What you will likely be taught in college

• America is a deeply flawed nation and must be understood and characterized in this context. It is fundamentally a nation defined by slavery, discrimination against women, genocidal policies toward the indigenous population, unjustified foreign wars, homophobia and persecution of minorities.

• America’s unrestrained capitalism is unfair; it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, it creates and exacerbates poverty, it facilitates the exploitative behavior of unscrupulous corporations, and needlessly subjects the economy to convulsive upheavals such as the 2008 crash.

• America not only ignores environmental concerns, it is the worst offender. It is hopelessly addicted to fossil fuels.

• America was not built on Judeo-Christian religious principles, and few if any of the Founders were Christians. In fact, Christianity perpetrates genocide and hatred, and as such it is no longer appropriate or acceptable in a tolerant and diverse society. Christianity needs to be removed from public life in favor of a secular, humanist ethic built on understanding and social justice.

• There is no real American culture; American exceptionalism is a myth. America was built on diverse peoples, and their values and cultural history are of equal merit.

• The Constitution is a product of a an earlier time, when things were much different. The Founders could not anticipate what modern society would be like. therefore, it is antiquated and of limited value.

• The notion of rugged individualism is a cowboy mentality and has no place in an enlightened society. We are interdependent, and no one is of greater value than another. We therefore need the guidance of a benevolent and powerful government to wisely chart a proper course for us and correct the deficiencies of our economic and cultural condition. 

How long was Jesus dead?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves. 

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation. We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

Will we rebel against unjust laws?

Much has been said about the ever-increasing oppressiveness of government. Some have compared it to the revolutionary era, when brave men made brave decisions about the oppression they faced. Many died, and out of that rebellion was birthed a nation, conceived in liberty. These people believe that a new rebellion may soon come.

Others have said that the laws of this nation must be obeyed, because we are a nation of laws. The government is in authority over us and we need to submit to that authority. Any talk of civil disobedience is repugnant to them.

Let me ask this. Who is it that is actually rebelling? Our Constitution is the highest law of the land. This document creates, defines, and limits government. That is its sole purpose. If anyone violates the Constitution, and does it regularly and with impunity, are they not rebels? You know, like congress, the courts, and the president?

Rebellion. The rebel is not the one who believes in and adheres to the Constitution. The rebel is the one who disregards it and negates it. The rebel is the one who explains away the clear language of our founding document and substitutes their own pop culture rationalizations.

Might we reasonably determine that much of the federal government is in rebellion when they refuse to support and defend the tenets of the very document that gives them their authority?

Our response? I think the TEA party has it right. Support candidates who will defend and obey the Constitution as written, hold representatives' feet to the fire when they are in office, and vote them out if they violate their oath of office.

I hope there will never come a day when government inters dissenters. I hope that Christians will never have to choose between jail and their faith. I hope that defenders of the Constitution will never be branded as traitors for failing to toe the political line.

But, we will see.

Gender and insurance pricing - editorial

Since Montana’s unisex insurance law is back to the forefront this campaign season, perhaps it would be profitable to deal with some of the issues raised.

Some of you may not know that Montana law forbids insurance companies from charging women a different rate than men. Advocates for the law believe it is discriminatory to base insurance pricing on gender. And they are right. Every decision an insurance company makes is discrimination.

Unfortunately, the word “discrimination” has been redefined to be synonymous with “bigotry.” I suppose this is because the emotional content is useful as an opinion manipulator. Generic discrimination, however, is much more innocuous. Every choice is discriminatory. Since choice is informed by a variety of factors, some kinds of discrimination are correct and proper while other kinds may be bigoted and malevolent.

Someone recently suggested that “insurance discrimination” (that is, gender specific insurance pricing) is of the latter kind, and as a result insurance companies get more profit. This is incorrect. Insurance prices are determined by statistical analysis of losses, to which profit and overhead are added. That total does not change simply because it’s being allocated differently. In other words, the total dollar figure is the same, even though some customers pay less than others.

Insurance companies love to crunch numbers. They have found that certain kinds of attributes have poorer claims experience and therefore should priced higher. I think most of us would agree with this. We want insurance companies to discriminate. We expect them to. Those of us who drive carefully, or take good care of our houses or health, rightly believe we ought to be rewarded with lower insurance rates. People with health problems should pay more for their life and health insurance policies. Someone with a DUI or an accident should pay higher auto rates than a driver with a perfect record.

But despite the fact there are differences in loss experience for men and women, Montana law forbids the use of gender. Even though women utilize health insurance more than men, they pay less because of unisex. Women have lower mortality rates than men, but unisex means they pay more for life insurance coverage. Unisex means that women pay more for car insurance, even though they tend to have fewer claims than men.

