Using Your Gifts // Protestant Prayer // The Left on SCOTUS

Acts 15-16
Many early Christians assumed any Gentile convert to Christ had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.  Paul and Barnabas resist this and the apostles take it up in Jerusalem.  Peter and James win the day: we are not followers of Moses, but of Christ - all Christians, Jew or Gentile, are saved the same way, by faith in His grace - the Old Testament predicted the Gentiles coming into the tent of David (ch 15).  Paul and Barnabas want to revisit the churches they planted, but can't agree on whether to take Mark, so they split up.  Paul discovers Timothy and probably Luke, and heads for Macedonia.  Lydia is converted in Philippi, but when Paul exorcises a demon from a slave girl, her owners get them thrown in jail.  They convert the jailer after an earthquake.  Paul makes a point to the magistrates that they have wronged Paul and Silas, probably to give political protection to the budding church they leave behind (ch 16).

Rev. Christopher Thoma - on serving in the church - in "The Cruciform Way," pg 136.
Everyone you meet is carrying around unique gifts and skills they could be using to serve the body of Christ, the church.  Let a pastor or other church leader know, when you become aware of them in yourself or in others.

William Godfrey - on the Reformation of Prayer - in Tabletalk, Oct 2021, pg 41.
The Reformation was not just one of doctrine, but also of personal prayer.  Protestants stopped praying to Mary and other saints.  And they regained a confidence that God heard them.  In prayer we need to realize our true need before God, coming humbly but also coming boldly to a heavenly Father who promises to hear and love us.

Charles Cooke - on the bankrupt judicial Left - in National Review, "Losing their Fiat," May 29, '23, pg 28.
The Left's judicial philosophy has been exposed as no more than ideology and pragmatism.  They decide based on what they think best at the time.  Thankfully, the originalism of the Right is in firm control, instead.  Leftist nominees like Kagan and Jackson actually had to say they are originalists (when they clearly are not) to get approved by the Senate.  The Left's only response to recent conservative rulings is to call it an attack on democracy, and say SCOTUS has too much power.  This is the opposite of what they said 40-50 years ago, when the court was deciding things their way.  But they have no other argument.

Acts / The Wasteland

Acts 12-14

Herod kills James, and the Jews love it.  So he arrests Peter, too.  But God supernaturally springs him from jail, and kills Herod (chapter 12).  The Spirit leads the Antioch church to send Saul and Barnabas on a missionary journey, with John Mark.  Their first stop is Cyprus, where they convert the Roman governor Paul.  Saul changes his name to Paul, John Mark goes back home, and Paul preaches to the Jews first, but is very willing to preach to the Gentiles, too.  A pattern forms: many Gentiles believe, but the Jews oppress and exile them (ch 13).  It happens again in Iconium and Lystra.  They make disciples and move on, appointing elders in each place (ch 14).

R.V. Young in Touchstone – on the meaning of TS Eliot’s “The Wasteland.”

I heard this talk live at the 2022 conference, and it was way over my head, but I loved it. Eliot’s literary
allusions are insanely complex, but the basic message - that we are now in a spiritual wasteland - is fairly
easy to spot. Things that should bring joy and meaning, are dry and empty. This is a great sample of
“How to read a poem” intelligently.

4 out of 5 stars

Acts / Liebovitz / Nihilism

Acts 5-7
As in Joshua the budding enterprise involves land, and is threatened by deceitful greed, which God intervenes to stop (ch 5). Another threat is discrimination by Jews against Hellenists (this was probably a cultural difference between Jews raised in Judea and those raised in Greek lands). The apostles ask the church to choose deacons to sort it out – they choose all Greeks, a hint that they strongly rejected the prejudice that was happening (ch 6). One of the deacons was Stephen, who debates successfully with Jews, resulting in them (half) falsely accusing him before the Sanhedrin. He defends God’s ways of saving His people apart from a temple or the Promised Land, and says again that they killed Jesus and all His prophets. They stone him, and Saul is there approving (ch 7).

