Word of the Day: Decorum

As much as I try and stay away, I'm wired in such a way that I find politics interesting. It's ultimately folly and a 'chasing after the wind', but be that as it may - its interesting. So, I watched President Trump's speech yesterday (3/4) to the joint session of Congress and I couldn't help but think about the word 'decorum'.

From Merriam-Webster

Decorum: "propriety and good taste in conduct or appearance" - "the conventions of polite behavior" Synonyms: decency, dignity, gentility

I've watched many such speeches over the years, delivered from both sides of the political aisle, and in many ways they are predictable spectacles. Republicans stand and clap for Republicans, Democrats stand and clap for Democrats, the opposite side sits, I get all that, and to a degree, I understand that. What I saw last night, however, was a lack of decorum -- and it's a direction our political elite have been sliding in for awhile.

During Trump's procession into the address, there was a Democrat congresswoman standing there holding a paper sign that read, "this is not normal". Not a few seconds later, the sign was snapped from her hands and thrown into the crowd. Throughout the speech, the democrats were holding up auction-style signs that read, "false" or "Elon Steals" or "Save Medicaid". At one point, Al Green, the congressman from Texas was kicked out of the hall for standing there and yelling, interrupting Trump's speech. At one point in the speech, Trump acknowledged a young man who had beaten cancer and who had aspirations of becoming a police officer, who Trump then surprised by making an honorary secret service member and the democrats continued to sit there. Who is so consumed with hatred that they can't set aside their political feelings in that moment to acknowledge a child that has beaten cancer?

On the Republican side, you had characters like the classless Marjorie Taylor Greene showing up in a MAGA hat. There were also repeated sophomoric chants of 'USA' throughout. Trump, despite being mostly restrained in his remarks, also let loose a few barbs that seemingly had no other spirit than that of the mean kind.

Thoughts on Immigration

This post represents an honest attempt to reconcile my personal responsibility as a Believer with what I believe our Federal policies should be, as it relates to immigration. These are muddy waters to be sure, but I am a huge fan of nuance and so this felt like a good time for a blogpost.

I simultaneous hold these two beliefs:

a) As Christians, we are called to love our neighbor, to care for and provide for the poor and for the widows among us (using the terminology of Scripture).

b) A sovereign nation must uphold border security laws as well as regulate Immigration because a nation with no borders (or border security) is not a nation at all. To be considered "sovereign" necessarily means that a country is enforcing border laws, because it implies that there is a border and not just an imaginary line.

What I'm For:

I am 100% in favor of legal immigration and I believe our country should absolutely support those who immigrate to the United States through legal channels. We should offer them all of the public assistance that we are able to, to aid their start here in America, especially those coming here to escape oppression and persecution. We are one of the most generous countries in the World and it is because our people are, by and large, very welcoming of immigrants in this country.

What I'm Against:

I'm categorically against illegal immigration, that is, immigration NOT through legal channels. I don't believe our country should offer illegal immigrants any social programs and if our government can find them, I think they should be deported (if you are deported, current US Law forbids you to return for 10 years). Additionally - if someone immigrates to this country legally but then commits a felony here, they should also be deported. Being given a visa or residency status in the United States is not right, but a privilege and requires something of the person receiving it, namely adhering to the laws of our land. I assume this is the case in every other country in the World.

Where this Clashes:

At my church, I'm involved a care ministry that ends up serving a number of immigrants. It wasn't necessarily something that we set out to do when we started the ministry, but because our area is a location where World Relief ends up housing many immigrants and asylum seekers, this is a subset of the community that comes to us for assistance. I love serving in this ministry and I have enjoyed getting to know people from this community as well as serving them on a monthly basis. Many of them have harrowing stories to tell about how they came to the United States, fleeing real horrors in the countries they came from.

In our last leadership meeting, a few people mentioned that this community is fearful right now, particularly of deportation. While the knee-jerk reaction might be to blame President Trump, it was actually President Biden that signed an executive order, on July 4th, 2024, which put an end to the legal process of seeking asylum. What IS different about President Trump's administration is that they are actually actively deporting illegal immigrants and this is the reason for the fear on the part of asylum communities. Regardless, this community is living in genuine fear of deportation at the moment.

Motives in Government

More than what people actually do or say (outward behavior), I've always been more curious about why people do what they do (motivations). I think it's why I'm fascinated by true crime; it's not about the crime so much as what motivated the person to commit the crime. Anyway - the last couple of weeks have been fascinating to me as I've watched the political Left respond to President Trump's executive orders and, in particular, the efforts of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency).