We also need to note that unisex itself impacts insurance rates. Montana is a sparsely populated state, certainly not a huge profit center for insurance companies. They can sell easily more policies in Seattle than in the entire state of Montana. This means that fewer insurance companies choose to do business here, which lessens competition. Also, insurance companies will have higher administrative costs to make their pricing conform to Montana statute. So to some degree, the unisex law itself increases our rates.

So insurance companies are not eeevil. Really. Corporations are legal constructs, they are not people. And corporations, by the way, do not have free speech rights like people do. Therefore I resist the attempts to anthropomorphize corporations and then demonize them.

Ok, despite all this, I agree with unisex insurance. This may shock some of you, knowing that I’m an insurance agent. But consider: Do you suppose there might be a difference in insurance loss experience between gays and straights? Blacks and whites? Christians and atheists? I actually don’t know if there is, and I’ll bet that insurance companies don’t know either. Why? Because it would be unacceptable to price a product based on factors like these, regardless of any statistical justification.

So this all means there is no real financial incentive for insurance companies to employ gender specific insurance rates, but there might be for Montanans. However, societal issues are also important. Unisex insurance simply means that we have decided it is worth paying the price for excluding gender in insurance pricing.

I happen to agree.

Government needs to help stop obesity - FB conversation

R.W. posted this: Fat people will soon be illegal!

NBC: Obesity 'No Longer A Question of Individual Responsibility,' Government Must Act

newsbusters.org

"Touting new recommendations from an Institute of Medicine panel on obesity on Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, science correspondent Robert Bazell proclaimed to viewers: "...a sea change in how we perceive obesity. No longer a question of individual responsibility, but

a need to change what's called an... "

K.C.: ‎. . . so whatever happened to that underground railroad?

B.R.: wah wah wah

R.W.: it's still there but now makes regular stops at the DQ

R.W.: You don't have to worry B.R., but the rest of us .......

B.R.: how dare the government give underperforming parents a hand, cry liberty my god!

Me: I'm so glad we have the government to tell us who is underperforming as parents.

B.R.: I can tell you myself: any parent whose child is obese for no medical reason is underperforming. It's not rocket science, it's called caring about the health of your kids.

Me: And that makes it a matter for the federal government.

R.W.: B.R. , when you have a child, I will send over the government inspectors to make sure you are conforming to the guidlines established by an all knowing government. The same government that gave the indians such fair treatment, that allowed s...lavery for centuries, that prohibited women the vote. Those same people will now teach us how to raise our children. Maybe it is best if we just turned over our offspring the way the Chinese do.

B.R.: Man, isn't it easier to jump to inane exaggerations than to try and solve a national epidemic?

Me: National epidemic? Now that's hyperbole itself. Help us, O great government!

R.W.: Do you want ANY decisions to be made by yourself? Or do you look to big brother to solve ALL your problems.

B.R.: They're not coming into Americans' homes, they're in the public schools, where kids learn many things that their overworked, underpaid parents don't have the time or attention to. School is good. Health is good. Exercise is good. Everything else is bitching.

B.R.: I'll take the goverment's help and thank them. I was a welfare baby.

Me: We don't need no education; we don't need no thought control; teachers, leave those kids alone.

B.R.: Also, my kids will be in very good shape, because I care enough to make sure it happens.

Me: Stupid parents. Who needs them?

R.W.: So YOU don't need the government to tell you how to reaise YOUR kids but your neighbors DO?

R.W.: If I give my kids ice cream should I be punished?

B.R.: I do need the government actually, to help me and my future kids stay in good health, good economic standing, and good awareness of the world around me. Look, if you're going to blindly stick to the moral that "government can't tell me how ...to live my life", you're going to miss out on a lot of really helpful and vital things. R.W., your kids are all beautiful and in good shape, at least last time I saw a family photo. But some parents let their kids get obese. And that's a form of abuse. And that's where the government can help, by making sure that public schools are a place where kids (both abused and not) can get what they NEED. Look at that word: NEED. Kids need good food and exercise. NEEEEEEEED. If they're not getting it at home, they get obese. It doesn't matter if the parents are intentionally letting them get obese, or if the parents are just pieces of crap who don't know how to care for a helpless little person. KIDS NEED GOOD FOOD AND EXERCISE.

Me: Ergo, we neeeeeeeed government because people neeeeeeed things. Yup.

R.W.: Maybe there should be a parenting test! You get a license to breed if you qualify. Obese parents will certainly raise obese children so they are out. And school will have to be 16 hours long, because you just KNOW when those kids get hom...e, they are going to play video games. The government will have to limit television broadcast to two hours a day then it can only be NEWS. We wil have money because BUS service just leads to laziness so that's out. In fact, I think there should only be 1 chair in a house and people can sit in shifts.

