DECEMBER 2016

NEWS BYTES, DECEMBER 2016: Trump, Kaepernick, and Hacks

            by Matt Kasper

Trump’s Victory

    Some feel that they received an early Christmas gift in November, while some feel like they got a piece of coal.

    Donald Trump won the election for United States President on November 8 by a decisive 74 electoral college votes (306 to Hillary’s 232). Trump won 30 out of 50 states (Hillary won the other 20 and Washington D.C., also). He did lose the popular vote by over 2.8 million, which does not negate his Electoral College victory, but should still give the GOP some pause before we do too much chest pounding. We have some critical analysis of the election below in our articles, “Color by Numbers – Analyzing the Election Results” and “Why Trump Won.” But for now, we can all sleep easy and enjoy the holidays knowing that we won’t have to endure four more years of a socialist-style administration.

The Election Was a Riot!

    Widespread riots broke out among Hillary supporters in several cities after the election.

    The comparison to the past is telling: there were no riots when Barack Obama narrowly won in 2008 and then won even more narrowly in 2012. At the time, many signed petitions asking for their state to secede from the nation, and there were other forms of general unhappiness on the right, but there was no rioting, burning, looting, or stopping traffic. This is probably because those who voted against Obama both times had to go to work the next day.

    Also, back then, there were few stories about how McCain voters were distraught or how Romney supporters were discouraged. For three weeks after this election, however, all we heard was how depressed and dejected Hillary supporters were. Republicans didn’t get coddled in 2008 and 2012, and we didn’t need to. Maybe, of course, they didn’t focus on us because we weren’t rioting, crying, and moping.

    By now, these riots have ceased and devolved into ongoing whining on social media. But some distressing truths are emerging about these anti-Trump riots, specifically, that many of those rioting didn’t even vote. For instance, station KGW in Portland, Oregon, an affiliate of NBC, reported that most of those who were rioting in that city either didn’t vote in Oregon, or didn’t vote at all! What a riot!

Guess Who Else Didn’t Vote . . . .

    Colin Kaepernick, professional kneeler and traitor, admitted just days after the presidential election that like many of the rioters mentioned above, he didn’t vote either! According to a Washington Times article, Kaepernick never even registered to vote and, therefore, has not voted since he turned 18 in 2005.

    I like the frank honesty of this article title: “By neglecting to vote, Colin Kaepernick undermines his own movement.” For Colin, and everyone else who refused to vote, they have thereby relinquished their privilege to be taken seriously by the rest of us. They still have their right to speak; the Constitution grants them that right and it is not based on whether one votes or not. But by rejecting their freedom to vote, they damage the legitimacy of their cause, and give us more freedom to legitimately ignore them. 

Media Hacks’ Claims About Russian Hacks

    After lawsuits and recounts and threats against electors failed, multiple news outlets are alleging that Russia hacked into voting machines in order to influence the presidential race.

    There are several problems with such conspiracy theories, which is what they would be called if people on the right said anything like this. First, there is no proof that Russian hacking or tampering took place; the media assumes that hacking must have happened because they can’t swallow Trump’s clear Electoral College victory. Second, anyone with any sense (which automatically excludes many in the media) can recognize that Trump would be a more formidable foe for Russia than Hillary, who is practically a socialist herself. There is no reason why Putin would prefer to work with Trump than with Hillary; Trump projects strength, and the Russians want America to be weak. The notion that the Russians would want to help Trump is absurd in every way.

    This story is just another attempt to deflect attention from the likelihood that Russians hacked into Hillary’s and the DNC’s e-mails. It is sad that media hacks don’t spend more time hacking into that story.

