Some Thoughts As A Christ-Follower

I believe that one of the challenges that we face as Christians is figuring out on what issues we should speak up and speak out about, and what issues we just need to more or less "let be." Personally, the older I get, the more I am convinced that Christianity is NOT primarily about restoring this world and the creation to its original state, but rather about seeing people reconciled to the Father through Jesus Christ. I realize that those two things are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are deeply intertwined. However (and I'll admit, I see this differently than do many Christians), we as Christians are not going to right the world's wrongs. This world has been infected and affected by sin since the Fall as recorded in Genesis 3, and it won't be restored until Christ returns. In fact, I see Scripture telling us that not only will the world not be restored until that time, but that it will get worse and worse UNTIL that time. And as long as we are in this world (or until Jesus returns--whichever comes first), our efforts at trying to establish the Kingdom of God in this world through human governments and through laws and decrees will be efforts in futility. We must seek to have people's HEARTS changed through the IMPUTED (not just imparted) holiness of Jesus Christ first and foremost. And then, when enough people experience that gift of Grace from God through surrendering their lives to Him and living as He leads, perhaps we will be able to make efforts at bringing small parts of society more in line with God's ways. But as long as we live in this world infected and affected by sin, our efforts will be akin to what Paul spoke of (albeit in a different context, but nonetheless in a way I believe to be applicable here) of seeing in a mirror dimly, knowing that one day (which I believe won't be until after Christ returns) we shall see fully--even as we are fully known. 

Until then, worldly governments and rulers will come and go--none of whom or which will be anywhere near perfect--and each one of us who has surrendered to Christ must follow as led by the Holy Spirit, knowing that we will ultimately stand or fall not to a denomination, but to Christ. 

May the Peace of Jesus Christ be yours.

I'm Not Rejoicing

My Facebook feed has rarely been filled with more political vitriol from some people, while being filled with what I'd term almost political jubilation by others.  Yes, "elections have consequences" (as President Obama has said in the past).  But not since the Presidential election of 2000 have I seen and heard of so many people trying to see if the results of the election can be overturned.  For the record, the election in 2000 was a totally different story, as only a very small number of votes cast in one state would have changed the outcome of the election in the electoral college.  But this year it's different.  Based on the election rules laid out in the United States Constitution, it certainly appears as though Donald Trump should easily win the vote of the electoral college when the vote is officially taken later this month.

Yet there are people who are now hounding electoral college electors to not vote for Donald Trump, even though they have been chosen to do that very thing.  We have a third (or actually fourth, when based on the number of votes received) party candidate demanding recounts in two states--despite the fact that the candidate has absolutely no chance of winning in either of those states.  In fact, even if the recounts should somehow show the very, very highly unlikely scenario that Hillary Clinton actually had more votes than Donald Trump in each of those states, Donald Trump would still have won more than the majority of electors in the electoral college. 

The bottom line is that there are many, many people in this nation who are just absolutely aghast at the idea of Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States.  It is highly likely that his election occurred despite a very large percentage of people having an unfavorable view of him.

But the truth is that despite a very large percentage of people having an unfavorable view of him, he won in large part because in the end, enough people had an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton.

What seems to have been lost in the aftermath of this election is the fact that the vast majority of the people in this country did not want either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to be elected President.  However, because of the rules and laws of how the President of the United States is elected, a large percentage of people voted for Donald Trump, not because they wanted him to be the President, but because they did not want Hillary Clinton to be the President (just as there was a large percentage of people who voted for Hillary Clinton primarily because they did not want Donald Trump to be the President).

In one of my previous blog posts (http://peteshodgepodge.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-choice-i-dont-want-to-make.html) I stated that I was in the camp of those people who would reluctantly vote for Donald Trump, because I thought a Hillary Clinton presidency would be even worse.

Make no mistake about it--I own up to having voted for Donald Trump.  But I also am not rejoicing that he won the election.  Instead, I am relieved that Hillary Clinton did not win the election.  However, as I said in the previously alluded to blog post, I voted for Donald Trump "grudgingly," while knowing that a Trump Presidency would be no panacea, but rather the lesser of two negatives.

