Andrea Hernandez is a smart 15-year-old sophomore in a science and engineering magnet school in Texas.  But she might be expelled from her school.  Is she disruptive or a bad student?  No, her transgression is that she has refused to wear a school-mandated RFID (“spychip?”) tracking badge.  Does she like to hide out and not be found instead of being in her classroom?  Actually, she objects on religious grounds.  She (and her family) object because they consider the school district’s spychip program to be equivalent to the “the mark of the Beast” spoken of in Revelation, chapter 13.  After she refused to wear the tracking chip, Ms.  Hernandez was warned in a letter that there would “be consequences.”  Following through on its threats, the school district sent Ms. Hernandez a letter informing her she would be expelled on November 26^th if she refused to comply.

Well, as these matters are often decided by the courts, this dispute is being heard by U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia in San Antonio.  Ms. Hernandez and her lawyers have requested an injunction to prevent disciplinary actions against her planned by the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, which was granted by Judge Garcia pending the outcome of the litigation.

The school district’s program, called the “Student Locator Project,” seeks to boost public funding for the district by increasing student attendance rates.  The mandatory card badges embedded with the RFID tracking chip allow school administrators to track students at all times while on the campus.  School officials contend that a continuous monitoring and tracking of students will reduce absences, and they will be able to collect an additional $1.7 million in funding from the state by the time the monitoring program is installed in the district’s 112 schools.  Really?  $1.7 million for monitoring students in 112 schools?

Ms. Hernandez is being represented by attorneys from the Rutherford Institute, who stated, “For Hernandez, a Christian, the badges pose a significant religious freedom concern in addition to the obvious privacy issues. Andrea’s religious objection derives from biblical teachings that equate accepting a personalized code – as a sign of submission to government authority and as a means of obtaining certain privileges from a secular ruling authority – with a form of idolatry or submission to a false god.”

A ruling is expected shortly.  What would you do if it were you or your child?

One of my favorite people in the Christmas story from St. Luke’s Gospel, chapter 2, is Simeon.  We read that the Holy Spirit revealed to him that he would see the long-awaited Messiah before he died.  In the Christmas story, we see that Simeon comes to Mary and Joseph, and takes their little baby from them.

I am sure they were shocked.  Who knows the number of parents that brought their first-born baby boys into the temple on the day that Joseph and Mary presented Jesus to God.  How could Simeon pick the baby Jesus out of the crowd?  In verse 30, Simeon says, “For my eyes have seen your salvation.”  What was it that Simeon’s old eyes saw?  He is seeing a little baby.  On the outside, there was nothing special about this baby.  Just a little baby boy with five small toes on each foot and five little fingers on each hand, probably with a small mop of hair on His head.  I even imagine a small mop of red hair.  But when Simeon looks at the baby Jesus he obviously sees much more than just a little baby.  “My eyes have seen your salvation.”

That word “see” is important.  It means to perceive, to know, to understand.  The Holy Spirit of God that moved Simeon to go to the temple at the very moment when Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were arriving helped him see more than just a little baby.

Filled with the Holy Spirit, Simeon sees that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies: that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Immanuel, the God who is with us, and the “wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace” foretold centuries earlier by the prophet Isaiah.  Simeon miraculously sees with his own eyes what God’s people waited centuries to see, and what Simeon himself waited an entire lifetime to see.  Simeon sees that God is a wonderful and loving God Who keeps His promises.

Simeon sees even more.  He sees the wonderful miracles that Jesus will be doing.  He sees that Jesus will heal the blind, the lame, the sick, and the lepers.  Simeon sees that Jesus will even raise the dead to life.  Simeon hears the wonderful news that Jesus will be bringing.  Good News of God’s love and forgiveness to the poor, the prisoners, and the outcasts of society.  Simeon sees the love that Jesus will show to people like Zacchaeus, Mary, Martha, Lazarus, a Roman centurion, prostitutes, a woman caught in adultery, and to you and me.

