the preferences of its average citizens.  Analysis of policy outcomes between 1981 and 2002 suggested that the wealthy and business groups held substantial and disproportionate influence over political decisions, to the detriment of the majority of Americans.

Which brings us to today.  

To the inauguration on Monday in which the seats normally reserved for state governors were filled by the tech industry elites.   Tech industry billionaires all currying favor with the incoming and returning president.  Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Shou Zi Chew, Sunar Pichai, and Sam Altman.  Tesla/SpaceX,Twitter, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Apple, TikTok, Google, and OpenAI.  Combined they represent around over $1 trillion in wealth.  To put that in perspective, the combined wealth of the bottom fifty percent of Americans or around 170 million people is just less than $4 trillion.   Disparity and income inequality on a factor it’s hard to fathom. All there in seats of prominence at this most recent transfer of power.

The more concerning part is that all of these CEOs represent control over our modern media.  Social media platforms, devices, satellite internet, and servers.  That does not even start on e-commerce.  Put simply, these CEOs can control the information that we receive and how it flows between us.  They can decide what is acceptable information and what is misinformation.  What fits their agenda and what does not.

The power of these companies and their leaders is concerning in and of itself.  Their intertwining with President Trump is downright alarming.  This is why so many people have had concerns regarding Elon’s connectedness to the President.  There have already been questions about his election interference in this recent election via Twitter(X).  We will only see those grow.  

America is structured as a constitutional republic because we recognize that real power should belong to the people and should be acted on by their representatives to prevent mob mentality.  It should be purposefully diffused.  It’s why we have separation of powers, why we wrote in checks and balances, why we have historically busted trusts and fought against monopolies.  

This should be an apolitical issue.  Something all sides could agree upon.  

We should all refuse to allow any group of wealthy elites to exert influence over our government and country.  But I fear, this has just become another political hotbed.  The Republican Party and MAGA sect seem to love and respect Elon Musk and are excited for his influence in the government, thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency push.  Trump has scored major points by reinstating TikTok, and Zuckerberg is showing his alignment by removing fact checking.  

What remains to us is to resist.  

We should hold our representatives accountable to oppose the oligarchic intrusion.  We should push our representatives for strong antitrust measures.  To reinstate common sense campaign finance restrictions.  To demand our elected officials make appropriate divestitures and not profit off their time in office (looking at you TrumpCoin). 

You know, things we used to expect and demand.

In the interim, we just have to keep reminding ourselves this is not normal.  This is not how things are supposed to work.

That will remain a thread in all of these entries coming up.

The State of Israel =/= The Nation of Israel

A re-post of a blog from March 14, 2019.  The sentiment needs to be reiterated again, especially in light of the current conflict in Israel.  We would like to think that the government of the modern nation of Israel always acts honorably, but that is not always the case.  Especially, towards its non-Jewish citizens, of which, there are many.  In this particularly incident, Israel barred tens of thousands of Muslims from prayers at the Al Aqsa mosque over the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, a move which drew criticism from all but the most hardline of Israeli leadership.  Israel has also threatened eviction of Palestinian families in the Sheikh Jarrah district, a move which has received the condemnation of the EU, the UN, and the UK governments.  And as tensions and conflict grew as a result of Israeli actions, the Israeli government authorized the use of CS gas and stun grenades in the Al Aqsa mosque on May 10 to help quell the conflict.  Imagine if our police started using tear gas and stun guns in a church here (or think back to when US troops used pepper spray on those at a church so Trump could have a photo op with the Bible).

It's one thing to support Israel.  It's another to blindly allow it to act however it likes.  There are times when we have to call out our allies.  And this is one of them.  The Netanyahu government has been increasingly hostile to a significant portion of the nation's population.  That cannot stand.

If we are going to fully support Israel because of Biblical pretexts, we should expect that they uphold their faith obligations as well. 

------------------------------------

This is likely not going to be a popular entry, but it's one that needs to be said.  The title should effectively read the current state of Israel does not equal the biblical Nation of Israel.

We can see many instances in which a government is not its people.  Government's can be corrupted, governments can be broken.  Further, the full Nation of Israel is still dispersed across the globe with its people. God's people are in nearly every nation on earth, while the government of Israel is protecting its promised land.

A land that is contentious and controversial.  Leading to need for diplomacy in the area and international relations with the government that are plagued with mine fields.

The United States has had a close relationship with Israel since the recognition of the state of Israel in 1948.  This bilateral relationship is a very important factor in the overall policy in the Middle East and considerable importance has been placed on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship. This is particularly true among political conservatives and especially heightened by the evangelical influences in the Republican party.  This can be seen in comments like Senator Lindsey Graham's recent "reminder."  "Here's a message for America: Don't ever turn your back on Israel, because God will turn his back on us."

For many, the deep nature of this connection stems from biblical warnings to the enemies of Israel and protections for its allies.

"I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Genesis 12:3

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: 'May those who love you be secure.'"

Psalm 122:6

"For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish; it will be utterly ruined."

Isaiah 60:12

And while I do not want to suggest that we should not be an ally to Israel or that our relationship should not be maintained, I do think it's time we take a hard look at how that relationship is manifesting in our country.  Because we seem to be getting dangerously close to "Israel can do no wrong."  To a position where any questioning, any criticism, any rebuking, any statement or action against something Israel has done is not tolerated and labeled "anti-Semitic."

We can see it in the discussion after Rand Paul blocked a bill that would send billions of dollars of aid to Israel, though it came from his strict Libertarian position.  "I'm not for foreign aid in general, if we are going to send aid to Israel it should be limited in time and scope so we aren't doing it forever, and it should be paid for by cutting the aid to people who hate Israel and America.  This is a stance I've taken for many years."

Or in the firing of Marc Lamont Hill following a U.N. speech endsoring the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel, but closing with the call for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea."  The phrase drew criticism from some conservatives and staunch Israel advocates, who view such remarks as echoing language used by Hamas and other groups that seek to eliminate Israel.  Hill emphatically denies these allegations, and reiterated that while he supports Palestinian freedom, he does not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to him.  He petitions for the return to pre-1967 borders, to give full rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to allow right of return.  The full rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel in particular will come up later.

More recently, look to the controversy around Representative Ilhan Omar's latest comments on Israel.  While speaking to a bookstore, Rep. Omar suggested that pro-Israel groups were pushing lawmakers to "pledge allegiance to a foreign country."  This led to Congresswoman Nita Lowrey responding in a tweet that "Lawmakers must be able to debate w/o prejudice or bigotry.  I am saddened that Rep. Omar continues to mischaracterize support for Israel.  I urge her to retract this statement and engage in further dialogue with the Jewish community on why these comments are so hurtful."  Omar fired back, "Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman!  I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.  The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest.  I am sure we agree on that!"  The exchange resulted in the House shifting their focus to overwhelmingly pass a broad resolution Thursday afternoon, March 7, 2019, to condemn all bigotry.

Rep. Omar's comments, like Hill's, were claimed to draw on anti-Semitic tropes, particularly those that play on Jews hypnotizing the world or running the world behind the scenes.  And while she may need sensitivity training on how to phrase her comments, she does have a point.  We're seeing a pattern where every attempt at a discussion of American-Israeli policy is met with a hard stop.