B.R.: Oh, ok. Willful ignorance. Nevermind then.

R.W.: B.R. , you are saying that WITHOUT government you can NOT be in good health, good economic standing or be aware of the world around you. How do you think people managed before the government got so large? How did you get THROUGH the depression and other hard times? We helped each other as NEIGHBORS not as a government institution. WE fended for ourselves a lot more. WE looked to our churches. You are a smart healthy man. Stand up for yourself and be a strong independent MAN instead of one that needs to be coddled like a child.

B.R.: You're taking a complex world and bottling it into your own limited experience, man.

R.W.: I didn't mean YOU got through the depression but the country.

Me: Yeah, R.W.. You are thinking too small. Come one, dude. Become a believer in all powerful government.

R.W.: B.R., our country is great because of the INDIVIDUALS in it. Not because we have to best bureaucracy.

B.R.: ‎R.W., our country is great and millions of its citizens are obese and malnourished. If those people want to disregard their own health by denying the government's assistance, that's their right as Americans. But if they disregard their childrens' health, which is what they do when they let their kids get and remain obese, then they are abusing their children. The government won't come into their homes to keep them from abusing their children, because that's denying the INDIVIDUALS' right to privacy. But if those shitty parents are sending their abused obese children to public schools, then the government (local AND federal) has a say in a) what their lunch room serves, b) what exercise is included in the required Physical Education classes, and c) what values and lessons those kids are taught in their classrooms. What about this doesn't make sense to you?

Me: Obesity = abuse? Abuse = government intervention? Absolute nonsense.

B.R.: It's like you're intentionally trying to not get my point. Let's slow this down:

Yes, letting your kids get and remain obese is ABUSE. It's unhealthy for them. It's the same as letting them eat paint, or go years without brushing their tee...th, or letting play with dangerous tools. It's extremely neglectful and can do nothing except harm them.

No, abuse does not mean government intervention, that's what I covered when I said "The government won't come into their homes to keep them from abusing their children, because that's denying the INDIVIDUALS' right to privacy." The government is already in the public school, that's what public school is. The government is currently reacting to the medical news about how dangerous and widespread obesity is. Are they reacting in a way that takes away your rights? No. They're talking about using the public schools, which they're already involved in, to make school a healthier place for kids of all sizes.

Me: No, I think I understand your point. You're not seeming to get mine. This obesity thing is a created crisis being used as an excuse to capitalize on an opportunity to further insert external influences into places they've never been before. This is new ground.

The original point R.W. made is that generic obesity is portrayed as a public problem, one that government wants to address. You have taken a subset of that (fat children) and are justifying government intervention by labelling it abuse when you can't know that it is abuse.

If government can force someone, anyone, to lose weight, their rights are being violated. A child has the same rights as adults, including a right to be secure in their persons and property. Government does not have the authority to violate that.

R.W.: WHO determines OBESE. Who defines abuse. Who gets to say what Healthy is. There are already communities telling private business's what they can NOT serve, and what they MUST serve. The government does not have the right to go through your PERSONAL lunch to inspect it even if it IS in school. The government has ALREADY crossed the line. The government does not know the meaning of the word restraint, or common sense.

B.R.: So both of you are seeing this issue mainly in terms of the government's role in citizens' lives, and I'm seeing this issue in terms of how government can help kids be healthy when their parents have failed to do so. We're not going to get much further than this, but thank you both for reiterating your points, I think they're both valid and worthy of future discussion.

Me: A magnanimous reply. One last point. They government has never solved a social problem yet, so it seems unreasonable to assume that they could help kids be healthy.

R.W.: wait, Poverty is ended right? I mean we spent like 4 trillions dollars on it! Surely we solved THAT problem.

B.R.: Okay, let's say I drop the idea of schools helping kids exercise and eat healthier. How do we react to the new facts, that 2/3 of Americans, and that 1/3 of children, are overweight or obese? What do we do as free Americans?

Me: Interesting question. Or to rephrase, how do we get Americans to reject the cultural rot that glues them to their TVs and video games, the narcisissm of the me-first attitude, the idea that government will solve all my problems so I don't have to do a thing?

We have to accurately assess the cause before we can effect a cure. I would suggest that government has contributed to our descent down this road by making the lives of people insulated from the perils of life. If there is no risk there is no reward and there is no point in doing anything.

Public schools are all about self esteem now. Never have so many students felt so good about their own mediocrity.

God loves everyone - FB Conversation

My FB friend J.S. posted this: ‎"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." ~Beth Moore

Me: Who does God hate?

