If Obama wins the same states as in 2008 = 358 electoral votes.
I list the states Obama might lose with the top ones most likely and the bottom ones least likely.
Lose Indiana (11) = 347
Lose North Carolina (15) = 332
Lose Florida (29) = 303
Lose Virginia (13) = 290
Lose Colorado (9) = 281
Lose New Hampshire (4) = 277
Lose Iowa (6) = 271
Lose Ohio (18) = 253
Lose Nevada (6) = 247
Lose Wisconsin (10) = 237
Lose Pennsylvania (20) = 217
Lose Michigan (16) = 201
Remember, 270+ out of 528 electoral votes are needed win the Presidency.
Be sure to watch the key Atlantic states: Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. There is no realistic scenario where the President loses re-election if he holds onto any of these three.
The President's mid-west firewall: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. If Romney wins any of those three, the undecideds have clearly broken strongly to him.
If the President's mid-west firewall holds up and Romney sweeps the three Atlantic states, then Ohio will put either side over the top.
It is mathematically possible that the President wins Ohio but loses Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire and falls short with 265 or that Romney wins Ohio but loses Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire and only gets to 266. But most likely, whoever wins Ohio will win at least one of the other four closely contested states.
Politics: What happens if the late deciders decide for the challenger?
The polls are close.
Some have Romney ahead and some have President Obama ahead.
The "conventional wisdom" is that if a voter is undecided they are more likely to vote for the challenger. Thus, let's assume for the purpose of discussion that 6 of 10 voters will vote for the challenger if they decide in the final weekend before the vote.
The Politico 10/22-10/25 poll has: Obama at 49 and Romney at 48.
Thus, there are 3% undecided.
If the 60/40 rule holds, then Obama will add 1.2% to his totals and Romney will get 1.8% more.
Final result: Obama 50.2% Romney 48.8%.
This scenario would probably mean a very long election night and possibly many days of counting absentee ballots and perhaps recounts in some swing states.
In the IBD 10/22-10/27 poll, Obama has 45 and Romney at 44.
Thus, 11% undecided.
If the 60/40 rule holds, then Obama adds 4.4% and Romney 6.6%.
Final result: Romney 50.6% Obama 49.4%.
Again, likely a very long night with a possible Romney popular vote win but an Obama re-election because the electoral votes are determinative.
On the other hand, if the Gallup 10/22-10/28 poll is right: Romney 51 Obama 46.
Thus, 3% undecided.
Final result: 51+1.8 = 52.8 Romney and 46+1.2 = 47.2 Obama.
A 5.6% popular vote differential would probably translate into a solid electoral college win with Romney probably right around 300.
So the key numbers:
(1) How many undecided there really are: 3% or 11%?
(2) If 3% then is the level of support for the President closer to 49 or 46?
(3) Will late deciders break toward Romney 60/40?
The three polls above have different readings on items #1 and #2. Of the two polls that agree the undecideds are only 3%, they differ on the level of support for the President.
Poll fans may note my omitting Rasmussen. Rasmussen is very close to Gallup as of 10/31 with Obama at 47% and 4% undecided. I wanted to highlight three very different polling scenarios.
Nate Silver appears to hold to the view that the polls point to about 3% undecided, the President's support at 49 to 50% (like Politico) and that the undecideds will probably split 50/50 yielding a popular vote of 50.5 to 51.5% and a comfortable electoral college win for the President. He also gives more weight to aggregating the state based polls over the national polls.
Electionprojection.com, like Nate Silver, also attempts to aggregate the polling data and come up with a forecast of what will happen and his model also predicts an Obama victory. However, he does point out the key is the turnout model. If the current polling data is adjusted to a 2004 turnout model or even a model somewhere in between 2004 and 2008, Romney wins. But if the data is taken as is, Obama wins. He puts it this way: Either the polls will be right and so will EP, or they'll be wrong and Romney will win the White House.
Jay Cost thinks the key polling number is Romney's edge on the economy and among independents.
Keep in mind, in the end, about 120 million votes will have been cast for president. A reported poll is on the order of 500 to 3000 people which forms a sample to assess possible outcomes in a state or national context. When they report a margin of error of 3%, that means a 51 to 49 lead could really be a 54 to 46 lead or a 48-52 deficit. Also, there is a 5% chance that the actual results will fall outside the stated range.