And we're seeing a need for that discussion in the actions of current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Netanyahu has tried to rally his religious and nationalist base for re-election by charged accusations that his challengers will form a coalition government with Arab political parties.  This was met with a post by Rotem Sela, one of Israel's top models and TV hosts, stating "What's the problem with the Arabs?  Good heavens, there are also Arab citizens in this country.  When the hell will somebody in the government tell the public that Israel is a state of all its citizens and that all people are born equal?"

To which Netanyahu replied, "I would like to clarify a point that, apparently, is not clear to slightly confused people in the Israeli public."  Israel "is the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people."

There are around 1.8 million Israeli Arabs.  20% of Israel's nearly 9 million citizens.  And its prime minister has just written them off.  It's one thing to say the religious, the biblical Nation of Israel is just Jewish.  That would be correct and as I've stated, reflects the Jewish population across the globe.  But it's true of only about 75% of the citizens of the state of Israel.

And so far, American politicians have been silent. Our president can tweet false claims regarding the co-founder of Greenpeace, fan the claims of anti-Semitism in the Democratic party, and continue to stoke his ego, but nothing about a country clearly disregarding a subset of its population.

This should be concerning even for those believing in the biblical call for supporting Israel.  In our Journey Groups, we have four core values, the final of which is admonishing biblically.  It's a reminder that when you are someone's ally, when you are interested in the growth of a friend or family, you speak up when they are acting inappropriately.

"As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Titus 3:10-11

Further, we know that historically there were times that even the Nation of Israel "did what was evil in the sight of the Lord."  That there were times they needed to repent and return.  And even if the current government of Israel completely represented the nation of Israel, there would be times where we could not support them.  That we should not support them.  If we are a Christian nation as we claim to be, we should be following the Lord's instructions and speaking up when admonishment is necessary.  To bring our friend to repentance.

We have to be able to do this.  We have to be able to talk about this.  Otherwise, we're supporting the exclusion of a minority population in that country.  And that can't be who we are.

Abraham Lincoln believed the political religion of the United States to be liberty.  Liberty and Justice for All.

If we believe in that like we say we do, we have to call out our allies when they infringe on the liberty of their citizens.

Especially when it's not popular.

No Longer Grand, Just Old

Here lies the Grand Old Party, and all it once stood for. In its place, we recognize the Old Party. And May God have mercy on us all. 

Seriously, though, any vestiges of the ideals of the GOP are long gone. The party of Lincoln is now firmly and unalterably the party of Trump. They finalized that switch yesterday with their removal of Liz Cheney from leadership. 

Removing her for telling the truth. For refusing to continue to propagate the Big Lie. For refusing to bow down to their kingmaker Trump. 

In short, they ousted her for having principles. 

There used to be an ability or at least a desire to present an educated and principled Conservatism. The air of William F. Buckley and his brand of conservative thought. The ability to debate and spar at the same level as progressives and liberals. The hope to win on thoughts and ideas. 

Today’s Republican Party could barely spell Buckley much less identify him. 

Just look at Marjorie Taylor Greene, the QAnon favorite, accosting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the hallways.  The gloating by Madison Cawthorn on Twitter after the ouster of Cheney. 

We don’t have statesmen anymore, we have thugs. 

This isn’t surprising; it’s been the trajectory of the party ever since Trump took power. At least, up to this point, there was hope that some of the party was resisting.  That people like McCain, Romney, Cheney, and others were fighting for and speaking for the traditional conservatism. Fighting for the great roots of the party.   

It’s clear that fight is now over.  

The powers that he have determined that Trump is the only hope for success at the polls. If Biden’s approval numbers are any indication, it would seem they are making a grave error.  And if my suspicions are true, it will take a long time for the Republican Party to recover, if ever.   If they err here, demographics are already turning against them, decreasing the likelihood of any success without a great change in policy.   They know these things and are unwilling to do so.  Hence the perpetuation of the Big Lie and the voter restriction laws they are trying to pass. If you can’t win on principles, you win on technicalities.

Thus begins the slow death of the Old Party.  No longer Grand.  No longer in power.  Appealing to an ever dwindling minority, promising to bring things back to the good old days.

Whenever those were.

You Can't Be A Christian And Vote Republican

Not what I intended to write about today, but something that needed to be said with Tuesday looming.

I mean, it's controversial, right.

Provocative even.  Possibly even downright offensive.

It's a statement I really shouldn't make.  It's the kind of statement that can't be proven, that has no Biblical basis, and inflicts more damage than any good it can do.

And yet, it's likely been made in many churches this morning.  Churches of a certain persuasion, with specific demographics.  Probably among many Christians this week and in the weeks and months leading up to the election.  I know, I've seen it.

It's just been phrased a little differently.

"You can't be a Christian and vote Democrat."
"Good Christians vote Republican."
"How can you vote Democrat as a Christian?"
"The Republican Party has a Christian platform."

The statement I made in the title is no different than any of those statements above.  Each presumes that one party has a monopoly on God, which cannot be true.

Jamie and I have been going through a Tony Evans series in the past few weeks entitled How Christians Should Vote, and it has been really eye opening.  The most profound realization that I have had in this whole process is that there will be Christians who vote Republican in this election and there will be Christians who vote Democratic in this election, and BOTH will be voting godly, so long as they are voting in prayer and in support of the policies that God has put at the forefront of their personality.

This can happen because there is no one perfect candidate or party - i.e. there is no Biblical party.  Both Democrats and Republicans are a mixture of good and bad.  Divine and profane.  Just like humanity.  

And the truth is, we need BOTH parties.  Because each focuses on different aspects of the Gospel message.

Republicans stand for policies that are praiseworthy - protection of the unborn, preservation of Christian values and protection of Christian religious freedom, etc.  Democrats also stand for policies that are praiseworthy - a push for social justice, for racial equality, for gender equality, for improved socio-economic conditions.  Both parties also have deplorable practices.  In our liberty, Christians have different causes that are placed on our consciences to champion.  This can push us to one party or the other, depending on what has been laid on our hearts. 

We also must recognize that there is no ranking of sins.  All sins are equally grievous to God.  All sins equally separate us from God.  All sin leads to death.  Republicans often are single issue voters with abortion being the one issue they elevate above all others, as if it is the most important national sin to address.  Democrats equally can focus on injustice as the number one national sin.  Focus on either to the exclusion of all others leads to none of them being adequately addressed - we become too divided, too tribal, too fractured to actually get anything accomplished. 

Where Christians vote ungodly is when they adhere to party alliances above all else.  Where they believe that one party has a monopoly on righteous policy.  Where they demonize the other party as being impossibly disconnected from God.  Where they doubt the faith and salvation of people who vote for the other party.  (After all, why should we take Trump's word that he is a Christian, but doubt Kamala Harris.)

Evan's point is that we've gotten led astray by continuing to view this as a two-party situation.  Us versus them.  Democrats versus Republicans.  As if one party will be right and the other party will be wrong.  As if being right is what matters above all else.

We forget, God does not ride the back of elephants or donkeys, as Dr. Evans would put it.

Evans compares it to viewing only two teams on a football team and forgetting that there is a third group out there - the referees.  Christians are supposed to be referees.  Calling penalties and fouls as we see them, upholding and confirming legitimate plays.  We cannot side with either team on the field, but most remain impartial, aligning with a higher governing authority.

Too many Christians have decided to forsake being referees and have put on the jersey of the Republican party.  You can see this in the number of pastor's who give outright endorsements.  Who have nationalistic services.  Who make statements like the one above, like Christians can only vote Republican because theirs is the only Biblical platform.