Simeon sees still more.  Filled with the Holy Spirit, Simeon sees the cross and the grave, and His resurrection on the first Easter.  Simeon sees that Jesus is the Suffering Servant Who would die for our sins, as anticipated by the prophets.  He sees in the baby Jesus that one day He would be despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with grief, as Isaiah foretold centuries earlier.  Simeon sees that Jesus will be hated.   In Luke 2:31, Simeon sees that Jesus is “the salvation which you have prepared in the sight of all people.”  Simeon sees that the baby Jesus will also be a Savior for those from every tribe and nation, language and people who also long for God.

Simeon also saw a world not unlike ours.  A world full of war and terror, of death, of great poverty, where children kill and are killed.  Simeon saw a world desperate with hurt and pain and immorality.  He sees the terrible human tragedies that come from violence, illness, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and hurricanes.

As Simeon sees the baby Jesus, he is ready to meet God, His maker, and can die in peace.  Why?  Because Simeon not only sees, but also believes.  He believes Jesus is the Savior.  Simeon believes that Jesus is the Messiah.  He believes that this little baby Jesus is the Son of God.

This Christmas, we have much to learn from Simeon.  As we look at the commercialism, the tinsel, the shopping, the traffic, the frenetic pace, the soon-to-come high credit card bills, can you look at the baby Jesus laying in the crèche at our church this Christmas and say, with Simeon, “My eyes have seen your salvation.”  Can we say today with Simeon, “I can die in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation.”  You don’t have to be holding the baby Jesus in your arms to say that.  You just have to hold Jesus in your heart by faith.  You just have to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior of your life.  And, as Simeon teaches us, you are never too old, or too young, to see God’s salvation.  So, this year, let’s celebrate the Giver of Salvation: the Christ of Christmas.  The true Christ of Christmas is God’s salvation for you.

Merry Christmas, Everyone.

There has been an important development in recent days that few have heard about.  It has received practically no media attention, other than on a few legal blogs.  But it is an important development affecting the religious liberty of employers.  My readers will recall that Wheaton College (Illinois) and Belmont Abbey College filed a challenge against the “contraception mandate,” a regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) that required employer-provided health care plans include coverage for all FDA-approved forms of contraception (including abortions and abortifacients) without cost-sharing.  Various religious employers, including the two Christian colleges, have objected to this requirement citing the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

At the district court level, the Colleges’ challenge to the contraception mandate was dismissed because the lower court found that the Colleges had no standing to challenge the contraception mandate, and that even if they did have standing, their lawsuit was too premature for them to challenge a mandate that had not been finalized and implemented (what lawyers refer to as “ripeness).  On appeal, the appellate court explained that the lower district court was wrong to dismiss the suit for lack of standing as “the colleges clearly had standing when these suits were filed,” and reinstated the cases.  However, what was particularly interesting is that while the appellate court found the ripeness question to be “more difficult,” after reinstating the cases, it decided to put the case in abeyance pending the final issuance of HHS’s regulation.  The appellate court relied upon the promises made by HHS lawyers that the new regulation would address the claims of religious employers in the new rules.  The appellate court then ordered the Obama Administration to report back every sixty days, beginning in mid-February, until HHS makes good on its promise to issue the conception mandate regulation before August 2013 that will protect the Colleges’ religious freedom.  A copy of the short appellate court’s order is available here:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/wheaton-college-v.-sebelius-order.pdf

Having personally listened to attorneys make statements and promises to judges that they knew would never be kept, the appellate court is holding HHS attorneys to their word.  Jonathan Adler, writing in The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog) observed:

As a consequence of this ruling HHS will have little choice but to issue a rule relieving many religious employers of the obligation to provide coverage for contraception. The interesting question will be how this is to be accomplished under existing statutory authority.   Moreover, the Administration’s proposed fix — allowing religious employers to exclude contraception coverage but requiring insurers to provide separate contraception coverage to employees at no charge — would do nothing to alleviate the burden on those religious employers that self-insure (which many do because, among other reasons, it provides a way to escape state-level contraception mandates).

There are numerous other cases that are challenging the contraception mandate in various federal courts, but it does seem that the federal courts remain skeptical about this infringement of religious liberty on religious employers.