Liel Liebovitz in First Things – on why Israel’s fertility rate is so high.

Tel Aviv is like most other modern cities, except for one thing: its streets are brimming with children.  Why? There aren’t huge subsidies for having children. Israelis are highly educated, which tends to correlate with fewer children. The answer is faith and tradition. They stick to their rituals faithfully among families and neighbors, and take seriously God’s mandate to be fruitful and multiply. A modern society like Israel can both do this, and have a thriving modern economy with highly educated women.

4 out of 5 stars

Acts 8-11
The church is scattered because of Saul’s persecution. Phillip evangelizes Samaria, the apostles come to see, the Spirit comes on the new believers, and Simon the Magician tries to buy access to the Spirit.  Phillip then evangelizes the Ethiopian Eunuch from Isaiah 53 (chapter 8). 

Saul heads to Damascus to persecute the church, but Jesus confronts and converts him directly. Ananias baptizes him after 3 days.  Saul preaches Jesus as Messiah, and the Jews try to kill him. He escapes to Jerusalem, but the church there has a hard time accepting him. When they do, he debates with the same Hellenists Stephen did, which led to no good. The church sends him to his native home town of Tarsus, and there is peace, again. Peter goes to Lydda and Joppa, healing Aeneas and Dorcas (ch 9). 

God gets Cornelius to send for Peter, while giving Peter a vision telling him to not consider unclean animals (and Gentile people) unclean anymore. Peter goes to his house, preaches the Gospel, and the Spirit falls as they believe (ch 10). 

Many Jewish Christians object to this; Peter says God led him to do it, and all the witnesses with him saw what the Spirit did to Cornelius’ household. Meanwhile, most of the scattered church preaches only to Jews, wherever they go. In Antioch they preach to Greeks, too, and many believe. Jerusalem sends Barnabas to help, and he first goes to Tarsus to get Saul to help (ch 11).

Algis Valiunas in First Things – on the Nihilism of Italian poet Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837)

Leopardi had severe scoliosis from too much poring over books early in life, and so was spurned romantically. He never forgave God for this, rejecting not only religion but also the humanist belief in progress ascendant in his time. He was a Romantic, who saw not truth or beauty in the world, but his own self-pity and despair. Nihilism is a dead end.

3 out of 5 stars

Acts / Bees / SCOTUS / Woke

Starting something new - reading notes.
A writing exercise, where I summarize pretty much everything I read during the day.

Acts 1-4
Jesus ascends to heaven and the apostles choose a substitute apostle for Judas (chapter 1). The Spirit falls on Pentecost and the apostles preach Jesus to the crowd. 3000 believe and the budding church thrives together in the Word and sacrament and fellowship (ch 2). They miraculously heal, resulting in more opportunities to preach the gospel in Jerusalem (ch 3). The leaders are upset and demand they stop, but they don’t (ch 4).

Hans Boersma in Touchstone - on reading Scripture like monks and bees

Monks in monasteries often kept bees and hives. This provided an apt metaphor for their reading of Scripture, especially since the Bible calls itself “sweeter than honey from the comb” (Psalm – As bees gather honey into their hive, we squirrel away Scripture in our minds and hearts. As they work industriously at it, with organization and leadership, so should God’s people. And we should take in the
Word of God as we take in food sweet to the taste. Chew it slowly, breaking it down into parts we can handle. Savor and discern its taste/meaning. Swallow it, accepting its nourishment for your body/soul.

5 out of 5 stars!

Dan McLaughlin in National Review – on the Left’s attack on the Supreme Court

The Left has been pressuring and attacking the Court ever since FDR in the 1930s. But things really ramped up when Reagan appointed 2 conservative justices, and then nominated Bork. For the first time, Senators (Democrats) opposed a nominee simply for his ideology, not his judicial competence.  Things have only worsened since then: wild accusations against nominees, and now protesting outside
their homes with weapons nearby. There is obviously a coordinated attack now between the media and the Senate, to discredit conservative justices for behavior that in reality is not unethical – though they make it look like it might be unethical.