    The author finds himself doubting this message, however: “And in despair I bowed my head, ‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said, ‘For hate is strong and mocks the song of peace on earth, good will to men.’” This sentiment is easy to appreciate now; there seems to be no peace on earth. However, these words are also understandable when they were penned in 1864, one of the bloodier years of the American Civil War.    In the middle of the 1800’s America was not only facing civil war, but Christianity also was being bombarded with opposition. German higher criticism made many doubt the veracity of the Old Testament stories. Charles Darwin’s enormously influential book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859; while it didn’t explicitly state that God didn’t exist, that work pushed God away from the creation process and it provided Darwin’s disciples license to do so even more. Not long after Longfellow penned the words to this song, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him” in his 1882 collection of essays and thoughts called The Gay Science. Religious groups hostile to Christian orthodoxy cropped up across the American landscape in the 1800’s, groups like Mormons (1830), Seventh Day Adventists (1861), Christian Science (1875), and Jehovah’s Witnesses (1879). There seemed to be no peace in our country or in our churches.

    Perhaps this cacophony of hostility and opposition motivated Longfellow’s next lines: “Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: ‘God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; The wrong shall fail, the right prevail with peace on earth, good will to men.’”

    While politicians can attempt to broker peace, true peace is only found in the Christ-child, who was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died a sacrificial death, and rose from the dead. This death and resurrection verified that humanity’s debt of sin and guilt before a perfect, loving and holy God had been paid by the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

    Peace is now available to all who believe in Christ as their Savior (Isaiah 48:22; Luke 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:16). Also, just as the peace of God is available to all who believe, it is also expected from believers (Zechariah 8:19; Ephesians 2:14, 6:14; Colossians 3:15).

    No matter what conflicts exist in the world, we can have peace with God through faith in Christ. By believing that Christ died for our sins and rose again we can have a peace that surpasses understanding as well as eternal life, forgiveness from sins, and greater purpose and direction in this life. We can also have greater peace with those around us as well as a promise of eternal peace in the future. The Baby in the manger is the promise of and vehicle for that multi-faceted peace.

    Christmas is a wonderful time to recall what God did to provide salvation and establish peace with humanity, especially knowing that none of us deserve salvation nor could any of us ever earn it. It is helpful reminder that we should exercise peace with one another, and also that we should meditate on the hope that believers in Christ can have of an everlasting peace to come.

    Merry Christmas, and peace to you!

    So let’s see what the numbers from the Electoral College and the popular vote reveal about this election. First, while Trump’s Electoral College victory was definitive, it was one of the narrowest in recent political history. That is, as Electoral College numbers go, his 74 point victory is slim relative to Obama’s 192 point win over McCain in 2008, Bill Clinton’s 220 point trouncing of Dole in 1996, or Reagan’s 512 Electoral College walloping of Mondale in 1984. Of course, Trump’s victory is far larger than the five point Electoral College victory that George W. Bush squeaked out over Gore in 2000, the latter of whom won the popular vote by 540,520 ballots (see the timeline at “270 to Win” for more comparisons pertaining to past presidential elections). Was the 2016 election a definitive victory for the GOP? Yes. A landslide? Not even close.    Even though it can’t be called a landslide, there is still plenty to celebrate about this victory. For instance, no GOP states flipped Democratic. On the other hand, six states that voted for Obama both in 2008 and 2012 flipped for Trump in 2016 (Iowa, WI, MI, OH, PA, FL). This is the first time that Michigan and Pennsylvania went red since 1988 and the first time Wisconsin went red since 1984. The narrow victories in some of these states (such as Wisconsin by just over 22,000 votes and Michigan by less than 11,000) should warn us not to assume anything about these states in the future. Keeping these six states red should be a high priority; that would be good politically, good for those states, and good for the country overall.

    What we cannot ignore is the fact that Hillary earned over 2.8 million more votes than Trump did in the popular vote. While that does not matter legally or Constitutionally in terms of the Electoral College, it should scare the GOP spitless and provide a sober warning moving forward. For many, Hillary’s higher popular vote number lessens the legitimacy of Trump’s victory. If nothing else, the GOP should embrace this victory with humility and recognize that the majority of voters cast a ballot against Trump.