One of my favorite persons in the Bible is Joseph, the eleventh son of Jacob.  My readers will recall that he was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers, and yet rose to become the most powerful man in Egypt after the Pharaoh.  He teaches us many important spiritual lessons, such as the importance of forgiveness, patience in adversity, and faithfulness to God even when falsely accused.  However, he might also have a powerful lesson for our nation at this time as Joseph’s political shrewdness is often neglected today in our pulpits.  Prior to the great famine that plagued Egypt, Joseph arranged to set aside food for the Egyptian people.  During the latter part of the great famine, the Egyptians had used up their money to buy grain.  There was no more money, and their livestock had dwindled to nothing.  Brilliantly, Joseph had all the inhabitants of Egypt (less the priestly class) sell their properties to Pharaoh for seed and food, which became the property of Pharaoh (think of it as government property).  Then after this, Joseph added that one fifth of the produce should go to Pharaoh as well.  (The fact that Joseph only “taxed” 20 percent of production is interesting because over the years, federal revenue has remained relatively steady between 15 and 20 percent of GDP, though it has increased to 25 percent under President Obama.  Is there a biblical lesson for us here as well?)  In any event, the Egyptians exchanged their property for food, and within a short time, the Hebrews were slaves, and I suspect the Egyptians were not much better off.

But Joseph offers some important insight for the negotiations regarding the so-called “fiscal cliff.”  Sure, the so-called “negotiations” are moving at a glacial pace.  But President Obama has sought to increase federal income taxes on the top two percent of income earners (singles making more than $200,000, and couples earning more than $250,000).  I am unsure whether this level of income qualifies people as being millionaires and billionaires, but we must give our President the benefit of the doubt.  After all, he did win the November election.  Of course, the higher income tax rates are expected to raise an estimated $80 billion or so per year, if that much.  Since the President considers the wealthy to be under-taxed in the United States, then there is one possible biblically-based solution that has been tried in many foreign countries, including France.  The President might wish to propose and articulate for a national wealth tax (which I will call the “Joseph Tax”) to generate large amounts of revenue so that more individuals might enjoy generous government largesse (incidentally, participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, reached another high in September, according to new data by the Department of Agriculture.  Released late last week, 47,710,324 people were enrolled in the program in September, an increase of 607,559 from the 47,102,765 enrolled in August, and the number of households enrolled in the program also increased from 22,684,463 in August to 22,973,698 in September, an increase of 289,235.)  A Joseph Tax would provide the needed governmental revenues so that our nation can help the elderly, the disadvantaged and poor enjoy generous social welfare programs comparable to those in Europe.  Surely no serious Christian believer can ever be opposed to helping those less fortunate among us.

The Joseph Tax would be based on the aggregate value of all household assets, such as housing and other real estate investments, furniture, cash, bank deposits, investments, pension plans, art collections, yachts, unincorporated businesses, and any personal trusts.  Thus, the Joseph Tax would focus on the wealthy on their accumulated level of purchasing power.  This would be, of course, in addition to federal and state income taxes.  Such a plan should not surprise us.  After all, aren’t real estate taxes based upon the value of the property, and the property values are independent of income?  The higher the value of the property asset, the higher the taxes paid.  And in most states, commercial property is taxed at a higher tax rate than a personal residence as a different class of property.  (Note again, Joseph’s political wisdom: the religious institutions of his day were not taxed, just as our society does not tax churches and other religious institutions, and their property.)

How would the Joseph Tax work?  Let’s suppose that we establish a five percent Joseph Tax for all net assets in excess of $100,000.  Thus, we would add up the value of one’s home, present value of all pension or 401k plans, cash in bank, mutual funds, investments, and any other investments or property, less the total amount of debt.  This would determine the net asset value for a person or family unit at the end of the year.  Then, in addition to income taxes, say that a five percent tax would be levied on the net assets.  As an example, suppose John and Larry, a married couple from Washington, D.C., have $500,000 in net assets, then a $20,000 Joseph Tax would be paid (computed as follows: ($500,000 in net assets less $100,000 exclusion) x 5% = $20,000)).  Then the Joseph Tax could also be at an incrementally higher rate for high net-worth individuals.  As an example, suppose that a hypothetical couple named Mitt and Ann have $150,000,000 in net assets, their Joseph Tax could be 20 percent.  Thus, Mitt and Ann would write an annual check to the Internal Revenue Service of $29,980,000 ($150,000,000 in net assets less $100,000 exclusion = $149,900,000) x 20% = $29,980,000).  This would ensure that this hypothetical couple would pay their fair share even if their incomes were taxed in a more favorable manner.  Of course, capital gains and dividend tax rates are scheduled to increase dramatically in the coming weeks.