J.S.: Exactly the point..God hates no one. Thats why I am created in His image and He is not created in mine. Which let me tell you is a pretty good thing...LOL

Me: What do you think of Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5, Prov 6:16-19, Hosea 9:15, and Mal 1:2-3?

Ps. 11:5 The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.

Pr. 6:16-19 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

Ho. 9:15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.

Mal. 1:3 Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.

J.S.: God hates evil and hates many things that many people possess (including myself, I have things inside that God hates)...but I don't think God hates people. Do you think God hates people Rich?

Me: What do the Scriptures say? What's your take on them?

E.H.: I don't think the point is if God loves or hates people I think the point that needs to be focused on is we all could love more than we do. We could all be more Christ like. And god calls us to love unconditionally. Pointless to get hung up on the details, Beth moore is simply trying to get everyone to take a long hard look in the mirror and start loving as a first reaction instead of a earned feeling for others.

Me: Quite right, E.H. Wise words. However, I do want the Scriptures to be our understanding when it comes to talking about God, not what Beth Moore or anyone else says about Him.

B.S.: Romans 5:8 ESV "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

John 3:16 ESV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

B.S.: God loves everyone fortunately for me He chose not to leave me in my sin condition that He does hate, but the fact that He still came for me in spite of my condition breaks my heart for Him everyday!

Me: Are we engaging in a dispute? I don't want that. But again, what do you think of Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5, Prov 6:16-19, Hosea 9:15, and Mal 1:2-3?

B.S.: I feel those verses refer to a sin condition not individual souls. I'm curious, what is your take? Otherwise why did Jesus come?

Me: Just when I think I understand God...

Me: But it is also clear that God is referring to certain specific people that He hates. Esau, for example. He hated those in Gilgal because of their wickedness. His soul hates those who love violence. Wow.

Me: I must always be in a position to challenge my assumptions about things. It is the Holy Spirit who brings understanding.

Does God hate? Clearly he does. Does hate mean what we think it does? Probably not. Does God hate only sin? In a sense, yes. Sin rises a stench before God, whereas worship is a pleasing thing. One might say that sin is the opposite of worship. Sorta.

Me: But what is this hate? Is it like we think of hate? I don't think so. But on the other hand, what would the response be of a holy God when presented with sin? The Father turned away from the Son when He was hanging on the cross. That's something else that I don't understand.

B.S.: In the Hebrew as well as the Greek that word only means loved less.

Me: Looking up Strong's, it's the same word (8804, to hate, be hateful) used in all cases, as is Gen.37:4, for example, referring to specific hate. The original reference to Esau, which is Gen 27:41 (8799, to hate, oppose oneself to, bear a grudge, retain animosity against, cherish animosity against) is a different word.

In Romans 9:13, the verse about Esau is quoted (3404, to hate, pursue with hatred, detest).

Me: I find it interesting that Paul seems to be addressing what we are talking about here. He continues, "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” And, presumably, He will hate whom He hates. He hates because of sin. He is grieved by hard hearts. He is merciful and comes to judge. I think our problem is that we try to make things into a binary equation (i.e., if God loves, how can He hate), but the Hebrew mind does not work that way. Western thought is binary, and God isn't.

Me: If Hate means Love Less, I'd like to know your source. I am enjoying the conversation, by the way.

‎B.S.: 3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another

B.S.: I am sorry I didn't think this was going to get so long winded, I think if you look at the original quote it never says God doesn't hate people. All she was trying to say was that people have a tendency to assume God views people they way we view them. I think it would be more important for us to try and figure out how we can practically reach the lost rather than try and figure out if God just hates them or not. 2 Timothy 2:16 I think nails where this conversation is heading as much fun as it has been.

Me: This is leading to godless chatter, wandering away from the truth? Really? B.S., that's a terrible thing to say.

A response to my email to my pastor

I sent an email to my pastor, which you can read on May 1st blog entry. I also copied it to Jim Tharp, who was my first pastor when we moved to Bozeman in 1990. Here's Jim's reply:

Rich,

Ah! My dear brother, thank you for sharing your faith -- your optimism, hope, anticipation -- about what God is going to do! I share this hope, and believe with you that we who pray should allow the Spirit to come upon our praying with a greater confidence in being heard when we ask for Great and Mighty things, Demonstrations of His Spirit in power, Outpourings of the Holy Spirit.
I, too, believe we should have some "All-night prayer meetings," and will make the proposals to the Fremonts, McMurrays, Hostlers, Marian and others beyond our normal group. Thank you, brother! What an encouragement your email is. So delighted to hear of a "breakthrough" spiritually for your dear wife.

May God bless you both!

With much love and appreciation,

Pastor Jim Tharp