There are many things that concern me about a Donald Trump presidency; it certainly will not be a panacea.  In some ways, it might be downright bad. But do you know what? Elections have consequences.  Instead of rejoicing that one person lost, or trying to find ways to intimidate electors of the electoral college, or complaining over everything that Donald Trump does that goes against what people who voted against him anyway don't like, I have an idea: Let's pray for Donald Trump.  Let's pray for the United States of America, and let's pray that the world will end up being a better place during Donald Trump's presidency--not because Donald Trump won the election, but because we rely on a Holy, and Merciful God who is truly the one in charge of all people and all governments. 

What Just Happened?

As I begin writing this, it is the morning of November 9, 2016--the morning after the Election Day on which Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.  24 hours ago, many people—myself included—fully expected that the winner of the election would be Hillary Clinton. 

What just happened?

For one thing, I fully believe that Mr. Trump won because he received a significant number of votes from people who simply did not want Secretary Clinton to be elected.  Conversely, many of the people who voted for Secretary Clinton simply did not want Mr. Trump to be elected.  In the end, there were likely more of the former than of the latter.

But that’s only part of it.  The more I’ve looked at it and seen the breakdown of some of the exit polling, I believe that this was in large part a revolt of the “common” people against (to use a term I’ve heard to describe it) the “elite” in America.  I’m not sure that “elite” is the best word to use, but it seems to be the word of the day.  What is the word “elite” being used to describe?  Let me take a shot at explaining it.

In general, they are in many cases viewed (especially by the so-called "common folks") in certain ways:  they have attained formal higher-education degrees; they are philosophical; they are altruistic; they believe they know what is best—even for other people; they give off the impression that they think they are better than those people who are less educated; they tend to view things through the lens that the world is stacked against the poor and disenfranchised, and believe it is their duty to stand up for these people and give these people a hand up (often by giving them special status in society to make sure that they are not discriminated against). And those are just some of the ways the so-called "common folks" tend to view the so-called "elite."

The bottom line is that in the view of many, these “elites” are viewed as the self-proclaimed “experts” regarding the ways things “should” be.   Oftentimes, the people whom many consider to be the “elite” act in condescending ways towards “the common people.”  To me, one of the greatest examples of this type of condescension was illustrated in a television ad a few years ago for LED lighting.  The deep-voiced spokesman on the ad talked about incandescent light bulbs having been great in their time, but that they’d now outlived their usefulness.  The key phrase in the commercial was, “Nostalgia is dumb.”*

That commercial is very emblematic of the attitude many “common folks” tend to think the “elites” have towards them.  Herman Cain wrote a book with a title that sums up this attitude—They Think We’re Stupid.

In my opinion, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has been due in large part to many, many people in essence saying to the “elites,” “Don’t tell us what to do.”

* = see this URL: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/nostalgia-is-dumb-cree-launches-led-promoting-tv-spots

A Choice I Don't Want To Make

In just a few days, it will be the final day for people to vote in the 2016 US Presidential election.  This election is going to be historic.

Barring some totally unprecedented occurrence, either the Democrat or the Republican nominee will win the general election.  There is one of those candidates whom I really don’t want to win.  On the other hand, I really, really, don’t want the other candidate to win.

I’m reminded of an incident that’s recorded in the Book of 2 Samuel in the Bible.  As the consequence of a bad decision and action by the nation’s leader, something bad was about to happen to the nation. The nation’s leader, King David, was given the choice of which consequence would occur.  Each consequence would be bad, but each one would be bad in different ways.  In the end, Kind David chose the consequence that would hit hard and quickly, but that would last the shortest amount of time.

I can see some parallels between the things from which King David had to choose and the choice the American people face in this Presidential election.  Regardless of who wins, there are very likely to be some bad consequences.

Let’s start with the Republican candidate.  We have in this person someone with basically no political experience, someone who has been recorded saying things that are disrespectful of various people, and who has often seemed to demonstrate the need for attention and self-glorification.  On the other hand, the Democrats have nominated someone who seems to have surrounded herself with a culture of corruption for many, many years.  While as of this writing there has been no “smoking gun” that has directly implicated her, logic tells us that she must have been either involved with or aware of the things going on around her.  Even the FBI director has said that at the least, her actions have been “extremely negligent.”

The biggest strength of each candidate is the fact that they are not the other candidate.  When the media and the people are talking primarily about one of the candidates for several days in a row, it is the poll numbers of the other candidate that seem to improve.