4 out of 5 stars

Levi Secord in Fight Laugh Feast – on the woke’s obsession with being wronged and oppressed

The title says it all: “Always Wronged, Never Wrong.” This describes the woke mentality. Since I’m an oppressed victim I’m justified to accuse and behave toward my oppressors pretty much in any way I want. We see this with false accusations in the 1619 Project, for example. They pursue policies privileging minorities at the expense of the previously privileged. This is envy and revenge. “How does it feel now that the shoe is on the other foot?” This fosters further division and resentment between people, which woke Marxism needs to succeed. Instead, justice should be done – prejudicial policies corrected and restitution done where possible. And the victims should forgive and not pursue vengeance out of hate. What if Jesus took on the vindictive victim mentality of the woke, instead of
willingly suffering wrong for us?

4 out of 5 stars

Abiding in Christ // Dobbs Is Pro-Life // Declining Church-going

John Piper shows what it means to abide in Christ.  Clear, and spiritually bracing, as Piper always is.

Long, but excellent article here on how Dobbs is not neutral on abortion, but has lots of pro-life implications.  

"Permissive abortion laws, because they inherently treat the fetus as less than a person, lack a rational basis."


Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal: "Why Gen Xers Aren't Going Back to Church."
Highlights:
"The percentage of people ages 39 to 57 who attended a worship service during the week, either in person or online, fell to 28% in 2023, down from 41% in 2020."

"I got into the habit of not going."

"They continue making donations until their credit card expires.... They still believe in a God and live life with purpose but are done with the institutional church."

"Church was an anchor, where it's not anymore."

Classics // Modesty // Disputes in the Church

Huge resource on reading classic literature, here.  Leland Ryken is great at this - audiobooks embedded.

Kevin DeYoung has a good short article on modesty here.

This is a good article on handling disputes in the church from 1 Corinthians 6. A bit more detailed in the exegesis than it might need to be. But please read the last 2 short sections starting with "LOCAL CHURCH, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO DEAL WITH PRIVATE DISPUTES BETWEEN MEMBERS"

America First, and Ukraine

There's an irony in the current nationalism movement on the right.

The hunch, the original premise that I'm starting with is this: those who wear the nationalist badge with pride are the same people who want us out of Ukraine.  We could be using that money on our own border, after all, they say.  And these two groups are also roughly equal with the "America First" crowd.

This belies the slogan.  It isn't "America First."  It's "America Only."  It's the same isolationism that let Europe drift into World War II in the 1920s and 30s.

So the irony is this: a truly Christian nation would certainly protect its own citizens and borders first - agreed.  But it would ALSO seek to help weaker nations being preyed upon by stronger ones.  Only myopic vision would assume that what a global neighbor does won't affect us.  Would say, "If the president won't defend our border, then we shouldn't help the kid getting beat up by the schoolyard bully, either."

Two wrongs do not make a right.  We are not protecting and honoring our own heritage and civilization as we ought to do, true.  But at least we are helping other vulnerable nations to stay their own nation.

I believe the Bidens have profited corruptly from bribery in Ukraine.  That does not mean we should let the Ukrainian people be literally conquered by Russia, to spite the Bidens.  A whole people does not deserve subjugation because a few of its leaders are (were?) corrupt.

Christian nations would not make such calculations: "We know you're being invaded by an authoritarian, but we're not sure if you'll use our money well, so you can't have it."  

We've already let dictators conquer Hong Kong, once a bastion of free capitalism.  Now Ukraine.  Taiwan is next.  It's like we are willfully denying there is a Cold War continuing.  And that Reagan won it by peace through strength.

Populism, Elites, and the Benedict Option

Populism levels and diminishes the importance of institutions and authorities.  I find it a cancerous blight on our current political discourse.

I'm going to make an analogy from the theological idea of Sola Scriptura to political populism, so stick with me.