When we do this, we lose our authority to call out penalties on either side.  We've shown partiality and corrupted the whole game.

If you need an example, I offer Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his endorsement of Trump.  His individual choice to vote for Trump is not problematic.  Nor is any individual Christian's.  Where I take serious issue is how he spends the entirety of his article outlining how voting for Trump, voting Republican, is the only correct Biblical worldview.  

To get there, he has to conveniently side-step his hypocrisy from his comments in 2016, where he said he would not vote for Trump and said if he did, he would have to apologize to President Bill Clinton for his comments during the Monica Lewinsky affair.  He said then that character in a president matters, but now he is having to contextualize that statement.  So, he's voting for Trump and of course, not apologizing to Bill Clinton.

He also has to side-step the large constituencies of Christians that he knows historically disagree with him, particularly Black churches and Christians.  For context, 81% of white evangelicals vote Republican.  80% of Black Christians vote Democrat.  Consistently.  So if there is just one correct way to vote Biblically, there are a lot of people in trouble.  Mohler comes close to recognizing this paradox in two separate passages.  

"I agree that there are many other issues that press on the Christian conscience—questions of economic policy and foreign affairs and energy and the stewardship of the earth. The searing pain of racial injustice and the unraveling of our social fabric demand Christian response and urgency. Christians must be concerned about questions of immigration policy and refugees—and these issues defy the simplifications of the sound-bite and tweet culture."

As a workaround, he has to engage in a ranking of sins to focus on abortion as the primary issue.  He then speaks particularly to the divide between white and black Christians.

"There will be evangelicals who cannot in good conscience vote for Donald Trump. I understand their predicament. But not voting for Donald Trump, though a political decision in itself, is not the same as voting for Joe Biden. This is beyond my moral imagination.

I also recognize that I know brothers and sisters in Christ who see this differently. The vast majority of Black voters in America vote regularly and predictably for the Democratic ticket, and have since 1960. Like the pattern of white evangelical voting, this is not a surprise. There are long historical reasons why both are so. With my black brothers and sisters, I make my best case for how I see the issues. (emphasis mine) They have every right to do the same. We each have a vote. Both of us will answer to God for that vote. We earnestly seek to persuade the other. We will likely vote differently in the end. We remain brothers and sisters in Christ."

Here a recognition of some liberty in the process.  There are serious issues that have led the Black Christian community to consistently vote Democratic. Issues that the Democratic party focuses on - social justice, equality, housing, urban development, voter protection, healthcare.  Issues that are sadly, often ignored at best, or opposed at worst by the Republican party.  These Black Christians are voting their godly convictions just as white Evangelicals do.  Perhaps, instead of dismissing them, we should inquire as to why their convictions lead them to vote for the opposite party consistently.  This is what we should be encouraging, this is what we should be promoting in this election season.  

Mohler sadly undercuts this with the remainder of his article. You cannot claim one Biblical worldview for voting without the corollary that everything else is wrong, despite your allowance for disagreement with this one community.  In short, he, by the content of his writing, has dismissed the entire Black Christian community vote as being based on an unbiblical worldview.  This is especially evident when he follows this passage with a clear claim that the Southern Baptist position will align with his own.  "The convictions of Southern Baptists are clear, and I am confident that the vast majority of Southern Baptists will vote according to those convictions. That pattern has been in place for many decades."  I.e. Republican, as he has outlined it.

Had Mohler focused his article primarily on the statement in bold (I make my best case for how I see the issues), I would have no issue.  But I take serious issue when anyone tries to proclaim there is one perfect Biblical party.  No matter the party they identify.

Christians should be the consummate independent voter.  Voting their conscience and voting for the person, party, or platform that most closely align with a Biblical worldview as their prayer and conscience directs them.  That necessarily would mean voting for Republicans, for Democrats, for Libertarians, for Green Party members, for independents depending on the year and the election.  If your voting has been 100% for one party completely down ballot for the past several elections, you may need to reevaluate your voting process.

Vote.

Vote your conscience.

Vote prayerfully.

Give your allegiance to God, not to a political party.

And remember, no matter who wins this election, God is still in control.  He is still on His throne, He is still in His house.  There will be fellow Christians celebrating and mourning on Wednesday morning.  Be kind and be unifying.

I Stand With Andrew Smith

I debated about writing this entry.  It's politics in a county that I do not live, personal to others where I'm not directly involved, and a potential landmine.  But one of those involved is a close friend and his story has now been printed in the Houston Chronicle.  Plus what's the point of having a soapbox, a bully pulpit, if you're not going to use it to speak truth to power.  To use it for good.

I've known Andrew Smith for around sixteen and a half years now.  We met in law school at Baylor.  Part of the spring 2003 starting class.

Andrew is instantly likable.  Funny, with a contagious laugh.  Warm, smart, deeply passionate about the law and justice.  His convictions run deep.

Andrew and Kristina Joseph were the two people I could study with well.  We had similar habits, needing to talk, to laugh, to break the monotony of silent reading and absorption.  Periods of intense quiet study followed by near extreme silliness.  Plus we were the group that knew to take breaks to go eat well.

Andrew, along with Tim Reidy and Danny Noteware, would be one of the strongest friendships emerging from law school.  Fellow road tripper.  Groomsman in my wedding.

He's family.

That's why I feel the need to show my support.

After law school, Andrew started work at the Harris County District Attorney's office.  For the past fourteen years and two and a half months, he has served there admirably.  He has served through six different district attorneys.  Under district attorneys on both sides of the political spectrum.  Which makes this weeks events all the more astounding and infuriating.

On Monday, November 11th, Andrew was informed that his employment was no longer desired by Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, after he declined the "option" of resigning.  Ogg is accusing Andrew of lying in court regarding a statement he attributed to Ogg more than a year ago during an appeal in a double-murder case.

The debate centers around a statement regarding the firing of the original prosecutor in the double-murder case.  In the 2018 appeal, in a courtroom conversation before the hearing, the defense lawyer, Randy Schaffer, questioned why Gretchen Flader, the original prosecutor in the original 2014 double-murder trial, had been let go, suggesting that it might be because she was "untrustworthy" or "sneaky," which could be relevant to the prosecutor's credibility and the underlying trial.

"If she [Ogg] fired her [Flader] because she found information indicating that Flader is not a credible person or Flader has engaged in misconduct or Flader's untrustworthy or whatever, that's absolutely relevant because it shows that the office that is now defending this capital murder conviction threw out the prosecutor that got the conviction, and so why they didn't rehire her well could be material in this case."

Andrew pushed back with what he had heard in a personal conversation with Ogg from January 2017, his first one-on-one meeting with the new District Attorney.  "If we're getting into personal conversations with Ms. Ogg, Ms. Ogg told me the reason why she let go of Ms. Flader is because she was sleeping with the man who was dealing with the Jenny case."  The "Jenny" case was a heated political issue during the 2016 election season where prosecutors under then-District Attorney Devon Anderson jailed a rape victim, "Jenny," to ensure she'd appear in court.  Flader's boyfriend, Nick Socias, handled the case.  As you can imagine, that was a political firebomb of a case, that damaged Devon Anderson re-election and contributed to Ogg's election.