Such a system would be beneficial to our nation in that it would raise large amounts of revenues for the federal government to provide for the poor, the disadvantaged, and the elderly.  We would not even have a federal government budget deficit (at least for a few years).  And even if persons were to seek selfishly to reduce their own Joseph Tax, they would then need to spend the money, which creates new jobs, including those for restaurant and hotel workers, auto dealers, appraisers, IRS tax specialists, accountants and lawyers.  It would also increase bank loans and bank profits (as persons seek to reduce their net assets), which would be great for Wall Street bankers.  Moreover, and Joseph would have approved of this part, the Joseph Tax would be more fair than an income tax, as it would be, in effect, a user fee on private property rights focused on those with an ability to pay.  Wealthy farmers, estimated to own a total of 526,421 farms, or about 25 percent of all farms in the United States, could simply deed 20 percent of their land yearly to the federal government, just as in Joseph’s time, to pay the Joseph Tax.  Importantly, the Joseph Tax would encourage the productive use of assets (as in “use it or lose it”).  So, no more idle art collections, rarely used Italian or Corsican villas, yachts, and jets for the wealthy.

Of course, the ultimate objective would be to help to redistribute wealth from the wealthy who do not need it to those who want student loans, and other governmentally-provided social services, such as cell phones.  It could even enable the food stamp program to expand to include hot food served at restaurants.  After all, why shouldn’t the poor be entitled to enjoy a nice steak dinner, with a bottle of Barolo or Amarone?  Now, some may observe that there could be a small constitutional problem in the United States with this thoughtful and biblical approach to solving our nation’s “fiscal cliff.”  The Constitution prohibits any “direct tax” on personal holdings unless the revenue collected is apportioned among the states on the basis of their population (See, Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 362 (1945), in which the Supreme Court stated that a direct tax is a tax “which falls upon the owner merely because he is owner, regardless of the use or disposition of the property.”)  But passing constitutional muster in today’s Chief Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court should not be a major obstacle, especially since the Supreme Court’s holding in the Fernandez case is such ancient history.  After all, the pesky Constitution seems to be only a suggestion among some of our nation’s top jurists.  We cannot merely rely upon an ancient document to preclude our nation from serving the poor, the disadvantaged, and the elderly, while the wealthy evade their societal obligation by failing to pay their fair share as President Obama reminds us so clearly and often.  After all, did not Jesus remind us to give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s?  And should not the government itself determine what is Caesar’s?  Yes, the ancient Egyptians exchanged their property for government food, and in turn, became slaves.  I am sure that Benjamin Franklin remembered this factoid of Bible history when he wrote: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”   Indeed.  That wily and astute political operator Joseph would have been proud.

Julea Ward, a graduate student, was expelled from the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University (“EMU”).  What was the infraction that made her worthy of expulsion?  She had the brazen audacity to try to avoid violation of her Christian beliefs by referring a potential client, who sought counseling for a homosexual relationship, of which Ms. Ward did not approve because of her Christian beliefs, to another counselor.  Of course, counseling referrals are a common and accepted professional practice.  But Ms. Ward ran afoul of the sodomitic community’s enablers in academia.

EMU began its disciplinary process against Ms. Ward shortly after she enrolled in a counseling practicum course in January 2009, when she was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship.  Ms. Ward recognized the potential conflict with her religious convictions regarding the client, and she asked a supervisor how to handle the matter.  The supervisor advised Ms. Ward to simply reassign the potential client to a different counselor, which she then did.  Immediately after that, EMU informed Ms. Ward that she could only remain in the counseling program if she agreed to undergo a “remediation” program, which would help her “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system” as it relates to counseling about homosexual relationships.

Earlier in 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit ruled in her favor, and reversed the district court’s decision in favor of EMU, and sent the case back for trial, writing, “A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith….”  Moreover, the appellate decision notes, “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree.”  The appellate court noted:

Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so.  That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the [non-discrimination] rule require?  Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues.  Tolerance is a two-way street.  Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.