In the past week or so, the focus has intensified on the cuts to USAID. If you haven't looked it up, I encourage you to go on over to usa.gov and look up the USAID page. Right at the top, it states the mission of the agency saying, "The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the principal U.S. Agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms." It has a yearly budget of $40B and previously employed about 10,000 people. Here are some of the more egregious things the USAID has funded with our tax dollars:

- $30M since 2018 sent to South Africa to study the transmission of HIV among sex workers and transgender people. (source)

- $1.5M sent to a Serbia group called 'Grupa Izadji' to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business communities by promoting economic empowerment of and opportunity for LGBTQI+ people in Serbia

- $2.5M to Vietnam for electric vehicles. To date, there has been one battery station built, saving 260 gallons of gas

- $25,000 for an opera in Colombia in order to 'increase transgender representation in the arts'

- $32,000 to Peru for a transgender comic book program

- $45M to Burma for DEI Scholarships (source)

- $1.2B in awards to "undisclosed recipients"

- $20M for a new Sesame Street show in Iraq called "Ahlan Simsim"

This list continues on and on, but these were the things I could find with just a simple Google search. If you want to see more, go here: https://datarepublican.com/award_search/?keywords=USAID

What President Trump/DOGE are not cutting (contrary to what the shrieks on the Left are saying):

- Welfare programs

- Head Start programs

- Medicare/Medicaid programs

- Or really any program that directly benefits individuals in the United States. Karoline Leavitt expressed this directly, multiple times, during her press conference on January 29th (full transcript). To directly quote, "if you are receiving individual assistance from the federal government, you will still continue to receive that."

What is DOGE?

I've already shared what it stands for - the Executive Order that created it can be found here, it's not long. At it's core, it's a repurposing of a government agency that already existed called USDS (United States Digital Service). Originally this was an agency created (under Obama) to make government software better. The establishment of DOGE is also temporary - 18 months to be exact. Their clearly stated mission is no different that the USDS mission was - to modernize software and IT systems within the govt. However - it stands to reason that in the process of modernizing software and IT systems, a lot of waste and fraud will be exposed...which is obviously then shared with the Commander in Chief (or his Cabinet).

The Backlash

There have been so many articles about how people are going to die as a result of either the cuts, or to the 90-day pause on USAID funds. What's weird to me, in just a cursory overview of those articles, is how the budget of the USAID agency suddenly seems to me much larger than $40B. One article claims, "all of a sudden, more than $60B of program for the world's most vulnerable people just stopped." Huh? How? And how are some of these programs, like the ones listed above, helping? It's a truly absurd piece of faux-journalism, you have to read it to believe someone could make these claims. But anyway - back to the claims that people are going to die...how can any of these media outlets make that claim when they don't really know what USAID funds are being used for? Furthermore, this is an audit and 90-day pause on these funds...not necessarily indefinite. This seems to fall under the category of 'reasonable' when it comes to a new President understanding how US Taxpayer dollars are being spent. USAID is just the first place where spending will be under the microscope...we, as taxpaying US Citizen, deserve to know, in some transparent way, how our tax dollars are being spent. I don't expect to agree with all of the ways that money is being spent, but it's not 'out of bounds' to want to know, or to want that information to be public. Even if you disagree with Trump and Musk on what should be cut -- shouldn't they at least be able to share what taxpayer dollars are being spent on?

The "Thief" on the Cross

Two other criminals were also led away to be executed with him. So when they came to the place that is called “The Skull,” they crucified him there, along with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. But Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” Then they threw dice to divide his clothes. The people also stood there watching, but the leaders ridiculed him, saying, “He saved others. Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, his chosen one!” The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, and saying, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the king of the Jews.”
One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Don't you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom" And Jesus said to me, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:32-43)

Criminals, thieves, robbers, etc. It conjures the idea of a couple of no-good scoundrels - the dregs of society. Have you ever stopped to think about these two guys? A couple of obvious questions come to mind right away:

a) would Rome crucify people for mere theft? Let's even say that it was serious theft -- crucifixion wasn't the commonplace way of killing people in ancient Rome...would that kind of punishment really have fit the crime?

b) How do they know who he is? Read carefully what the two men say. The first one knows, at least at some level, what "the Christ" (or 'Messiah' in some translations) is supposed to be able to do. He says, "save yourself and us!" Now, he could have just been mimicking what the religious leaders were jeering...but the response of the second criminal indicates that it's more than that. "Don't you fear God?" This suggests that the two men were Jews - it's not just some random God that this man is referring to. Also - the second criminal knows that Jesus has done nothing wrong - AND he knows that Jesus is who he says he is and what that means. He knows the Jesus has a kingdom and that He's going ENTER it, AFTER dying. To me, this is the most convincing line that these men knew who Jesus was and what His claims were.