In 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2008, the polls all pointed to easy wins and the only question was what will be the final margin of victory. In 2000 and 2004, the polls were all very close and exit polling that major new outlets used on election night turned out to be problematic. Barring any last minute surprises, 2012 is looking to be very close.
November 6 may tell the tale. But if it is really, really close, there could be additional days of counting and recounting and we won't have an answer until several days later.
Some have Romney ahead and some have President Obama ahead.
The "conventional wisdom" is that if a voter is undecided they are more likely to vote for the challenger. Thus, let's assume for the purpose of discussion that 6 of 10 voters will vote for the challenger if they decide in the final weekend before the vote.
The Politico 10/22-10/25 poll has: Obama at 49 and Romney at 48.
Thus, there are 3% undecided.
If the 60/40 rule holds, then Obama will add 1.2% to his totals and Romney will get 1.8% more.
Final result: Obama 50.2% Romney 48.8%.
This scenario would probably mean a very long election night and possibly many days of counting absentee ballots and perhaps recounts in some swing states.
In the IBD 10/22-10/27 poll, Obama has 45 and Romney at 44.
Thus, 11% undecided.
If the 60/40 rule holds, then Obama adds 4.4% and Romney 6.6%.
Final result: Romney 50.6% Obama 49.4%.
Again, likely a very long night with a possible Romney popular vote win but an Obama re-election because the electoral votes are determinative.
On the other hand, if the Gallup 10/22-10/28 poll is right: Romney 51 Obama 46.
Thus, 3% undecided.
Final result: 51+1.8 = 52.8 Romney and 46+1.2 = 47.2 Obama.
A 5.6% popular vote differential would probably translate into a solid electoral college win with Romney probably right around 300.
So the key numbers:
(1) How many undecided there really are: 3% or 11%?
(2) If 3% then is the level of support for the President closer to 49 or 46?
(3) Will late deciders break toward Romney 60/40?
The three polls above have different readings on items #1 and #2. Of the two polls that agree the undecideds are only 3%, they differ on the level of support for the President.
Poll fans may note my omitting Rasmussen. Rasmussen is very close to Gallup as of 10/31 with Obama at 47% and 4% undecided. I wanted to highlight three very different polling scenarios.
Nate Silver appears to hold to the view that the polls point to about 3% undecided, the President's support at 49 to 50% (like Politico) and that the undecideds will probably split 50/50 yielding a popular vote of 50.5 to 51.5% and a comfortable electoral college win for the President. He also gives more weight to aggregating the state based polls over the national polls.
Electionprojection.com, like Nate Silver, also attempts to aggregate the polling data and come up with a forecast of what will happen and his model also predicts an Obama victory. However, he does point out the key is the turnout model. If the current polling data is adjusted to a 2004 turnout model or even a model somewhere in between 2004 and 2008, Romney wins. But if the data is taken as is, Obama wins. He puts it this way: Either the polls will be right and so will EP, or they'll be wrong and Romney will win the White House.
Jay Cost thinks the key polling number is Romney's edge on the economy and among independents.
Keep in mind, in the end, about 120 million votes will have been cast for president. A reported poll is on the order of 500 to 3000 people which forms a sample to assess possible outcomes in a state or national context. When they report a margin of error of 3%, that means a 51 to 49 lead could really be a 54 to 46 lead or a 48-52 deficit. Also, there is a 5% chance that the actual results will fall outside the stated range.
In 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2008, the polls all pointed to easy wins and the only question was what will be the final margin of victory. In 2000 and 2004, the polls were all very close and exit polling that major new outlets used on election night turned out to be problematic. Barring any last minute surprises, 2012 is looking to be very close.
November 6 may tell the tale. But if it is really, really close, there could be additional days of counting and recounting and we won't have an answer until several days later.
Non-profit of the month: October 2012 - Los Angeles Philharmonic
I'm a patron of the arts!
Okay, not a million dollar donor type of patron who gets a name stenciled on something in the building or printed in the program books. But, as a subscriber to the LA Phil since 1999, I've attend usually 4 concerts a year with them. And as a result, I've come to enjoy what they do and am happy to know the organization has a footprint in bringing music to youth and the community beyond the iconic Walt Disney Concert Hall venue.