Following remand, EMU has now agreed to settle the case brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Ms. Ward, by paying her monetary damages and to remove the expulsion from her record.  Perhaps some of the EMU faculty and administrators should undergo a “remediation” program, which would help them see the error of their ways and change their belief system, so such things never occur again.

Reasonably, and as recognized by the appellate court, a public university should not force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree.  We should all be pleased that Ms. Ward and her constitutionally protected rights were vindicated.  Kudos to you, Ms. Julea Ward, and to your attorneys.  May God continue to bless you as you minister to others, and as you boldly serve our Lord Jesus Christ.

On these pages, I have been sharply critical of, and have warned about, the dangers posed by President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt and his supporters in the Moslem Brotherhood.  Further, I have warned about the dangerous policies of President Obama with regard to his “Administration’s” support of Morsi and the Brotherhood, even providing billions of dollars in taxpayer aid annually to prop up the Morsi regime.  However, on November 22^nd, Morsi claimed authoritarian powers (allegedly temporarily), and his subsequent moves to rush through a controversial constitution based on Sharia law caused large protests to erupt in Egypt.  These pitched battles are being fought between the Islamists and non-Islamists.   In these protests, many have been killed by the police, military, and Moslem Brotherhood thugs, and many hundreds more have been injured.  In response to the deaths and injuries of protestors in Egypt, President Obama has expressed “deep concern” to Morsi, and a White House statement said that President Obama told Morsi that such violence was “unacceptable.”  I am sure that the President’s remarks put the fear of Allah into Morsi.  Perhaps as a consequence of President Obama’s remarks to the Egyptian president, Morsi has annulled most of his decree this past Sunday, including the most controversial article that placed all of his actions beyond judicial review.  Morsi had used his decree to protect an Islamist-dominated constitution-writing panel from dissolution by Egypt’s highest court.  However, Morsi announced that a December 15^th referendum on the new Islamist constitution will go ahead.  Morsi’s political opponents, who wanted the referendum canceled, now plan to boycott the national dialogue on the new Islamist constitution.  Yet, new troubles are brewing for Morsi and his allies.  In its Sunday edition, the New York Times reported: “Amid growing concerns among [Morsi’s] advisers that the Interior Ministry might be unable to secure either the polls or the institutions of government in the face of renewed violent protests, the state media reported early Saturday that he would soon order the armed forces to keep order and authorize its solders to arrest civilians.”  Thus, it is likely that we will see martial law imposed by Morsi.

Personally, I think that Morsi’s “compromise” will prove to be more of a tactical retreat, and we can expect more violent protests in the days and weeks ahead as Morsi’s opponents realize that substantively little has changed with the decree’s annulment.  Shadi Hamid, writing recently in Foreign Policy, observed that Morsi and the Brotherhood saw an “existential threat on the horizon” where Egyptian courts would rule in opposition to the Egyptian Parliament’s rulings and to the Moslem Brotherhood itself.  To preempt such actions by the Egyptian judiciary, Morsi issued his authoritarian decree.  Professor Hamid wrote:

[T]he Brotherhood was well aware just how bad Morsi’s decree looked. As one senior [Freedom and Justice Party, the “official” name of the Brotherhood party] official admitted: “Yes, the decree isn’t democratic and it’s not what you would expect after a revolution,” but he claimed there was simply no other choice. The message was clear: The Brotherhood is in an existential fight and, as a result, the normal rules of politics would be suspended. One Brotherhood member I spoke to likened it to “shock therapy that runs the risk of leaving the patient dead.”

Of course, Egypt has been a Moslem nation for centuries, but Morsi and his allies seek to impose Sharia law (and a particularly conservative view of Islamic Sharia law) on the population.  Given the Obama “Administration” support for Morsi and his Moslem Brotherhood government, most moderate and liberal Egyptians, and Christians in Egypt, believe that Morsi will not change his position without outside pressure.  After all, Morsi was elected with about 51 percent of the vote, and that made him and his allies feel that they had a mandate to fundamentally transform Egypt.  (Sound vaguely familiar?)