Ogg filed a seven-page filing on Wednesday following the termination to correct the record in the appeal.  Ogg wrote that she only learned this month of Andrew's statements regarding the reason for Flader's firing.  "On or about November 6, 2019, during an internal conference with other prosecutors reviewing the procedural status of this case, District Attorney Kim Ogg became aware for the first time of writ prosecutor Andrew Smith's false statement to the trial court when she read a partial transcript."  Ogg wrote that she actually let Flader go for failing to turn over evidence in a different case and not because of her relationship with Socias.  This was the same basis provided in opposition to Flader's unemployment claim with the Texas Workforce Commission.  "The reason is because of prosecutorial misconduct.  I did not invite her back to the office for any other reason other than her own misconduct."

Beyond the truth of the statements made, Ogg's filing is inaccurate for independent reason.  Though she wrote she had only learned of Andrew's statement this month, she actually learned of it at least three months earlier, in mid-August, when defense attorney Schaffer says he notified her both in person and by email.  According to Schaffer, "I don't know why she made this misrepresentation to the court, but it's not true.  It's all politics, it's not justice."  Ogg plans to file a second correction, clarifying she learned about it in August, but only confirmed it in November.

I don't know Kim Ogg at all, but something isn't right here.

I don't know anything about her.  I don't know her character.  What I'm seeing now of Ogg is that she is impugning the character of my friend, has terminated his employment, and is doing so in a way that could threaten his license.

She's done so in way that already has a major misstatement in it that has already been proven untrue by an unrelated party.  All while her office has hemorrhaged prosecutors, with more than 140 lawyers leaving the office in her 35 months in office.

I know Andrew's character, and there is no way he would make a false statement in court.  That would not happen.

I can see the outpouring of support that he has received and the near hundred comments that he has gotten online that vouch for his character.  I can only imagine the support in person has dwarfed that online.

It's A Wonderful Life closes with Clarence the angel putting an inscription to George Bailey in his copy of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.  "Remember no man is a failure who has friends."  Andrew's friends have risen up to show their support, and their voices speak loudly.  I will remain one of them.

I stand with Andrew Smith.

The Antichrist

Throughout church history, certain Christians have been looking to identify the Antichrist in their lifetime.  They remained so convinced that Christ's return has to come in their lifetime, so the Antichrist has to be among them.  The thinking would go, the world is so terrible, the end must be soon.

To that end, a list of the proposed Antichrist candidates have included Yassar Arafat, the “Beast” super computer of the European Union, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Mikhail Gorbachev, John F. Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, Benito Mussolini, Nero, Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Pat Robertson, David Rockefeller, Anwar Sadat, Saddam Hussein, Willy Brandt, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, and perhaps, most recently here in America, Barack Obama.

For eight years, we heard of how awful Barack Obama was.  That he was the Antichrist out to take away all Christian freedoms.  The fear of the things he would do.  Particular attention was paid to the near religious fervor that his political rallies had.  The "church" seeing how "those darn atheists" could be deluded by the Antichrist.

And then, nothing really happened.  He was so evil, but now, not so much.  We can still complain about him, but he's not the Antichrist.  We move on.

And that got me to thinking, are we truly going to recognize the Antichrist when he comes?

Benjamin Corey apparently has been wondering the same thing.  In his article on Formerly Fundie he works through the biblical prophecies regarding the Antichrist and points to how they can reach a startling conclusion - our current President Trump.

There's a definite thread here.  Look at the way President Trump has been able to delude parts of the church.  To persuade them into following and supporting him.  

Look at the prophecies:

• The Antichrist will be the leader of a nation that is a military superpower with the ability to trample and crush the entire earth.  - Daniel 7:23
• The Antichrist will be a man who is exceptionally arrogant and will be known for giving boastful speeches. - Daniel 7:8; Revelation 13:5
• The Antichrist will be someone known for making a lot of public threats against people. - Revelation 13:2, Daniel 7:4
• The Antichrist will come from among 7 tall “hills” that each act as a “head.” - Revelation 13:1, Ch. 17 
• The Antichrist will cause people all over the globe to be filled with wonder and “follow” him. - Revelation 13:3
• The Antichrist will be a political outsider with despicable character and a contemptuous personality who wins an election that no one expects him to win. - Daniel 11:21
• The Antichrist will give speeches where he speaks “great things” and then about things that are even “greater.” - Daniel 7:20
• The Antichrist comes to power through collusion with a secret alliance who uses disinformation to help him win - even though he has a minority number of supporters. - Daniel 11:23
• The Antichrist’s rise to power will seem like a miracle that God performed, tricking people into following Satan instead of God without even noticing. - 2 Thessalonians 2:9
• As president, the Antichrist will immediately find ways to make himself and his friends richer - and he will do it in a way that no president had ever done before. - Daniel 11:24
• Once in power the Antichrist will reveal that his heart wants to make alterations to the “appointed times” that are in current laws. - Daniel 7:25
• The Antichrist will make fake news popular and will be a chronic liar.  His followers will believe his delusions because they hate the truth. - Daniel 8:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:10
• The Antichrist will reward those who are completely loyal with powerful positions and lucrative real estate deals. - Daniel 11:39b
• The Bible says that we’ll be able to spot the Antichrist because he will give an arrogant public speech in the middle of his first term where he boasts of “great things” but also uses God’s name as a curse in the same speech. - Revelation 13:5-6
• The Antichrist will draw strong support from many Christians as if they are willfully blind and outright delusional. - Matthew 24:24, 2nd Thessalonians 2:10
• The Antichrist will spend his first term in office having an ongoing feud with the leadership of the nation on his southern border. - Daniel 11:25
• The Antichrist will be so angry at the king to his south that he will decide to intentionally inflict harm on that ethnic group in retaliation. - Daniel 11:28, Zechariah 11:16-17
• The Antichrist will be furious over “rumors and reports” that come from the east and north, and will fly into fits of rage as the reports surface. - Daniel 11:44
• The Antichrist will appear to receive a wound he can’t recover from, but will survive to put down the first attempts to remove him from office. - Revelation 13:3
• The Antichrist will have the nation’s most powerful religious leader influencing the country for him.  This leader will try to convince Christians that the Antichrist is “God’s pick” and that we need to support him. - Revelation 13:11-12
• The Antichrist will see himself as being above everyone else, as if he had no need for God.  He will eventually elevated himself as the God and King of Israel. - 2nd Thessalonians 2:4, Revelation 17
• The Antichrist will worship the god of board walls.  - Daniel 11:37-38
• The Antichrist’s most devoted followers will wear a sign of their allegiance to him on their foreheads. - Revelation 13
• But the people who truly know God and remain faithful, will firmly “resist” him. - Daniel 11:32

With Corey's analysis, there is a definite through line that can be drawn from each of these prophecies to President Trump.  It's fairly convincing and somewhat disconcerting.

You should read the article and see how each of these fall into place.  There are facts in there that 

But ultimately, do I think Trump is the Antichrist?

No.

For one, too many people dislike him.

In reality, the prophecies are like Rorschach tests - we see in them what we want to find.  Corey is able to pull some connections together, but there are some real stretches in there as well.

What we should do is remember that the Antichrist will come to deceive us all.  That he will be able to persuade and to draw to him many that would be considered faithful.  That he's not coming in opposition to the church, at least not initially.  

We should learn from the reasons why we have identified people as the Antichrist in the past.  That they may lead political rallies that look like Billy Graham Crusades.  And that they will be able to seduce men and women of the church with political power, putting aside character and morality for position.