Recently I was discussing the "No Creed but Christ" creed with a friend.  See what I did there?  We should have no other authority than the Word of God, it is argued.  Sola Scriptura argues that Scripture alone is the ULTIMATE authority, but not that it is the ONLY one.  There are legitimate authorities in the family, church, institutions of learning, and so on.  There are specialists who know more about a field than the general populace.  These authorities aren't infallible (ahem-Fauci-ahem), but when they get it wrong we are sorely tempted to just shove them aside, and believe what we read on the internet ourselves.

Do you see the connection?  There is a parallel error in rejecting the authority of any theological confessions, and rejecting political authority.

Now, the confessions should be rejected at any part we find them to deviate from Scripture.  Just as a politician should be challenged when he advocates an unconstitutional policy.  But the ecclesiastical authority of the confession remains, as does the political office.  They are both needed for good order in civil and church society.

So here's my punchline: conservative Christians who rail against political elites, but revere their confessions, are deeply inconsistent.  Let us respect and honor earthly authorities in every part of our lives, as Scripture calls for, and not pick and choose.

Let me head off an objection: "But our loyalty is to the document, not to the people filling the office!" it is claimed.  This is true, but only in part.  Office holders should be true to the written, social contract, yes.  But you don't have a nation without people chosen to set policy, and other office-holders chosen to decide whether it is judged as in line with the society's charter.  You don't have a church without pastors to teach the Bible.  We need to be Bereans, but if each individual is the sole arbiter of whether the pastor is faithful to the text, we have chaos.  As Aaron Renn has argued recently, a society needs elites, even when we are deeply frustrated at their wicked recent behavior.  

(This is what the Magisterial Reformation was all about: Luther and Calvin and the other main figures sought to uphold and work with the civil rulers.  The Anabaptist radicals in stark contrast sought to reject them, drop out of an incurably corrupt society, and set up their own parallel institutions / communes.  I fear the conservative church is becoming Anabaptist instead of Magisterial in its politics.)

We can deem the policy our society adopts to be wrong, and seek to change it, but we are still part of that society.  Dropping out, a la the Benedict Option, can only be achieved in part.  The church is to be salt and light in the world.

This principle also doesn't mean we should meekly go along with bad policy.  Strenuous objection is a form of honor.  If a Christian father converts to Islam, and his wife and 19 year old son who live with him just shrug and leave him, they are not honoring him.  They should plead and persuade and convince him to return to the faith first.  And if he doesn't, he is still their father.

We used to mock the Hollywood star who vowed to move to Canada if the Republican candidate is elected.  Now such moves are literally happening en masse.  This is not wrong, per se.  We don't have the same loyalty to a state or country as we do to our family.  But we are naive idealists if we think we HAVE to live in a civil society that shares our values in large part.  Most Christians who have lived throughout history have NOT done so, and yet prospered spiritually.

So let's find ways to honor and work with authorities political and churchly, with whom we disagree.  I fully admit there is a swamp to drain out there.  But we are not egalitarians either, setting ourselves up individually as the arbiter of all truth.

Grace Goes First

[Letter to Doug Wilson on his blog, where he said] “In a biblical marriage, respect confers respectability.” What do you say to those who say that respect is earned by being respectable? - grh

[Doug Wilson responds:] "grh, I would say that in that case, love is earned by being lovable. Which is obviously false."

There's deep, important truth in these few words.  We are SO tangled up as a people in relational grudges and moralistic saviors, that it is VERY attractive to us to say, "respect is earned by being respectable.  I'll treat you right when you start treating me right."  Until we see the reverse in love, and realize, this would be a world totally lacking in grace.  

Trust me, none of us wants a world in which we get exactly what we deserve.  So we need to go first in extending respect to the not-quite-respectable-yet husband.  Go first in extending love to the not-quite-yet-lovable wife.  

Not to get them to change - don't get mad when they don't respond perfectly to your uber-graciousness the first time.

But simply because you should.

John 13:34 - "just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

Covid, and Now Elections

I want to bring up a sensitive topic in conservative churches right now.  

An elephant in the room that we are not talking about.  