Okay, not a million dollar donor type of patron who gets a name stenciled on something in the building or printed in the program books. But, as a subscriber to the LA Phil since 1999, I've attend usually 4 concerts a year with them. And as a result, I've come to enjoy what they do and am happy to know the organization has a footprint in bringing music to youth and the community beyond the iconic Walt Disney Concert Hall venue.
Politics: Cal Ballot Propositions for November 2012
Propositions 30 to 40 is a lot to sift through and below are some preliminary thoughts on how I'm leaning on the ballot measures. I welcome input as I reserve the right to change my mind right up to election day when I finally mark my ballot.
Let's take the easy one first ...
Prop 40 is the easiest with a YES vote.
Prop 40 is a yes/no vote on the new state senate district lines drawn up as a result of the 2010 census. There is no opposition to Prop 40 in any newspaper editorial board or major political party.
The rest are a bit more complicated and as I read through them and form a view, I'll post them below.
Vote NO on Prop 37.
Vote YES on Prop 36.
The three-strikes law has broad support and this proposition modifies it in ways that make sense: if the third-strike conviction is not in the category of a serious or violent crime then the heavy punishment required in the current law doesn't apply. This revision to the three-strikes law is supported by all six newspaper editorial boards I checked.
Vote ??? on Prop 35 - leaning toward a NO.
Human trafficking is a terrible crime. Law enforcement should do all it can to stop it. Since Prop 35 claims to fight human trafficking it is likely to gain a lot of support. But is the ballot measure well thought out?
Its a good cause but there is some doubt the measure will actually address the problem. The LA Times and Sacramento Bee came out against Prop 35. The Bee gave its reasons: It's difficult to oppose Proposition 35, a measure that purports to stop a crime as despicable as human trafficking. But the proposition is overbroad and misdirected. The LA Times gave similar reasons: Sex trafficking of minors is a real problem. There is evidence that in Southern California, gangs that once sold drugs are turning now to forced prostitution, especially of vulnerable girls (and sometimes boys) in foster care. Effectively targeting the problem requires carefully crafted and thoughtful laws that keep pace with the constantly changing practices in the shadowy world of human exploitation. Proposition 35 is not equal to the task. However, four other newspaper editorial boards came out in favor as did BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties. The OC Register's endorsement also noted some of the problems with the ballot measure but gave its endorsement despite those reservations. KPCC Airtalk had the two sides on their October 16 show. The supporter of Prop 35 was a prosecutor and the opponent was a sponsor of the current human trafficking laws that are on the books already in California.
How would you vote on such an item?
Have to say, when I am in doubt, I tend to vote no.
NO on Prop 34.
This proposition ends the death penalty in California. If you oppose the death penalty for whatever reasons, the choice is rather obvious. But those who support the death penalty but find the current system unworkable may be tempted to support this proposition figuring what it offers will be better than the way things are now.
In one of my jury duty experiences, I was part of a pool of about 250 potential jurors for a potential death penalty case: murder with special circumstances. In California, the first part of the case is to determine if the defendant is guilty. If found guilty, the same jury continues its service in the second phase where they hear the prosecution argues for the death penalty while the defense argues for life imprisonment. As in the guilty/not guilty phase, the jury decision must be unanimous.
After three days of jury selection, most of us (including me) were excused by either the judge, the prosecution or defense. The experience was informative. I read in the LA Times that jury selection went on for two more days. Ultimately, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder with special circumstances and in phase two returned a verdict for the death penalty.
My experience indicated to me that the death penalty is not given out thoughtlessly. Some argue that LA County's judicial system is more careful than other parts of California but the review and appeals process after conviction and sentencing probably catches any errors. However, after the review and appeals, the death penalty doesn't actually get carried out because there is no approved method of execution. Thus, California has the death penalty on the books and all the mechanisms in place (at great cost) but in practice there is no death penalty. Shall we make it official and vote in Prop 34? Or do we keep the death penalty on the books and work toward reorganizing the death penalty system?
Below is a video in support of the death penalty by Dennis Prager where he discusses common objections and points out the choice is between NO capital punishment for ANY murderer while those who support capital punishment call for it in SOME cases.
Vote YES on Prop 33.