Perhaps then, we can recognize him and resist him when he actually arrives.

Yes, Robert Jeffress, Democrats Can Be Christians Too

“When they talk about God, they are not talking about the real God - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who revealed Himself in the Bible.  These liberal Democrats are talking about an imaginary God they have created in their own minds: a god who loves abortion and hates Israel.”

Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas and an evangelical adviser to the president, June 29, 2012

Contrary to popular belief, the Republican party does not have the corner on Christianity.  There is no one party that has got it right.  No one party that can claim to be Christian over the other or that one party is doing it right or wrong.

Parties do not have religious affiliations.  Their members do.  And this may come as a shock to many, but 62% of those who claim to be staunchly Democrat or lean Democrat would claim some form of Christianity.  

Yet here we have a pastor who chooses to write them all off.

I've already had issues with Jeffress.  He has made many statements that indicate that he has traded in Christianity for political power.  Here are just a few of his gems.

"I believe any Christian who would sit at home and not vote for the Republican nominee...that person is being motivated by pride rather than principle...”. 

“You know, I was debating an evangelical professor on NPR, and this professor said, ‘Pastor, don’t you want a candidate who embodies the teaching of Jesus and would govern this country according to the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount?’  I said, ‘Heck no.’ I would run from that candidate as far as possible, because the Sermon on the Mount was not given as a governing principle for this nation.”

“Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers. When I’m looking for somebody who’s going to deal with ISIS and exterminate ISIS, I don’t care about that candidate’s tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find - and I believe that’s biblical.”

“Evangelicals still believe in the commandment: Thou shalt not have sex with a porn star.  However, whether this president violated that commandment or not is totally irrelevant to our support of him.”

“Let me say this as charitably as I can. These ‘Never Trump’ evangelicals are morons.  They are absolutely spineless morons and they cannot admit that they were wrong.”

Or how about the time he had the First Baptist Choir sing a Make America Great Again hymn.

This is clearly a person who has thoroughly entwined himself with one particular political party.  A bit different from his ideals proclaimed in his book Twilight’s Last Gleaming, that Christian leaders are preferable to non-Christians because their “core beliefs” would keep them from “immortality” and “corruption.”

What has Jeffress gained from this change?  A spot on Trump’s evangelical advisory board.  National prominence.  Publicity for him and First Baptist Dallas.  A regular spot on Fox News.

I tend to side with Messiah College history professor John Fea, who argued, “Historically, whenever…ministers get involved in politics it ends up being bad for the church.  If you mix ice cream and horse manure, it doesn’t do much to the horse manure, but it sure does ruin the ice cream.  [Ministers] must always be in the business of speaking the truth to power.  And there is a LOT of truth that needs to be spot to Donald Trump.”

Maybe it's time to start treating Jeffress as a political figure, and not a pastor.  To view his proclamations as having little to do with the Word of God, and more to do with his political affiliations.

If this is where he wants to plant his flag, let's treat him as such.

* And for those asking, what about abortion, how can a Christian support abortion - please note that there are pro-life Democrats.  Democrats for Life America was created in 1999 for the purpose of electing pro-life Democrats.  A 2014 Gallup poll found that 28% of Democrats were pro-life.  This should be unsurprising given the Catholic position on abortion and the number of Catholics that vote Democratic.  There are others that may not label themselves pro-life but struggle with separating their personal feelings from what they believe the government should do.  Further, the Democratic party platform includes many social programs that actually reduce the number of abortions performed.  We have to stop looking at these as either-or-issues, or nothing will ever change.

Let America Be America Again

I recently came across this poem and thought it eerily applicable to today.  It felt worth passing along as food for thought.

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark? 
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”

The free?

Who said the free?  Not me?
Surely not me?  The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

Langston Hughes, 1935

Country Before Party

"Look, at some point, Democrats have to decide whether they love this country more than they hate this president.  And they have to decide that they want to put the safety and the security and the diplomacy of our country ahead of their own political games. And we're very hopeful that they will."

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders 4/23/18

The Press Secretary made that statement on an episode of Fox & Friends in regard to Democratic opposition to the nomination of now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to the post in April last year.  And I've been seeing it make the rounds on social media to refer to all kinds of actions by the Democrats.  The latest being the opposition to the declaration of a national emergency for the border wall.

The shoe is on the other foot now, it seems.

Now it is time for Republicans to decide whether they are more loyal to their country or to Donald J. Trump.  With the overreach in power in the declaration of a national emergency.  With continuing revelations regarding his corruption.

Or given the events of this past week, perhaps the better focus is on just one Republican in particular - Senator Lindsey Graham.

Following a unanimous vote in the House, Senator Graham blocked a resolution in the Senate which would make the full Mueller report available to the public.   He used a bit of whataboutism in his justification, objecting when Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer refused to include an amendment that would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate candidate Hilary Clinton.  "Was there two systems of justice in 2016?  One for the Democratic candidate and one for the Republican candidate?" Graham asked.

Generally, no, but we do scrutinize the winners of an election, or actual elected officials much more closely than we do the losing candidate.

Senate Minority Leader Schumer could not understand the opposition.  "There is no good reason, no good reason that the special counsel's report should not be made public.  The American people are overwhelmingly for the report being made public.  They have a right to see it.  No one should stand in the way of that."  And later "I have absolutely no idea why a member of this body would object to this basic level of transparency whatever their concern or other issues."

Perhaps the transparency is the concern.  Could Senator Graham be concerned that he might be implicated in the Mueller report?  Is the President using his relationship with Senator Graham, one of his more staunch defenders now, to keep this document out of the public eye?  Would the release of the report make any difference with Trump supporters no matter what it revealed (probably not)?

It's past time for politicians of all stripes to start putting country above party.  To end the endless reelection cycle.  To reinstate campaign finance reforms to end the endless fundraising cycle.  To put our representatives back to work for us instead of spending 50% of their time raising more money.

To take Washington's warning of factions and parties to heart.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

Washington's Farewell Address

It's time to expect better of our government.

Re-Movement.Org

The State of Israel <> The Nation of Israel

This is likely not going to be a popular entry, but it's one that needs to be said.  The title should effectively read the current state of Israel does not equal the biblical Nation of Israel.

We can see many instances in which a government is not its people.  Government's can be corrupted, governments can be broken.  Further, the full Nation of Israel is still dispersed across the globe with its people. God's people are in nearly every nation on earth, while the government of Israel is protecting its promised land.

A land that is contentious and controversial.  Leading to need for diplomacy in the area and international relations with the government that are plagued with mine fields.

The United States has had a close relationship with Israel since the recognition of the state of Israel in 1948.  This bilateral relationship is a very important factor in the overall policy in the Middle East and considerable importance has been placed on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship. This is particularly true among political conservatives and especially heightened by the evangelical influences in the Republican party.  This can be seen in comments like Senator Lindsey Graham's recent "reminder."  "Here's a message for America: Don't ever turn your back on Israel, because God will turn his back on us."

For many, the deep nature of this connection stems from biblical warnings to the enemies of Israel and protections for its allies.

"I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Genesis 12:3

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: 'May those who love you be secure.'"

Psalm 122:6

"For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish; it will be utterly ruined."