The issue is the legitimacy of elections, and how deep the corruption goes in our political system.  This issue's figurehead is Donald Trump.  If you think elections have been and will be stolen, and the rot goes all the way down, you'll likely vote for Trump.  If, on the other hand, you think elections were not stolen (but were heavily media-influenced), if you think the system is salvageable by sane, moderate people, you are probably not a Trump supporter.

Both groups are now sitting in the same set of pews, eyeing each other.

The way church leaders in MY circles are handling this (and this is who I'm critiquing!), is by ignoring it and talking about Covid.  How we all know now what to do next time.  We are finding a false unity in the Covid post-mortem, when we should be dealing directly with our current disagreement.

As an aside, the Covid post-mortem really bothers me.  Almost every church with very few exceptions shut down for 4-12 weeks in March-June 2020.  But now we talk as if we didn't, and that we were all on the same page against shutdowns throughout.  We weren't.  We brag about how quickly we reopened.  A bit of honesty and humility here would be refreshing.

Set that aside.  I don't think the church is learning very well how to deal with disagreements.  The Covid issue was acute, and people voted with their feet, whether to mask or not.  Many churches have a whole new set of people in their pews because of this.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a yellow flag.

How will each church handle the 2024 election?

Will we wind up with churches proclaiming an election-denying, Trump-supporting position, and people vote with their feet to go there?  I would urge that this should not be.

Politically, this is a moment in our country where the Republican-voting populace is trying to figure out where to land on this issue.  This is a moment for the church to speak.  It's probably unwise to come down hard for or against Trump, as a church voice.

But laying out basic political principles, and how to disagree well is direly needed.

Next time I'll share my thoughts on that.

To Kill a Mockingbird - book review

 

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

To Kill a Mockingbird review

The perfect vacation read. Having never read it, I picked it up and read the whole thing in less than a week – rare for me!

Set in the 1930s, told from the perspective of a lawyer’s prepubescent daughter, Harper Lee’s vivid writing grips. The reader can easily visualize the porches, the people, and the town. Here are some themes I discerned:

Individual dignity
Whether it was the hermit next door they liked to mock, or the racism against the blacks painfully depicted, Atticus Finch was the foil, persuading us to respect the dignity of any and every person. One way the author did this was to not tell the reader the race of key characters until far in, sometimes never. It became important to the plot to know, at some points, yet you didn’t know. A person’s race mattered to the town, and to the plot of the book. But it shouldn’t have. Another key example of individual dignity comes from the title. When Atticus gives his children air rifles for Christmas, he instructs them: “Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” Their neighbor explains further, “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird” (119). This is a metaphor for vulnerable people like hermits or minorities. The community COULD hurt them, but should leave them alone and let them sing their song.

Injustice
But what we see under the surface of the nice small town is people who DO want to hurt others. Teachers want to impose ideology without understanding for individual students. White trash want to put down blacks to feel better about themselves. (The “n” word is used liberally.) Good folks put down the white trash, and the African native needing civilization, to feel better about themselves. This all culminates in the accusation of rape against a black man on a backwoods white man’s daughter. Though all the evidence points to her propositioning him, the father charges the man with rape to escape the shame of it.

Incrementalism toward justice
Atticus was happy to lose his case, with the jury deliberating for hours instead of minutes, knowing the judge was on his side. That was progress. It meant there was at least one man on that jury who stuck up for the truth in the face of sheer prejudice, and that was a win. This would be unacceptable compromise today, from any political viewpoint. But it is a mature understanding of realistically changing society. It takes time and baby steps to get there.

Innocence of children?
One theme that bothered me at first was the refrain that children haven’t learned the sin of prejudice yet, so are more distressed by it. The book flirts with Rousseau’s idea of the tabula rasa: children are innocent; it is society that corrupts them. But I believe we can reject that, and also see that some societal sins like racism are corporate and learned. As a theological example, I became convinced of paedo-Communion when I read 1 Corinthians 11 in context: it was the adults who were slighting the poor during Communion, not the children. The grownups weren’t discerning the body by giving everyone an equal share. That wasn’t something the children would have even thought to do, yet THEY are excluded from the sacrament by most Christians, on the assumption that THEY can’t discern the body. Disregarding the poor or the young are learned, societal traits largely unknown to our children. This doesn’t mean they are innocent until society corrupts them. They have their own sinful nature, too. So it is with sinful patterns like racism.