While few of us expected that the Egyptian revolution would become a model of Jeffersonian democracy, Morsi and his allies are now a threat to the future of any genuine democratic liberties that were the hope of the Egyptian revolution.  Despite the decree’s annulment, a more democratic future is still in serious jeopardy, and many Egyptians feel both discouraged and angry with Morsi’s suspension of the courts, the crash of the Egyptian stock market, and growing instability.  The international community, and particularly President Obama and his “Administration,” have been silent about events in Egypt, other than stern expressions of deep concern.  Presumably, President Obama and other Western nations have decided that it is in their best interest to align themselves with radical Islamists in Egypt who are willing to serve Western political interests while they tyrannically impose authoritarian and brutal Sharia law on the Egyptian people.  Yes, it is true that for those of us who are Christian believers, our citizenship is in Heaven.  But we also are blessed and rejoice that there are enough Egyptians who are unwilling to be bullied, and who are ready to pay a high price for freedoms they believe were gained in their 2011 revolution.  Please join me in praying for our Christian brothers and sisters, and for all of the other true freedom-loving people of Egypt.  Please also urge your elected representatives to stand with them, and in opposition to Morsi and his thugs in the Moslem Brotherhood.  And may we, as Christians living in the United States, learn from the courage of freedom-loving Egyptians.  Who could ever have imagined such things?

Sadly, children will often hear improper speech from parents, family members, neighbors, or even other children, and then repeat it.  But can a first grader write something outrageously improper in a poem about a grandpa?  Even about grandpa’s military service?  And can the student writing be so improper that it needs to be censored by school administrators?  Apparently yes.  A little girl, who attends the first grade at the West Marion Elementary School in the McDowell County School District in North Carolina, a state that has a large number of military veterans, has riled her public school administrators with her offensive speech.

She loves her grandfathers, and with Veterans Day approaching, she wanted to commemorate their military service.  To do so, she wrote a poem that shockingly included the lines “He prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength,” to describe the historical actions of her grandfathers during the Vietnam War.  However, a “community” member complained about the inclusion of the young student’s poem in a Veteran’s Day ceremony.  As a result, the school district forced her to remove those offensive lines because her poem could not include the word “God.”  Really?  In North Carolina?

Attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (“ADF”, formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) have written a letter seeking clarification from the school district that it will not censor this student’s speech, or a legal team will seek a “remedy” to the district’s problem with their student.  In the ADF letter to the school district, the attorneys noted that censorship “was a violation of her First Amendment rights,” and that it is “a fundamental principle of constitutional law that school officials may not suppress or exclude the personal speech of students simply because the speech is religious or contains a religious perspective.”  Of course, any such censorship by a school district makes a mockery of both free speech and religious freedom.

Many public school officials incorrectly think that by allowing a student to express a religious idea violates the “separation of church and state.”  But the ADF letter noted that the Supreme Court has never held that the Constitution requires “complete separation of church and state.”  Indeed.

What the school district’s administrators have done to this little child is outrageous conduct by despotic school administrators run amuck.  Especially as we approach the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I hope that the parents of public school students in the McDowell County School District express their outrage to their local public officials.  If you want to add your voice, you can telephone her school principal, Desarae Kirkpatrick, at 1.828.738.3353, or School District Superintendant Gerri Martin at 1.828.652.4535 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern time.  And some continue to wonder why almost two million children are homeschooled in our nation at great personal sacrifice to the children’s parents?  It does seem quite obvious, doesn’t it?  Even in North Carolina.

Last week, The Daily Mail reported that the Roman Catholic diocese in Milan, Italy, set up an exorcist hotline to cope with the growing demand for assistance in dealing with potential cases of demonic possession.  People calling the hotline can schedule a visit from one of a team of twelve priests on call to deal with emergency exorcisms.  The task force leader, Monsignor Mascheroni, said that the most important role of the diocese’s team was “listening and consolation,” adding that instances of “real diabolical phenomena” were rare.  Further, Monsignor Mascheroni said that psychiatric disorders were more likely to be to blame for truly unusual behavior than demon possession.