So, Americans are now faced with a choice between these two people.  Yes, there are indeed third party candidates, but none of them will win.  Either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump will win the general election.

I really don’t want Donald Trump to be the next President.  I’ve already described some of his shortcomings.  I think that if he were President, he’d be more likely to act rashly and in a non-statesmanlike manner in the event of a crisis, which might tend to make the crisis worse.

On the other hand, I really, really don’t want Hillary Clinton to be the next President.  In addition to the culture of corruption I already described that would likely tend to become even more perpetual around her as President, I simply disagree with the vast majority of her positions on the issues. 

Many have said that this election is going to be primarily about the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, as the next President will likely nominate three, four, or perhaps even more justices to that Court during the first (and hopefully only) term of his or her Presidency.  I tend to agree.  And for me, the bottom line is that I believe it is better for this nation to have justices whose judicial philosophies are more along the lines of the late Antonin Scalia and of Clarence Thomas than those of Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The Scalia and Thomas model is generally to interpret the Constitution in light of what the things it says meant at the time those things were written.  The Breyer and Ginsburg model is more along the lines of molding the words of the Constitution into what they want it to say currently, or as some people have descried it, legislating from the bench.

The next US President is likely to leave his or her mark on this nation for decades to come, especially if he or she indeed is able to successfully nominate several people to the US Supreme Court.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have indicated plainly enough the types of judicial philosophy they would be looking for in Supreme Court justices, and the way I see it, this nation will be far worse off for a longer period of time if the Supreme Court has a super majority of justices in the Breyer-Ginsburg model than it will be if it has a majority of justices in the Scalia-Thomas model.

That being said, even though I really do not want Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States, I really, really do not want Hillary Clinton to be the next President, and therefore I will have to grudgingly support Donald Trump for President, knowing that he has the best chance of anyone else in the current race of keeping Hillary Clinton from being elected.  Then we can pray that the bad consequences of a Trump Presidency will be less, fewer, and shorter-lived than that of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

A Political Perfect Storm

As I recall, it was Harry Caray who once said while broadcasting a baseball game after one of the best fielders in the game committed an error,  "Nobody's perfect.  Well, there was one, but they crucified Him."

If anything can bring out the reality that nobody is perfect, it's the election season in the United States.  It's especially so in a Presidential election year.  And this point has been illustrated more during this election year of 2016 than during any election year in my lifetime.  This election year has been almost a "perfect storm" of events and circumstances which have combined to bring about a Presidential election where each major party candidate has higher "unfavorable" ratings than "favorable" ratings.  This has become an election where the eventual victor will win, not because more people were in favor of that person, but because more people were against the other major party candidate.

How did we get here?  What are some of the factors that have contributed to this "perfect storm" situation?  There are many, but I'll name and elaborate upon a few.

A 24-hour-A Day News Cycle With an Ever-Increasingly Biased "For-Profit" News Media. 

This has not happened overnight.  It's been a gradual thing.  Basically every news media outlet is biased, and over the years, the bias has crept more and more into the news stories--both in the way the stories are reported and the amount of coverage (if any) the particular stories receive in any given media outlet.  According to the politically conservative Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/), the amount of time given on the nightly news broadcasts of liberal/progressive-leaning ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC to the (sometimes decades-old) allegations of sexual harassment against Donald Trump has been double, triple, and more than the amount of time given to the allegations in the Wikileaks accusations about Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton's possible involvement in those things.  On the other side, conservative-leaning Fox News tends to dwell more on the Wikileaks and less on Donald Trump.

Much of the problem is "sensationalized" news.  The old saying (that still holds true today in this for-profit news industry) is, "If it bleeds, it leads."  The news outlets want to promote their programming by attracting viewers, and experience has shown that the more sensational a story can be made, the more people tend to follow it.

Dissatisfaction With the Way Things Are

Going into the 2016 election season, polls showed that a large majority of Americans thought that the United States was generally headed in the wrong direction.  Some people have have tended to blame this "wrong direction" on those currently in power in the government.  Some have tended to blame this "wrong direction" on other things, such as a lack of justice in general, or on racism, sexism, and other "isms."  The point is, that the majority of Americans say that they want things to change.  The problem is though, that the different people want different types of changes.  The candidacy of Hillary Clinton represents the opportunity for "the first woman President of the United States," and many Americans will vote for her simply because of that fact.  This is not unlike the 2008 election where many people voted for Barack Obama because he would be "the first African-American President of the United States."  There are many people who will cast their vote for President almost solely on the fact that they want to see the gender barrier of the Presidency broken.