A God’s-eye view
The hermit who lives next door, whom they never see, I believe represents God. He is distant and absent for the whole story. Talked about, wondered at, even mocked. But at the end we find out that he has been seeing the whole town drama play out from his window. He emerges to protect, and to bring justice. Even the sheriff realizes there was a higher law that he fulfilled. In front of the hermit and the principled lawyer he obliquely justifies the hermit’s actions. This is the refrain of the popular mystery novel: justice has been done outside the conventional standards. Is that okay? The implication is strongly, “Yes.” “A righteousness, apart from the law…” (Romans 3:21ff).

Conclusion
In our day, the woke have co-opted the civil rights movement to advance wickedness (the trans are the new afflicted minority) and injustice (“down with white privilege!”). This prompts the anti-woke to reject books like this as the seeds of liberalism. I reject this view entirely. It’s true the worldview of this book isn’t tethered much to God or a biblical worldview. We only get hints of that. But Atticus Finch fought a good fight. The judge was right to put him on the case, and lean on the jury to decide for righteousness. Finch was right that he was obligated to take the case, for his integrity’s sake.

When the woke exploit and corrupt ideals like racial justice for their own purposes, let us not throw out the ideal, but continue to stand for it in its pure form, as Atticus Finch did.

View all my reviews

Pence // Nashville Shooting // Office Politics Humor

 Great article and interview with Mike Pence in the Wall Street Journal. Pence/DeSantis 2024!

Great article on the Nashville shooting. Did you know Hale shot out a stained glass figure of Adam during the rampage?

Christian Behavior by C.S. Lewis - a review

Christian Behavior by C.S. Lewis
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I found a first edition printing of C.S. Lewis’ second series of radio addresses during World War II, in a used bookstore in a tourist town near me. Delivered in 1943, published in 1945, Lewis reviews Christian ethics by looking at each cardinal virtue in turn.

The chapters are each exactly 6 small pages long, as he had 10 minutes to deliver each. This makes for easy reading.

Lewis first surveys morality, generally. It involves fair play between people, harmony within oneself, and the purpose of life. He then reviews the classical virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice. Then two fascinating addresses on psychoanalysis and its relationship to ethics, and sexual morality. An insightful chapter on marriage, likening the relationship to a violin and bow, making up one instrument. And finally Christian virtues: forgiveness, humility, charity, hope, and faith.

Lewis is so bracing. Simple, clear, and direct. I was struck by how out of sync his emphases are with my own conservative circles today. In a world of platforming and building your brand, even by the people we agree with, Lewis was the unassuming opposite. He spoke of the fledgling New Testament Christian Church as possibly leftist and socialist. Perhaps he was wrong, or perhaps he wasn’t constrained by political orthodoxies like we are today. His chapter on Hope calls us to look to the next world, in order to do the most good in this one. My anti-Gnostic friends would cringe, but Lewis is right. While we can and should enjoy the blessings of this world, we should even more be hoping for a better world.

Ironically, Lewis wrote in his day that we need to read old books, to balance our modern view. Now, we need to read Lewis’ old book, to balance our contemporary views on Christian living, whether you are a long time Christian, or considering the faith afresh.

View all my reviews

Minister of Mercy: The New Testament Deacon - review

 

The New Testament Deacon: The Church's Minister of Mercy by Alexander Strauch
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A good survey and exposition of what the Bible says about deacons. Strauch exposits Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3 thoroughly. At times it is overly academic and pedantic, but it is solid. Usually predictable, but now and then there are gems in the exposition. Here’s one example:
1 Timothy 3:13 says that deacons who serve well will obtain “great boldness in the faith.” Strauch: “as deacons faithfully serve, they also develop their spiritual lives, particularly their faith in Christ” (pg 151). There is a lot of spiritual insight, there.