Isaiah 60:12

And while I do not want to suggest that we should not be an ally to Israel or that our relationship should not be maintained, I do think it's time we take a hard look at how that relationship is manifesting in our country.  Because we seem to be getting dangerously close to "Israel can do no wrong."  To a position where any questioning, any criticism, any rebuking, any statement or action against something Israel has done is not tolerated and labeled "anti-Semitic."

We can see it in the discussion after Rand Paul blocked a bill that would send billions of dollars of aid to Israel, though it came from his strict Libertarian position.  "I'm not for foreign aid in general, if we are going to send aid to Israel it should be limited in time and scope so we aren't doing it forever, and it should be paid for by cutting the aid to people who hate Israel and America.  This is a stance I've taken for many years."

Or in the firing of Marc Lamont Hill following a U.N. speech endsoring the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel, but closing with the call for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea."  The phrase drew criticism from some conservatives and staunch Israel advocates, who view such remarks as echoing language used by Hamas and other groups that seek to eliminate Israel.  Hill emphatically denies these allegations, and reiterated that while he supports Palestinian freedom, he does not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to him.  He petitions for the return to pre-1967 borders, to give full rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to allow right of return.  The full rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel in particular will come up later.

More recently, look to the controversy around Representative Ilhan Omar's latest comments on Israel.  While speaking to a bookstore, Rep. Omar suggested that pro-Israel groups were pushing lawmakers to "pledge allegiance to a foreign country."  This led to Congresswoman Nita Lowrey responding in a tweet that "Lawmakers must be able to debate w/o prejudice or bigotry.  I am saddened that Rep. Omar continues to mischaracterize support for Israel.  I urge her to retract this statement and engage in further dialogue with the Jewish community on why these comments are so hurtful."  Omar fired back, "Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman!  I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.  The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest.  I am sure we agree on that!"  The exchange resulted in the House shifting their focus to overwhelmingly pass a broad resolution Thursday afternoon, March 7, 2019, to condemn all bigotry.

Rep. Omar's comments, like Hill's, were claimed to draw on anti-Semitic tropes, particularly those that play on Jews hypnotizing the world or running the world behind the scenes.  And while she may need sensitivity training on how to phrase her comments, she does have a point.  We're seeing a pattern where every attempt at a discussion of American-Israeli policy is met with a hard stop.

And we're seeing a need for that discussion in the actions of current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Netanyahu has tried to rally his religious and nationalist base for re-election by charged accusations that his challengers will form a coalition government with Arab political parties.  This was met with a post by Rotem Sela, one of Israel's top models and TV hosts, stating "What's the problem with the Arabs?  Good heavens, there are also Arab citizens in this country.  When the hell will somebody in the government tell the public that Israel is a state of all its citizens and that all people are born equal?"

To which Netanyahu replied, "I would like to clarify a point that, apparently, is not clear to slightly confused people in the Israeli public."  Israel "is the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people."

There are around 1.8 million Israeli Arabs.  20% of Israels nearly 9 million citizens.  And it's prime minister has just written them off.  It's one thing to say the religious, the biblical Nation of Israel is just Jewish.  That would be correct and as I've stated, reflects the Jewish population across the globe.  But it's true of only about 75% of the citizens of the state of Israel.

And so far, American politicians have been silent. Our president can tweet false claims regarding the co-founder of Greenpeace, fan the claims of anti-Semitism in the Democratic party, and continue to stoke his ego, but nothing about a country clearly disregarding a subset of its population.

This should be concerning even for those believing in the biblical call for supporting Israel.  In our Journey Groups, we have four core values, the final of which is admonishing biblically.  It's a reminder that when you are someone's ally, when you are interested in the growth of a friend or family, you speak up when they are acting inappropriately.

"As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Titus 3:10-11

Further, we know that historically there were times that even the Nation of Israel "did what was evil in the sight of the Lord."  That there were times they needed to repent and return.  And even if the current government of Israel completely represented the nation of Israel, there would be times where we could not support them.  That we should not support them.  If we are a Christian nation as we claim to be, we should be following the Lord's instructions and speaking up when admonishment is necessary.  To bring our friend to repentance.

We have to be able to do this.  We have to be able to talk about this.  Otherwise, we're supporting the exclusion of a minority population in that country.  And that can't be who we are.

Abraham Lincoln believed the political religion of the United States to be liberty.  Liberty and Justice for All.

If we believe in that like we say we do, we have to call out our allies when they infringe on the liberty of their citizens.

Especially when it's not popular.

The State of the Union

President Trump took 82 minutes last night to sum up the state of our union.  The third longest in history.

I can sum it up in one word:  Broken.

Divided.  Cracked.  Split.  Splintered.  Fractured.  Factioned.  etc. etc. etc.

The speeches last night cannot be divorced from the farcical theater that proceeded it.  A five week government shut down.  Increasingly tense and absurd negotiations and tactics.  The Speaker rescinding the initial invitation for the Address.  The President withdrawing the Speaker's international trip.  The attacks on Twitter.  The threat of a declaration of a national emergency.

Similarly, the address can also not be divorced from the genuine likelihood that another shutdown is less than ten days away.  That no deal will be reached given the specific negotiation (or lack of negotiation) tactics of the parties.

No amount of eloquent speech, bluster, obfuscation, pandering, fear-mongering, and outright lies in any speech can overcome this.   It is made even worse with the political theater surrounding the speech itself last night.  The break with tradition in forgoing an introduction by the Speaker of the House and in not recognizing the new Congress.  Appealing for unity by playing only to the base.  Political theater to score applause, standing ovations, and chants of "USA" more appropriate for a sporting venue than the floor of the House.

It is clear we have a government who have forgone the pretense of representing the entire populace within their district, state, or country.  Both sides are entrenched in appealing to those who will reelect them.  The inevitable outcome of the continual reelection cycle.  I have no doubt that there will be another shut down, that no agreement can be reached, simply because it plays better to the bases of both sides if they don't.

And I might be more optimistic if I thought it was something that was just occurring in Washington. If I thought the general populace was not partaking in the same.  But we are becoming just as entrenched.  And we think it's a good thing.  Thanks to social media and the continual news cycle, we are able to receive only the news and information that confirms our biases.  Confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger, and misinformation run rampant.  Our positions and the language we use are becoming so coded that we cannot even talk about the issues.  We talk at them and across each other.

Take the recent New York Abortion law for example, particularly because it was referenced in the address last night.  I'm have no comment on whether the law is wrong or right and definitely do not want to hash it out here; nor am I for or against this particular bill.  I am interested in how the two sides cannot even talk to each other because their frames of reference can never meet.  One side will focus on the potential outcomes of unlimited choice, even if not legal or probable.  The other side will focus on necessity in the worst case scenarios, despite the low probability .  Both will frame it as a moral issue, focusing on autonomy, though of different participants in the event.  The two frames of reference are so separate that there is no middle ground.  There's no room to discuss nuance.  There's no room to discuss the specifics, like the potential broad application of "or health" regarding the safety of the mother. I'm grateful for the genuinely civil conversations I have seen on this topic, but they have been the exception, not the rule.

Sadly, there are many topics that are reaching this level of discourse in our country. The Wall.  The caravan.  Health care.  Gun control and gun violence.

This is part of the vicious cycle we are in now, as we used to rely on our government officials to be the ones to discuss, debate, and decide on nuance.  To be the calm heads in tense situations.  To push us forward in the areas where society would drag its heels.  To reach the hard compromises that are needed in a melting pot society like our own.

