E xcuses/Election thoughts

 The other night,  we saw election results that shouldn't bode well for the Brandon administration.     The conventional wisdom was the the governors races in VA and NJ were referendums on the Brandon administration.   

Things didn't turn out well for the DFL in either case.  Add in the failure's in Minneapolis to get rid of the police dept, and get rid of Frey, and it looks even worse.

What's interesting to me, is that the left really only has two choices to explain the results.

1.  A failure on the part of the DFL, the candidates, the Brandon administration, and their agenda(s).

2.  Racism.

I wonder which one they'll find more reasonable.

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

 It's strange that a bunch of anti-immigrant, racist, mysoginists, would elect an immigrant, black, woman to statewide office in VA.

 -----------------

 

I haven't researched this yet, but I suspect that if the demographic splits on the MPLS  question regarding eliminating the MPD are made public that the majority of the "defund the police" voters will end up being white, middle/upper income folks, who live in the gentrified parts of the city, while the majority of the other side will be POC who actually live in the highest crime neighborhoods. 

 

Terror

 Unfortunately, my beagle is now terrified any time Anthony Fauci is on TV. 

I've been under the impression....

 ...that electioneering in the pulpit was a no-no.  That pastors and others could discuss issues and principles as they related to people's voting options, but that actually directly endorsing, or soliciting votes for specific candidates would put churches afoul of the laws regarding tax exempt entities.   Back in my non profit days, we were taught to stay far away from politics (at least candidates) to preserve our tax exempt status.   

Apparently I was wrong.  

https://news.yahoo.com/souls-polls-virginia-churches-air-192800111.html

Fame

 I went to see the Jesus Music movie last weekend and thought it was pretty good.   I thought they ignored a couple of people who should have been mentioned, but realize that they couldn't cover everything in a movie.

What struck me was how this thing that started out with the best possible motives, ended up somewhere completely different.   I have no reason not to believe that the young people who gathered in CA in the late 60's early 70's and who found Jesus to be the answer they had been seeking through other means were not 100% sincere in their faith.  I also see no reason not to believe that the first "Jesus music" was an attempt to use their God given talents to praise Him and to reach others in their generation. 

The question I have is:  When did that desire to praise God and reach their fellow "hippies", go off the tracks, and why did it do so?

What's interesting is that I've also been listening to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill recently, and the podcast explores a similar phenomenon in the Church, more specifically in certain pastors and congregations.

I think that the common denominator in all of these things is fame (celebrity, if you will).  What we see is that there often seems to be a point where the fame of the messenger, overshadows the message.   I could give examples, but don't see any reason to at this point.   I'll simply suggest that the Christian faith is incompatible with individual fame (or at least with seeking fame), to the point where Jesus becomes secondary or obscured.

Finally, I think there's a personal application as well.   While I'm not likely to be famous anytime soon, I am likely to place my wants, my desires, my success, my comfort, and my self, in front of God and His glory.

I'm not suggesting that having talented musicians write music that draws lots of people closer to God is a bad thing, nor am I suggesting that the Church doesn't benefit from the wisdom and preaching of pastors when it's published as a book or a video.  I'm certainly not suggesting that we not use the technology and media available to us to point people to God.   I am suggesting that once we start pointing people to ourselves, and increasing our fame, that there are likely to be problems.

Following the example of...

 Listening to the sermon yesterday and the part where Paul and his companions end up unjustly imprisoned was part of it.  It got me thinking abut how Paul, and the vast majority of Jesus early followers were treated by those in power.  We hear about the fact that all the disciples but John were killed, Paul was persecuted and imprisoned, many of the NT letters are written to believers who are suffering, and so on.   

As we read these stories, I can't help but look at the examples these believers were setting, how those who were closest to Jesus responded to injustice.  For that matter, what example did Jesus set when He was treated unjustly?

What I don't see in the lives of Jesus, those closest to Him, and those who encountered those closest to Jesus, is protest.  I don't see them burning or looting, defacing or destroying public property, I don't see marches in the streets (except maybe being herded to face the lions).

I'm just wondering if maybe we should be paying more attention to the examples of those in the NT, instead of to our culture.

What if?

 The story of the rich young man and Jesus was the scripture yesterday at church, and listening to it raised a question.

Many people would suggest that the most important lines in the story are "Sell all you have and give it to the poor.", and "It's easier for a rich person to get through the eye of a needle, than to get into heaven."

But, what hit me yesterday was that maybe the most important line is "With man nothing is possible, with God all things are possible.  

The rich dude couldn't (under his own power) sell everything and give it to the poor, and rich people who rely on themselves and their riches to get them into heaven are going to find it incredibly difficult to get into heaven.   

Maybe the key is to focus more on what God CAN do, and less on what humans CAN'T do. 

BVMLTT

 "Our culture has accepted two huge lies.  The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them.  The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe, say or do.   Both are nonsense.  You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Dave Chapelle

While I think that there might be a tiny bit of nuance that folks will inject into this, Chapelle is certainly much more right than wrong, and his conclusion is spot on.  

"We're a nation-state.  We have borders.  The idea that we can just have open borders is something that...as a practical matter, is unsustainable."

P-BO

When folks I disagree with are right, I'll agree with them.   Any time someone can't find anything to agree with in those they disagree with, it seems reasonable to conclude that their disagreement isn't completely rational.  

"A "moral" problem for reparations is that Black people TODAY are better off than we would be had our ancestors not lost to Tippu Tipp...and stayed IN nations like Congo.  This is ugly but obviously true, and why programs like this have always targeted the affected generation."

 

"I'm hardly the 1st to say ths, but the reason so many 2021 SJW's turn out to have been openly racist jocks/Heathers in the past is obvious from an amoral perspective:  they were simply using the MOST effective form of bullying to exist at each level."

Wilfred Reilly

"They (Ibram Kendi, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Mikole Hannah-Jones) talk a good game about race pride but think anything that is all-black is inferior.  They speak about life in Ameriac today as if melanated skin is a congenital defect.  Black and brown people need to regain their self-respect and reject what these people are selling.

Delano Squires

"The Black unemployment rate INCREASED to 8.8% in August.

The unemployment rate for Black men INCREASED to 9.1% in and INCREASED to 7.9% for Black women in August.

The unemployment rate for Black youth (16-19 years old) INCREASED to 17.9% in August."

Shermichael Singleton

"One Taboo Obvious point re education is that "bad schools" are bad (violent, etc.) largely because of the students and teachers in them.  If you close them down, and simply transfer all the former and half the latter to other schools, those will often soon be "bad schools."

Wilfred Reilly