At the same time, there were two major insurgency candidacies this year.  Bernie Sanders surprised many, many people with the support he garnered in the Democrat primaries, but he was able to be so competitive because even among Democrats, there was a significant percentage of people who simply did not like the current political culture, and who wanted to see things change away from "establishment" candidates.

On the Republican side, the same type of dissatisfaction with people who were known, more or less, as "party regulars" led to the nomination of Donald Trump--someone who had almost no political experience prior to this year's election.  From that point, the primaries of each party became primarily a numbers game.  The Republican field included no less than 17 primary candidates, and despite the fact that Donald Trump rarely received more than about 25% of the votes in any of the elections where most of those 17 republican candidates were on the primary ballots, he still garnered more votes in most of these primaries than any other single candidate.  Because of the way the delegates are allotted for the Republican convention, Trump went into the convention with an insurmountable lead, even though he didn't receive the votes of a majority of Republican primary voters.


With the Democrats, there were never more than five primary candidates, and that number got whittled down to three and then two fairly quickly.  Bernie Sanders won a number of primaries over Hillary Clinton, but went into the convention with no chance to become the nominee, in large part due to the ways the delegates were allotted through the primaries (some delegates were chosen by coin flips--which almost all somehow went in Clinton's favor) and through "super delegates" who were already pledged to Clinton, regardless of the primary results.    

In the end, both major party nominees won their respective nominations despite large numbers of people from their own parties having been against them (or at least for someone else) in the primaries.

Indoctrination vs. Education

This factor might not be as obvious as the others, but it is nonetheless important.  Over the past several decades, the education system in the United States has been becoming more and more liberal/progressive.  According to the book, The Still Divided Academy (as referenced in this video: https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/how-liberal-university-hurts-liberal-student), only 12% of college and university professors consider themselves to be Republicans.  But (as the video points out), more than half of those college and university professors who consider themselves to be Republican support positions that are generally held by Democrats when it comes to issues such as abortion and increased environmental regulations.

While college professors tending to hold liberal/progressive views really isn't all that new, the United States culture has continued to stress more and more the importance of attaining a college education with each passing year.  We've come to the place that many jobs/careers that didn't require a college education just a decade or two ago now require one.

This has combined with the changes that have occurred in colleges and universities over the past several decades, to the point where now, freedom of thought and expression is being replaced more and more with things such as "sensitivity training."  Instead of colleges and universities being places where ideas can be openly discussed and debated, the tendency more and more has been to make sure that speech is "politically correct" and isn't offensive to anyone.  The natural outcome of this is that students are influenced not to think for themselves, but rather are taught what to think. 

This plays into the current election because we now have a large percentage of Americans who are applying current "politically correct" and "non-offensive" standards to words and/or behaviors that often happened prior to the current "accepted" standards.  And before I go on, please note that what I am saying is not intended to defend standards that are now outdated.  I'm simply pointing out that many people are judging the actions of people from years or decades ago by today's current standards, when the words or actions were culturally normal for the time when those things occurred. 

Many of the things Donald Trump has been accused of doing (and the operative word here is "accused"--since nothing has yet been proven and this nation still has the standard of innocent until proven guilty) were much more culturally acceptable at the time and in the places they are said to have happened than they would be now.  Again, this does not excuse those behaviors, but they need to be seen in context of the culture of the time when those things allegedly occurred.  But the fact is that many, many people are judging Donald Trump in a number of cases based on accusations from decades ago.  Admittedly, he has not often helped his case by the way he has reacted and responded to the allegations, nor by some of his behaviors and words, even during this election season.  But the point is that there are many people who are against Donald Trump in large part because of these accusations.