The most likely scenario for who these men were, and why they would end up being crucified WITH Jesus, is that they were zealots, or insurrectionists, which is essentially the same charge against Jesus (don't forget, Barabbas, who Jesus exchanged fates with, was also in prison for insurrection, Luke 23:19). Furthermore, they were likely Jewish Zealots. Jesus would have been familiar with a group like this because one of his own disciples, Simon, came from the zealot movement.

Why Do We Call Ourselves Monotheists?

In modern Church circles, it's popular to call ourselves (Christians) 'monotheists' -- and that's a good description of the modern believer...many believe there is one God and one God only. Any other god is thrown on to a pile labeled 'Idols' which is to say...not gods, or false gods. Is this right though? I've written on these electronic pages before that "if the 1st commandment of 'thou shalt have no other gods before me' is to be taken seriously, then it implies there are other gods." Many places in Scripture, particularly in the Old Testament, suggest that there are other gods/divine beings. Several are named -- and never do you get the impression that they were somehow not real: Amon, Asherah, Ashtoreth, Baal, Chemosh, Dagon, Molech, etc.

I saw something today that caught my eye - a tweet from Yonatan Adler who is an archaeology and early Judaism professor at Ariel University. I'm not recommending his work, but in this tweet, he was referencing a papyrus remnant, written in Aramaic, that he has been studying called "the Passover Papyrus", from ~419 BCE. I did some additional digging on this fragment - it's a letter, from one Jewish leader (Hananiah) to another (Yedaniah), providing instruction for Passover observance. The part Adler zeros in on is in the greeting of the letter where it read, "May the gods seek after the welfare of my brother..." His whole point in sharing it was to point to the fact that even within Torah-observant Judaic circles, this idea that they were monotheists is probably wrong. Now, it must be noted here that this was likely sinful, to either be praying to and/or associating in any way with any other God than Yahweh, but nevertheless, they were not monotheists in the sense that they believed there was one God and one God only. The more I read, the more I am convinced that almost everyone in the ancient world was a polytheist. That doesn't necessarily mean that they worshipped as a polytheist, but they most certainly believed there were many gods.

Perhaps I'm being too hard on modern Christians - maybe what some of us mean is that God (Yahweh) is the God of Gods, the Lord of Lords, and what we're really saying is that he has no equal, no rival. If that's the case, then my monologue here falls on its face...a modified definition of monotheism simply to indicate that Yahweh Elohim is the only God worth worshipping - how could I disagree with that? But - I don't think that's where most Christians are coming from. The next logical question is "so what?" but I've already answered that question in previous posts.

**Interesting sidenote: there actually is a theological name for the belief that there is one true God, but that other gods exist, it's called Henotheism. Turns out it was coined by a German theologian in the 19th century and I'm pretty sure he used it pejoratively in order to label people who thought differently than him.

Some Election Day Thoughts

This has been the most interesting election cycle I've been a part of it and it has nothing to do with who is running or about anything that has happened along the way. Rather - I have kids who can understand, at least at some level, what is going on. Just yesterday, my daughter came home from volleyball practice and sat down next to me and said she was nervous. I asked her "why sweetie? what's making you nervous." She said, "well, I see a lot more Harris/Walz signs around here than Trump signs and I'm scared about what will happen." She knows we voted to 'orange man bad' and so that's the reason for her observation. So I asked her a follow-up question, "A_____, how will your life change based on the result of this election?" She sat there for a minute thinking - "Not at all, dad." I said, "exactly right, you don't have to worry about this election because mom and I will deal with whatever consequences may come, and you know what, even for us things aren't likely to change all that much."

We make a big deal every four years about WHO the president will be, but in reality, who the president is doesn't really change our lives all that much. I'm not saying that elections don't have consequences, they surely do but, by and large, change happens incrementally, and even when some economic woe is ascribed to this person or that party, even then, it's not that simple. Inflation, for example, which we have all experienced the consequences of, is a multi-faceted thing with many various causes. One of those causes was the oodles of 'free money' the government gave away. Trump did it first, Biden doubled down. Another cause is the Russia/Ukraine war, which is the fault of none of the candidates, even though Trump loves to say that Russia would have never invaded Ukraine if he had been president, which may be true, but we'll never know.

And on this Rock...

"Now when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets." He said to them, "But who do you yourselves say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (Matthew 16:13-18, NASB)

I've read this many times - heard it preached on many times, this is a very familiar verse to any believers who has been in the Church for any length of time. Today, however, I have a new understanding of this verse and I wanted to share it with you. Before I add any more commentary though, let's go left in our Bibles.