    But here again, there is a balance, and some good news; the last time a democrat received less than Hillary’s 232 Electoral College votes was 28 years ago in 1988 when George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis 426 to 111. Also, that nationwide popular vote margin of 2.8 million is less than the margin that Hillary won in California, which was well over 4.2 million; that is, if we take out California, Trump won the national popular election of the other 49 states.

    Why is Trump’s win legitimate despite the 2.8 million ballot difference in the popular vote? The easy answer is because that is the way our Constitution is set up. Again, the Electoral College system gives added influence to smaller states and, nowadays, it prevents the presidential election from being decided disproportionately by New York, LA, Chicago, and Detroit.

    Consider this: In the 2003 six-game World Series between the Florida Marlins and the New York Yankees, the Yanks scored a total of 21 runs in the series while the Marlins only scored 17. So the Yankees won, right? Actually the Marlins took the series. Why? Because they won the necessary four games to win the series (games 1, 4, 5 and 6). That is possible mathematically because New York won both of their two games by a 6-1 margin while the four Marlins’ victories were decided by only one or two runs. Usually, of course, the team with the most runs overall also wins the series. But in the end, the winner of the World Series is not determined by who scores the most runs throughout the series, but rather, by who wins the most separate, independent contests.  

    Similarly, the U.S. election is not about who gets the most votes overall, but who wins the most Electoral College votes in 51 separate contests (the fifty states plus Washington D.C., which has three Electoral College votes). In some of the states that Hillary won, especially some of the more populace states like CA and NY, she earned many more votes than Trump did; but whether she won those states by 51% or by 71%, she still received the same amount of Electoral College votes. Conversely, in many of the swing states that Trump picked up, he won by narrow margins (again, WI and MI, for example); yet, he still received all of those states’ Electoral College votes. Despite what anyone says, Trump’s Electoral College victory was both definitive and legitimate according to the way our voting system is set up and has been in operation practically since our inception as a nation.

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: I See Sick People!

    Here in December, we are literally seeing many sick people; it’s just that time of year.

    Our society is obsessed with health. Of course, nobody wants to get sick or contract a disease. But with the rise of health food stores, clinics and exercise establishments over the last decade, it’s hard to refute that we live in a culture that may have an unhealthy fixation on health.

    Wouldn’t it be great if Christians had a widespread accessibility to instant health, and if we could even thwart pre-mature deaths that occur because of illnesses and accidents. Forget apologetics; a legitimate ministry of immediate healings would be one of the greatest arguments for the validity of Christianity!

    But there are sick people in Christian churches, and many deaths on account of cancer, disease and accidents. In fact, we see this in the NT also. How does this affect the debate about whether or not all of the spiritual gifts are still available to Christians today?

    One of the greatest arguments for cessationism is the tapering of the use and availability of sign gifts even in the NT. If this tapering could be demonstrated even before the apostles passed off the scene, that would definitely favor the cessationism position.

    But first, a quick refresher: Continuationists believe that the sign gifts, like tongues, miracles, and healing, continue to be available today, and this view is held by many in the Charismatic movement. Cessationists, however, believe that these sign gifts ceased, though the Holy Spirit continues to work among God’s people and continues to give gifts that are more subtle like faith, leading, encouraging and speaking.

    Both sets of gifts, the sign gifts, like tongues, miracles, prophecy and healings, as well as the subtle gifts, like mercy, administration, and service, appear to be present in the initial years of the church’s existence (see our article “The Main Spiritual Gifts Lists in the New Testament” from the January 2015 edition for a fuller treatment of the various gifts mentioned in the NT). Of course, many healings take place in Jesus’ ministry as well as during the first months and years of the Church (Acts 3:1-8; 5:16; 8:7; 9:34).