At the same time, this "indoctrination vs. education" has affected things for Hillary Clinton as well.  There are many, many Americans who have done well in life despite not having a college education.  There are also many, many Americans who received college educations, but who do not think that those degrees were worth the amounts of time and money spent on attaining them--especially in light of how those degrees actually prepared them for the "real world."  A lot of these people can tend to look at the liberal/progressive philosophies of the vast majority of those who taught (and/or attempted to indoctrinate--at least in their opinion) them in college, and think of many of those professors as having taught them that the more educated a person is, the more superior that person is to others who haven't attained the same level of formal education.  Many people who have experienced this in college have come to believe that instead of having been taught "critical thinking," they were taught to be critical of others who don't view things the same way as the people with higher educations view them.  Another way of putting this is that oftentimes, people with higher educations tend to think that they know what's best for everyone--including (and maybe especially) for those who have less formal education.

This plays into the current election and the way the candidates are viewed because many, many people are tired of being told what to do and of being thought of as (even if this view is merely perceived, and not real) being inferior and condescended to.  These are the people that will tend to be against the government imposing more and more regulations and expectations, and who will therefore be against Hillary Clinton.

Single issue voters

There are many Americans for whom one issue is more important to them than any other issue, and that person will vote for whomever agrees with them on that issue.  Or in this election, these people may vote against the candidate who most disagrees with them on that issue.  The issues will be different for different people; there are the issues of abortion, immigration, taxes, the environment, race, gender, terrorism, and many others.  Simply put, most people whose main issue is (for instance) that there should be no hindrances to anyone who wants to come into the United States, simply will not vote for Donald Trump.  At the same time, most people whose main issue is (for instance) that abortion is the killing of a human being simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court

For many, this may be the "single issue" as mentioned above, but this issue is especially divisive during this 2016 election, and merits its own mention.  It is highly likely that the winner of the 2016 Presidential election will get to nominate 44% of the Supreme Court justices that will be serving by the end of that President's first term.  This is based on the current vacancy due to the sudden death of Justice Scalia, and the advanced ages of three of the current justices.  The fact is that an unforeseen circumstance could occur that would result in a fifth vacancy on the Supreme Court within the first term of the next President, which would mean that this same President would have the unprecedented (at least since George Washington nominated the justices for the very first U.S. Supreme Court) situation of nominating a majority of the Supreme Court justices within a four-year Presidential term.

For voters who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that needs to be adapted to current cultures and circumstances, the fact that Donald Trump has already publicized a list of potential candidates he would nominate to the Supreme Court--and that he has said that he would nominate people in the same model of the politically conservative Justice Scalia--will keep people from voting for Donald Trump as President.  On the other hand, people who are "strict constructionalists" when it comes to the Constitution--who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of how the Founders of the United States intended things to be, and that the Supreme Court should not "legislate from the Bench"--simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton. 

The Internet, Social Media, and Alternative News Sources

The 2016 election will be influenced more by these things than any other U.S. election up to this time.  The internet is pretty much uncensored, and many people can (and do) spread stories about one candidate or the other.  While some of the stories are complimentary about the candidate the people support, the vast majority of the stories during this election have tended to be negative and against the candidate that the person does not support.  Not only do the stories spread, but they are the vast majority of the time accompanied by name-calling--both of the candidate that is being spoken of and (all too often) of the candidate's supporters.  People from both the "tolerant" political left and the "decent" political right are pretty much equally guilty of this, but as much as we may not like it, it appears to be effective; many people will not vote for one or the other of the candidates primarily because of what they have seen and/or heard about them on the internet, social media, and alternative news sources.

A Cultural Divide

This is perhaps the greatest influence on why people are against one candidate or the other.  With each passing year, the divide between liberals/progressives and conservatives widens.  I believe that this nation is almost as divided now as it was just prior to the Presidential election of 1860.  Thankfully, there are at least a couple of things that are different now that will keep the United States from actually fighting another Civil War.  One is that there is not one, single overriding issue dividing the nation today as there was when the atrocity of slavery was at the forefront of pretty much every issue in 1860.  A second difference is that there is not the geographical divide that existed in 1860.  While there was some geographical overlap at that time, today there is not one main geographical delineation that would unite one part of the country against the other (and for this, we should thank God).  But even though there almost certainly (again, thankfully) will not be an armed conflict over this election, the cultural views of what this country is and/or should be are becoming more divided with each passing year.  Accordingly, there are some people who simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she represents too much of what they are against.  It is the same situation for many who simply will not vote for Donald Trump, because he represents too much of what they are against.

These seven things--and likely others--have combined to create this political "perfect storm" where regardless of who wins, many, many people are going to be unhappy--very unhappy--with the election results.