We've got to learn how to talk to each other again.  How to engage in civil debate.  To be able to talk to someone who has a completely different viewpoint from our own and to learn from them.  To sometimes change our minds and to grow.  We, each of us, individually, have to make it a priority to do so.

Because with the state of the government that we saw last night, it's left to the rest of us to fix.

Becoming Liberal

I've written on this before, but a confluence of our Journey Group Bible study continuing to explore the parable of the prodigal son, the message this past Sunday on mercy, and current events have brought me back to my ongoing story of becoming more liberal.  This will be a longer post, but also a bit more personal and free-form.

There's an adage that states "if you are not liberal at twenty, you have no heart; if you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain."  Well, I don't like to think of myself as heartless or brainless, but I seem to be on that opposite trajectory.  As I age, I am becoming more liberal.  More tolerant.  In politics, in religion, in life in general.

I grew up in the small town, conservative Texas and I'm currently living in another small town in Texas very similar to my home town.  And while the specific political party landscape changed in my early years, the bent towards the conservative always remained.  Small town America is the land of the status quo.  Change happens at the pace of life.  Things remain the same for what seems like forever, and then all of the sudden small things change here and there as the new generation fully replaces the old.

This is especially true in many churches that I've seen. Things do change as new ministers and preachers come into the church and the congregation adjusts to their particular formats, but the churches would inevitably set into a particular repetitive pattern.  For years in my home church everyone could plan out exactly when the congregation would standup, sit down, when the hymns would be sung, how long the message would generally be, etc.  While there is comfort in repetition and familiarity, it also runs a great danger of rote mechanism.  Of services run on human programming and familiarity and not the Spirit of God.

It should not come as a shock to anyone that knows me that while I've spent most of my life in small towns, I've always been a city boy at heart.  I can appreciate a beautiful view of nature, but give me a thriving metropolis and a great skyline any day.  I love the vibrancy, the culture, the arts, and the activities.  I love to find a city's soul and connect with the particular feel of that community.  To understand how Austin differs from Dallas (or at least how it used to).

As such, while I can be completely comfortable in my hometown (and by extension, where I currently live), I've sometimes felt at odds with the communities in which I've lived.  I was one of those students always ready to graduate and to move on to the next big thing.  For undergraduate, I really only applied to two schools.  And my heart was truly always set on the University of Texas.  I wanted to be in Austin.  In that liberal capital of Texas.  Not that I ever thought of myself as liberal at the time, I just wanted to be in the place where everyone could find their own way and be their own thing.

This desire was a prime example of being slightly in congruent with the community.  In my hometown and in many of the surrounding communities, if you wanted to go to a big school in Texas, you went to Texas A&M.  The school was seen as upholding more conservative values and Bryan/College Station was seen as a more approachable town.  From my visits to A&M with the band, I knew I couldn't go there.  Just from visiting, I couldn't handle the weight of the traditions and expectations.  I wanted to run across the grass and wear a hat in the buildings.  I wanted to spike my hair and dye it orange.  I don't know exactly why it brought out a non-conformist streak in me, but it did.

I have to pause here and thank my wonderful parents for recognizing this difference and helping foster this part of me.  Taking me to musicals in Houston, vacations to great cities and towns across the United States and beyond, allowing me to go to Brightleaf at Duke, just as examples.  And preparing me to be ready for whatever city and college that I wanted to attend.  I know my mom would have loved me to be in a community that was closer and a little more "safe" like College Station.  She did get to see some of the most eccentric parts of Austin when we visited for college selection purposes.  But they let me make that decision and supported me all along the way.

Freshman year at Austin was a culture shock, but a great one.  My dormitory housed more people than lived in my hometown.  It has its own post office and once had its own zip code (currently it makes up a large percentage of one of the Austin zip codes). But I loved being there.  I loved the openness that allowed people to be who they were, not what they were expected to be.  I loved the diverse makeup of the student body and the overwhelming opportunities the campus presented.

Had you asked me at the time, I would have still considered myself conservative, politically.  Even through all four years at UT and everything that Austin represents to most people, I voted for President Bush in 2000 and supported him openly.  Religiously, though, I was reaching a turning point. While I had found a great church community in Georgetown, I had a gnawing sense in me that something was missing, that something more could be done.  Several questions of why we continued to do certain things or believe certain things that were tied only to tradition and not any specific scriptural basis.  Why science was considered so antithetical.  Why so many people had been hurt by churches and how that was acceptable.  I read a few books that heretical approaches.  That threw the baby out with the bath water.  Thankfully, from getting involved with terranova, I was able to read several great books on a different approach, that stripped things back to Biblical basics, but opened up greater possibilities.  A New Kind of Christian, More Ready Than You Realize, A Generous Orthodoxy, Adventures in Missing the Point.  While these did not have all the answers, they started asking the right questions.

"Our big cities are filled with younger brothers who fled from churches in the heartland that were dominated by elder brothers.  When I moved to New York City in the late 1980s to being a new church, I thought I would meet many secular people who had no familiarity with Christianity at all.  I did, but to my surprise I met just as many people who had been raised in churches and in devout families and had come to New York City to get as far away from them as possible.  After about a year of ministry we had two or three hundred people attending services.  I was asked, 'Who is coming to your church?'  Upon reflection, I answered that it was about one-third non-believers, one-third believers, and one-third 'recovering' believers - younger brothers.  I had met so many younger brothers who had been hurt and offended by elder brothers that neither they nor I were sure whether they still believed the Christian faith or not.

The most common examples of this I saw were the many young adults who had come from more conservative parts of the U.S. to take their undergraduate degrees at a New York City school.  Here they met the kind of person they had been warned about for years, those with liberal views on sex, politics, and culture.  Despite what they had been led to believe, those people were kind, reasonable, and open-hearted.  When the students began to experience a change in their own views, they found that many people back home, especially in churches, responded in a hostile and bigoted way.  Soon they had rejected their former views along with their faith.  The elder brothers had turned them into younger brothers.

We discovered, however, that younger brothers were willing to come to our church because they saw that we made a clear distinction between the gospel and religious moralism, and that provided and opportunity in which they could explore Christianity from a new perspective.

It is natural for younger brothers to think that elder brotherness and Christianity are exactly the same thing.  But Jesus says they are not.  In his parable, Jesus deconstructs the religiosity that is one of the main problems with this world.  In this parable Jesus says to us, 'Would you please be open to the possibility that the gospel, real Christianity, is something very different from religion?'  That gives many people hope that there is a way to know God that doesn't lead to the pathologies of moralism and religiosity."

Tim Keller, Prodigal God

terranova started by looking at a simple but difficult question - why did the church in a Christian school town have such a hard time getting college students to come to church?  Despite Southwestern University being two and a half miles from First Baptist Georgetown, the college and career class of First Baptist Georgetown only had a handful of students.  And so began a study to understand why so few of these students felt church to be an integral part of their life.  The most common refrain was that of the younger brother who had been put off by elder brothers and wanted no part of it anymore.  Of students who had already been hurt or ostracized by the church and were through with it all.  This lead to studies regarding the post-modern church movement and the emergent church movement, and again, while they did not provide perfect answers, they did help challenge a lot of pre-conceived ideas about what church has to be that are extra-Biblical.   To start us asking the questions that could help loosen some of the unnecessary traditions that we hold onto too tightly.  Does church have to only be early on a Sunday morning?  Why are the only forms of worship explored during the service music and sermon?  What about artists?  Is there a Biblical basis for an altar call?  Should the altar be open throughout the service for prayer and petition?  Why do we have age based Sunday School?  Would it be better to organize by topic?  To mix the ages so the young learn from the old and vice versa?