    Not only that, but there are several instances of people in the first century being raised from the dead when either sickness or tragedy struck. Jesus raises Jairus’ 12-year-old daughter in Mark 5:35-43 and also Lazarus in John 11:1-44. Many were raised from the dead upon Jesus own crucifixion as recorded in Matthew 27:51-53. These kinds of miracles persist for a time even after the establishment of the Church: Peter raises Tabitha from the dead after she fell ill in Acts 9:36-41, and Paul raises Eutychus from the dead after a fatal fall in Acts 20:7-12. It may be that in the early Christian community people hardly ever got sick, and those who died from illness or accident could be raised immediately.

    But instances of healings mainly occur in the first nine chapters of Acts. The frequency and amount of healings taper dramatically in the last two-thirds of Acts: Paul heals a man in Lystra in Acts 14:8-10, and he heals some on the Island of Malta in Acts 28:8-9. Also, these healings are associated with the initial introduction of the Gospel into a new geographical area, and are not portrayed as a normal phenomenon for that or for any other area; this must be considered when weighing the continuationist view and the cessationist view.

    Also, after the initial stages of the spread of the gospel, we begin to see more and more sick believers. In Philippians 2:26-27 Paul mentions the serious sickness of his associate Epaphroditus. There is no mention of a laying on of hands or a miraculous occurrence that suddenly restored Epaphroditus to health. But, why would the Philippian believers be distressed upon hearing of his illness if someone with the gift of healing, or Paul himself, could simply heal Epaphroditus? In fact, what would it mean that he was sick “to the point of death” if he could just as easily be healed immediately? God allowed Epaphroditus to regain his health, but apparently not through some miraculous means or by means of the spiritual gift of healing; it seems like that gift was simply not available any more.

    He was not the only associate of Paul’s to have dealt with physical difficulties. Timothy apparently had ongoing stomach problems as well as “frequent ailments” (5:23). One expects that Paul would prescribe a quick visit to the local believer who has the gift of healing, or one thinks that at some point Paul would have just healed Timothy himself! Instead, Paul curiously recommends a little wine to ease the discomfort. Another associate of Paul’s named Trophimus fell ill to the point that Paul had to leave him in Miletus (2 Tim 4:20); that is, Paul had to leave him behind because the gift of healing was apparently no longer available for use by Paul or by anyone else.

    Some even posit that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” from 2 Corinthians 12:7 was some kind of physical malady, perhaps even related to his eyesight (which may explain some of the statements in verses like Gal 4:15 and 6:11). If that is the case, why couldn’t one of the other apostles or one of the many godly individuals to whom Paul ministered simply use their gift and heal him? Perhaps the answer is because the sign gifts had already begun to disappear even during the lives of the apostles.

    Another noteworthy passage is James 5:14-15. James acknowledges that some in his audience may be sick. But he doesn’t instruct the readers to summon the individual with the gift of healing to cure the sick person. Rather, they are to call the elders of the church to pray over the individual. James appeals to the act of prayer to elicit the healing of God, not the use of a spiritual gift; one would think that if that spiritual gift of healing were still available it would have been mentioned instead of or in addition to prayer. This reference is significant, also, because many scholars believe that James is one of the earliest NT epistles, written perhaps even as early as A.D. 45 or 50. If so, that would imply that the gift of healing had already ceased being available to the church just a decade or two after its inception.

    I believe that God still heals and performs miracles; the discussion here is not if God heals people today, or even if God is able to do so. Few believers doubt that God can and does heal people today through natural as well as supernatural means, and often through a combination of prayer, medical advancement, and divine intervention.

    What we are discussing here is when God ceased utilizing those with the gift of healing to cure individuals and even raise some people from the dead. The tapering of the use of this gift in Acts, and the presence of sick people just a few decades into the church age is a strong indication that the sign gifts generally, that the gift of healing specifically, disappeared even during the ministries of the apostles. This should give us pause when someone suggests that these gifts are still in use today or have been restored to the church.