Particularly for many Christians in the United States and in the West, we often think that the entire question of demon possession is merely a strange phenomenon that, at best, could have been valid in Bible times, or, at least, was the “myth” that sought to explain certain phenomenon in the ancient world and other less enlightened ages.  Today, some Christians, if we think about the topic at all, consider the concept of demon possession to be superseded by our more advanced knowledge of psychology and psychiatry.  But is it really?  After all, when was the last sermon you heard that dealt with demon possession, or even satan?  And if you heard a missionary speak at your church about exorcisms, wouldn’t many of us feel uncomfortable?  It has been many years since a compilation of demon experiences has been published.  The last one I know about, Demon Experiences in Many Lands, was published in 1960, but is now in the public domain and available here:

http://baptistbiblebelievers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6de69dYYLTQ%3d&tabid=360&mid=1167

But if these things are in fact going on today, and not merely in the Milan area, then should not the Church be aware of them?  And a shocking question for our modern ears to hear: Could there be some instances that might seem to be mental health problems or addictions that can be better relieved by prayer than by modern medicine or psychotherapy?

Here is an incident from Palestine that some of my readers have heard before, but it might merit another thoughtful look:

And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.  And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.  For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name?  And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.  Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.  And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.  And forthwith Jesus gave them leave.  And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.”   Mark 5:1-13.

It is an intriguing question for modern Christians, don’t you think?  Does a Christian really have the option to say that evil only comes from an imbalance of chemicals in the brain?  But I would be cautious about dismissing the existence of intelligent supernatural evil in the 21^st century.  After all, Jesus believed in a real devil and fought against him, and continues to do the same in our world as well.

One of our family’s annual holiday traditions is to enjoy the Soul Train Awards.  I have been a big fan of Soul Train (and its host, Don Cornelius) since its inception in the early 1970s.  This past Sunday evening, my family and I gathered to watch the Soul Train Awards program on Black Entertainment Television, hosted by Cedric The Entertainer (though he sure does make me miss Bernie Mac).  The Awards program did feature a loving tribute to Don Cornelius, Soul Train’s host and producer for many years, who passed away last February, and to Donnie and Marie Osmond (no, I am not making this up).  Among the featured performances were 2 Chainz, Miguel, Elle Varner, TGT (Tank, Ginuwine, Tyrese), and Ne-Yo.  New Edition received a lifetime achievement award.

My family and I have always enjoyed the comedy and musical performances by the featured artists, although my own personal taste prefers the music of black artists such as Ethel Waters, Leontyne Price, and Billie Holiday.  However, I was shocked at this year’s program when Oscar-winning actor, singer-songwriter, stand-up comedian, and talk radio host, Jamie Foxx, said, “First of all, give an honor to God, and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.”  The audience in attendance, some of whom were African-American, cheered wildly in approval.

I can certainly understand the enthusiasm of some of the audience members of equating President Obama with the Messiah.  Particularly for many in the African-American community, there has been great passion for our nation’s first biracial president.  This is true even though the unemployment rate in the African-American community is much higher than the nation as a whole, and youth unemployment in the African-American community is close to 40 percent, and there is a continuing weak economic situation in our nation that threatens jobs in both the private and public sectors in the years to come.  Monica Potts recently wrote an interesting article entitled “The Collapse of Black Wealth,” in The American Prospect, in which she observes:

Most middle-class families hold all of their wealth in their homes, and that’s especially true for the median black family—the amount they hold in stocks is zero.  That means the housing crisis has wiped out an entire generation of black wealth. . . . The gap between middle–class families and the top 1 percent is huge regardless of race, but the racial gaps are even larger. According to the Economic Policy Institute’s State of Working America report, black households had a median net wealth of just $4,900 in 2010, compared with $97,000 for white households.  A third of black households had zero or negative wealth.  [Emphasis added.]

Then there are rampant problems in some African-American communities of high abortion rates, poverty, and the plague of drugs, murder and other violent crimes.  In many inner cities, the public education systems, such as in New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Milwaukee, or Chicago, are (or should be) a national disgrace.  But I think that many African-Americans see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty, and think that a Republican administration in the White House would make things far worse for those in African-American communities.  This is partially why the African-American community voted overwhelmingly to reelect President Obama.  Further, some had even threatened civil unrest and rioting in the event former Governor Romney was elected president.  Nevertheless, I am unconvinced that President Obama will prove to be a savior or lord for either the United States, and the African-American community, in particular.  Personally, I will continue to look to the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.  It seems to me that Mr. Foxx, and those who cheered at his declaration, would be wise to do so as well.