Can we be intentional in structuring church to make it approachable and graceful to the un-churched and de-churched, and not just comfortable for the current churched?  Are we using language that only makes sense to those already here?

From this framework and this beginning, I've been drawn to those churches that hold to Biblical truths, but are free to question everything else.  Unchanging message, but ever adapting methods. And as I age, I find this something that is not only something that aligns with my preferences in worship, but something that I am discovering is vital to the health and welfare of the church.  I've written before on the negative perception the church can have in America, and wondering if we have forgotten how to love our brother.  Has the church become too rigid to meet the needs of the lost anymore?  Are we too set in elder brother ways?  It's why this statement from Prodigal God has continued to impact me.  "If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did."

This past Sunday, the message was on the Beatitude "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."  I think our pastor summed up my concern better than I could in the closing to his message.

"Now let me just end with this last thing.  I really thought, man, if I could just find a really great story of forgiveness to kinda wrap this thing up, then that would just be kinda like the cherry on top, you know what I mean.  And here's the deal, you can read literally hundreds of stories online, much of which are a parable of sorts, not necessarily true, others of which aren't faith based.  Others that people are making into movies like Louie Zamperini and Unbroken.  

Great Stories.  

You know here's where I've found a little bit perplexing, (and not just because I couldn't find these stories, but also because of what I've witnessed just in my own life) is that most of the stories of forgiveness come outside the walls of the church.   

And that perplexes me.  

Most people leave churches because of forgiveness issues.  Relationships are estranged, they're broken, they're confused.   And I think we are the people who have received the greatest mercy, and yet we tend to be the less merciful.  

I hope that perplexes you as much as it does me.  

Why are churches so hateful to one another?  

Why is there such a spirit of competition?  

Why are there so many malicious things said? 

Why are we so mean and hateful?  

Because it's a sign of people who do not understand what mercy has been granted to them.  And oh, how far we've come from being beggarly.  And so may we return to the heart of the beggar.  And may God do a great work in us as we deal with other people the way that God has dealt with us.  

Amen."

Brandon Bachtel, Stonepoint Church, Upside Down Week 5

And it is these questions and the perception of the church that have also pushed me more liberal politically, especially because of the increasing entangling of the Republican party with the evangelical conservative church.  With the idea that the salvation for our country lies with one political party.

Something started changing during Barack Obama's two terms as president.  While I did not agree with all of Obama's policies, I recognized him as someone who was trying to do what he thought best for the country.  He was someone who was well-reasoned, principled, and moral.  For the life of me, I could not take the vitriol, the hate, and often outright lies that were shared and fully believed about him and his presidency.  Those that ran from day one of his term of office and are still continuing today.  You could say that social media played a large part of my growing dissatisfaction as it made all of this misinformation and grumbling very, very visible on a daily basis.

By the 2016 primary season, I had reached my tipping point. Trump seemed to represent the antithesis of everything the Republican party I knew stood for.  As I've said before, I see a lot of comparison between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.  Both known womanizers.  Both in many ways populist candidates.  And yet, somehow, Bill Clinton was to be opposed at all costs, but Donald Trump was embraced and hailed, all for the want of a particular letter at the end of their name.  I couldn't handle the dissonance.  And I have yet to be shown anything different.

This was especially galling to me because of the support that Trump developed and continues to have among conservative evangelicals.  To have pastors outright state you have to vote Republican to be a good Christian was shocking and repulsive.  And to see those pastors like Robert Jeffress continue to rise in prominence when he makes statements like "I believe any Christian who would sit at home and not vote for the Republican nominee...that person is being motivated by pride rather than principle...".  Even Franklin Graham more recently with "Christians should be aware of candidates who call themselves progressive.  Progressive is generally just a code word for someone who leans toward socialism, who does not believe in God & who will likely vote against Godly principles that are so important to our nation."

This mixture makes me think of a warning from Episcopal priest Barbara Brown Taylor.  "Jesus was not killed by atheism and anarchy.  He was brought down by law and order allied with religion, which is always a deadly mix.  Beware those who claim to know the mind of God and are prepared to use force, if necessary, to make others conform.  Beware those who cannot tell God's will from their own."

That is the ultimate way of the elder brother.  To force conformity to the social norm, to the expectation, to the "moral" requirement.  And to write off anyone who does not hold to those standards.  But Jesus in the parable of the prodigal son, revealed that this path was just as wrong as the younger brothers and was potentially more disastrous, for it blinded the elder brother to his own need for salvation.  That worldview allowed the elder brother to continue to believe he was "good" in his own eyes.

And that is the greatest issue I have with this political relationship between the church and the current Republican party.  The blindness the mix has to the effect of the relationship.  To its impact on our witness.  The great increase in number of younger brothers turned away from elder brothers now seeking to impose moralism on a religious and political level.  The increase in people turned off by this quest for political power.  That cannot handle the disconnect between the actions we call sinful and shameful on one hand but excuse on the other.  I guess you can say I am one of those younger brothers in this respect.

Throughout this process, I began to question why I originally held myself out as conservative.  Why I identified with the Republican party.  Was it because that is what my family generally aligned themselves with?  Did it adequately align with what I believe?  And it made me question why I was so opposed to the Democratic party.  Were their policies truly antithetical to what I valued?  And of course, what I found was that each party has policies I support and policies I do not.  Particular policies that are of greater emphasis in each election.   A reminder to myself that while parties provide a general framework, the individual candidate is more important to my internal decision process.  Again, I discovered better questions.

Further, I traveled more and saw what life was like in other countries.  Saw that those scary systems that some politicians would say could never work over here worked quite well for a large part of the world.  That other countries probably had a healthier division between the church and government, to the benefit of both.

I became a parent.  And I started discovering I wanted better things for my children.  That some of the answers provided as to why things are the way they are were not acceptable any more.   That we could do better and that we should do better.

I want a church that stands separate and apart and that proclaims the unabashed Truth regardless of and distinct from any political party or candidate.  A church devoid of nationalism or American exceptionalism, focusing only on the great nation to come and the broader body of believers that we belong to that cuts across nationality, race, and creed.  A church that is not afraid of questions.  That's not afraid of the answer "I don't know" and not afraid of digging in together to learn more.

I want a government that protects the rights of all its citizens, speaking up for the least of these and protecting them from the tyranny of the majority.  That fights for social justice and equality and does so in a religiously neutral fashion. 

I want us all to see greater freedom in both.

I write this not to persuade anyone regarding their vote, one way or the other.  If you would like a deeper conversation, I'm happy to have that in a more direct manner to discuss specific issues and why my vote sides in a particular direction there.  I write merely to offer background and perhaps provide color to my posts of late.  Particularly given the increase in politically related posts surrounding the mid-term elections.

I pray you all have similar deeply held convictions for your overall outlook on life.  I pray for younger brothers to recognize their need for direction and to return home.  I pray for elder brothers to recognize the inability of their works and to go in to reconcile and join the feast.  I pray for us all as we try to navigate in a continually fracturing and factioning world.

I pray we all start asking better questions.