I’ve noted a stark difference between my church experience and Scripture in this way: in Acts 6 the deacons are given authority for a field of activity, and then left to do it, while the elders pray and teach the Word. In the church today, deacons don’t do anything unless the elders tell them to! This is as often the fault of the elders being disorganized as it is of negligence on the part of the deacons. Deacons are a key link in the structure of the church, receiving authority from elders to serve, and then coordinating and delegating some of that authority to the body of believers.

The main point Strauch makes topically, in applying to the church scene today, is crucial. At the beginning and end of the book he asserts this:
Most churches make deacons either rulers of the church or janitors. The Bible makes them neither. They are agents of mercy with real authority under the elders, to provide for those in need.

May our deacons aim for this purpose, serving God’s people faithfully.

View all my reviews

A Political Exercise

I took a moment this afternoon for a political exercise.

Feel free to follow what I did below if you'd like.

Step 1: This is in my email from the county Republican party leadership

"Two bills are coming before the Michigan House of Representatives that pose a serious threat to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in Michigan. HB4474 and its companion bill, HB4475, which both aim to criminalize hate speech. These bills, if passed in to law, would be used to criminalize any vocal opposition to the democrats woke agenda. For example, vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills became law. Simply put, if passed, it would make it a felony for any one of us to speak out against the LGBTQ community, causing "mental anguish" to a protected class as outlined by the expanded Elliot Larson Act. If found guilty, one could face inprisionment for not more than 5 years, a $10,000 fine, or both. These are dangerous pieces of legislation that seek to interfere with the God-given freedom of speech and freedom of religion that are ours in Christ Jesus.

We are asking that each of you write a letter addressed to State Representative Jennifer Conlin urging her to vote "NO" on this legislation."

At the end, they include the actual legislation documents.  Helpful!

2. I go to read the summary, which is here.  I'll pause while you go and read...

3. I'm confused, and a bit disturbed.  The legislation does not look to ME like it criminalizes my next sermon on Romans 1, as claimed above.

4.  I send the following to my esteemed local party leaders:
Hello,
I'm a conservative pastor in Howell, and just read your letter, and the document summary of HB4474.
I believe you are mistaken to claim that 
"vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills became law."

Any opposition to CRT/LGBT should be done respectfully, without threats that intimidate anyone.  We should oppose the idea, but not threaten the person.  The language I read doesn't allow prosecution just because someone feels threatened.  See especially the definition of intimidate on pg 2, allowing constitutionally protected speech.  "I felt traumatized because they said something I disagreed with" doesn't seem allowed, here.
The law is mistaken to categorize trans people as ethnicities, and should be opposed.  And adding "intimidate" IS a bad idea.  But it should be opposed because it is unnecessary.  It does not criminalize my sermon from Romans 1.

I'm asking you to reconsider your rhetoric and rationale - sending the rank and file to state reps with questionable objections to a bill, is a tactic that will backfire in the long run.



5. After sending and thinking about it for 2 minutes, I realize.  "Huh.  If I'm going to critique their approach, I'd better show them how I think it should be done."  So I write and send a letter to our State Representative, thusly.
"June 15, 2023
Dear Representative Conlin, 
I am writing to ask you to vote NO on HB4474 and 4475.
Including gender identity and expression alongside sexual orientation is unnecessary.  The former is included in the latter phrase. 
Adding the behavior of “intimidate” to a hate crime is dangerously ambiguous.  Expressing an opinion in anger is enough for many to feel intimidated, today.  Can they sue, now?  I see some guardrails in the law: “cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, etc.”  “Intimidate would not include constitutionally protected activity.” 
But that makes adding “intimidate” to the law unnecessary, and unwise.  Hate crimes should be limited to violence and specific threats of it, not expanded to include FEELING intimidated.
Thank you for your consideration.

6. This is what sane political interaction looks like, in my mind.  NOT mimicking the antics and over-the-top rhetoric of your favorite entertainer-podcasters online.  I'd love to know if you think I'm off base.