Well, okay, it didn’t quite happen.  I even wrote this before the lottery drawing, but there is a good and solid reason why I won’t win.  Yes, I did not buy a ticket.  But then again, the odds of winning are the same whether I buy a ticket or not (1 in 195,249,054, or 0.000000005122).  I do have some wonderful fantasies about winning this fabulous prize.  In my case, the fantasies don’t include a super-yacht, though an eponymous distant relative enjoys five mega-yachts and his British soccer team.  They don’t even include a Gulfstream IV SP, in Matterhorn White with blue and silver accent striping.  However, given that my roots are in the immigrant working class, I would never think to select gold-plated seatbelt buckles for my Gulfstream.  Now, I must admit that the airplane does appeal to me at one level, as I do hate going through big international airports, like O’Hare in Chicago, and dealing with TSA personnel.  Rather, my fantasies include large gifts to Christian universities, Bible schools, and seminaries where God’s Holy Bible is honored, gifts to the publisher of Touchstone and Salvo magazines (wouldn’t that make a good year-end gift, lottery winnings or not?), contributions to countless missionaries to top up the funds they need to raise for their support, organizations involved in missions around the world, gifts to finance and encourage more young people to attend the Urbana 2012 missions conference in St. Louis, Missouri, from December 27-31, 2012 (shameless plug alert:  http://urbana.org/urbana-12 ), and countless other big and small projects to help so many around the world.

Yes, it is a seductive fantasy, though a silly one.  Winning the lottery might seem a blessing to so many, but as Sandra Hayes, a former child services social worker who shared a $224 million Powerball jackpot with a dozen co-workers in 2006, said, “If somebody wins, God bless them!  They’re going to need those blessings.”  And why would she ever say that?  Ms. Hayes, a single mother whose paychecks were less than $500 per week before her lottery win, explained, “I had to adapt to this new life.  I had to endure the greed and the need that people have, trying to get you to release your money to them.  That caused a lot of emotional pain.  These are people who you’ve loved deep down, and they’re turning into vampires trying to suck the life out of me.”  Well, I could see that happening, can’t you?

Further, while the lottery officials love to show off lottery winners with oversized checks at news conferences, they forget to remind us that many lottery winners end in financial ruin.  Some have been murdered, and I remember one case where a mother hired a supposed hit man to kill her son, the prize winner, who refused to share any of his winnings with her.  There was the two-time New Jersey lottery winner who squandered her $5.4 million fortune.  Then there is the terribly sad tale of a West Virginian man, who won $315 million a decade ago on Christmas, and who  later said that the lottery windfall was to blame for his granddaughter’s fatal drug overdose, his divorce, hundreds of lawsuits, and an absence of true friends.  I suspect that, had he known the ramifications of his lottery win, would have burned the winning ticket.

The National Endowment for Financial Education (”NEFE”) has cautioned those who receive a financial windfall, whether from lottery winnings, divorce settlements, stock options, or family inheritances, to plan for their psychological needs as well as their financial strategies in advance.  (Incidentally, I have been involved in a number of lawsuits that pitted brothers and sisters against one another in inheritance disputes.  I remember vividly in one case where the judge told the parties, “If your parents had any idea how this was going to end up, they would have burned everything down!”  The judge was right, too.)  NEFE estimates that as many as 70 percent of people who have sudden windfalls lose that money within several years.

Of course, there is no Scriptural admonition that says, “Don’t play the Powerball lottery!”  After all, doesn’t the Bible tell us how the disciples cast lots in the Book of Acts?  But I don’t see how the Bible permits gambling as a means of stewardship.  Several years ago, I was at a small neighborhood grocery store buying a few things.  There, a few people ahead of me in the check-out line was an older, poor man, not quite homeless, but it seemed to me that he was close to being homeless.  I watched as he purchased $20 of lottery tickets.  Often the people who buy lottery tickets are those who can least afford to buy the tickets.  So, I caution myself to work productively, and not hope for a lottery win as the solution to the struggles against adversity in life that we all face one way or another.  For I am reminded by St. Paul’s teaching to Timothy, “They that would be rich fall into many snares and hurtful lusts.”