At first hearing, it sounds good to allow portability of auto insurance discounts for people with continuous coverage. But why is the proposition being supported by only one auto insurance company? If this change in auto insurance regulation was supported by more auto insurance companies, I would be more confident in the measure. Although, I suppose if many insurance companies supported it, the NO on Prop 33 people would claim the insurance companies are teaming up trying to gouge the customers. So in a sense it is a no-win situation for the insurance companies. But the fact is that some of the ballot measures this year are sponsored by one/few individual(s) (Prop 33, Prop 35, Prop 39) or seems to offer benefits to only one particular group (see Prop 39) and that immediately raises a caution in my mind. But what about the merit of the idea? If someone you don't like offers a reasonable idea do you dismiss the idea because of the messenger? That, in the realm of logic, is known as the genetic fallacy.
Thus, the question is, on the merits, should continuity of insurance coverage be part of the rate calculation? There are currently three main factors in setting rates in California: driver's safety record, miles driven and years of experience driving. The other discounts they offer are probably relatively minor compared to those three main factors. Would adding continuity of insurance coverage be unreasonable? Could it be that some auto insurance companies actually like the current rules because they don't have to compete to retain customers and fight "churn" which often happens in the cell phone service business? This could account for why they have not joined for or against this measure; they like it the way it is.
UPDATE: I did a google search to see if this kind of discount exists in other states. I found this list of discounts from Nationwide in Maine. The discount amounted up to 5%. I checked a few other states to see if this kind of discounts is also available: Michigan (no), Oklahoma (no) and Georgia (yes, up to 10%). I don't plan to check all 50 states! But suffice to say, this type of discount exists in other states. Whether it is a many or a majority, I do not know.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a customer of Nationwide and have no financial interest in Nationwide. I simply happen to find their auto insurance discount information through a Google search.
Prop 32 - YES
The measure places some additional regulations on political contributions. In particular, it removes the ability to have funds deducted from paychecks for political purposes. As such, it is strongly opposed by unions which gets a lot of money by this method.
The public employee unions essentially control Sacramento. This Wall Street Journal opinion piece describes the degree of control in stark terms. Excerpt: The governor originally proposed raising the top rate to 12.3% from 10.3%. That wasn't good enough for the nurses and teachers unions, which pressed for a 13.3% "millionaire's tax." ..... Public unions then picked up about 75% of the tab for gathering signatures and paid workers twice the going rate ($3 per signature) to speed things along. .... And without so much as lifting a finger, the governor has raised $50 million for his ballot campaign—nearly four times as much as the opposition. Public unions have kicked in more than $30 million.
Prop 31 - Leaning to a NO vote.
The proposition institutes some new procedures to state budgeting. Everyone agrees that Sacramento is a mess. But will this measure make things better? Airtalk's October 2 program discussed Prop 31. After listening to the program and hearing Larry Mantle say after reading the proposition in preparation for the broadcast and still not feeling sure about understanding it I don't feel like a total idiot. And after listening to both sides give their case, I don't know who or what to believe.
My impressions is that maybe the people behind prop 31 decided to "shoot the moon" and loaded it up with a grab bag of reforms. Perhaps it would have been better if they just stuck to one or two key reforms that would be easily understood.
My adage on propositions is when in doubt: vote no.
Prop 30, 38 and 39 are tax increase propositions and I plan to vote NO on all three.
Prop 39 makes some changes to business taxes and allocates some of the revenue for clean energy jobs. The first problem is that California is rated (according to Taxfoundation.org) as one of the worst in regards to business taxes compared to other states and so this is not going to repair the reputation of California as not business friendly. Secondly, even if the changes to the business taxes in Prop 39 were a good idea which this might actually be, why commit 1/2 of the revenue to clean energy jobs? California's budget is so out of balance, why carve out money for ONE specific sector of the economy? Sounds fishy to me that the supporters wrote a set-aside like this into the proposition.
Prop 30 and 38 raise taxes for education funding. The way they do so is different with Prop 30 being advocated by Gov. Brown and calls for a mix of increased income taxes and sales taxes. Prop 38 is backed by political activist Molly Munger and raises income taxes.
Education, of course, is a good cause. However, I am very concerned that the public school system needs to be reformed before more money is spent on it. I don't want to as the idiom goes "throw good money after bad." Also, I simply don't trust Sacramento to actually get the money to the right place.
Be sure to check out Reason Foundation where their concerns about Prop 38 was expressed this way:
... for 10 years the state has "deferred" nearly $10 billion of state revenue that is supposed to go to schools under Prop. 98. So even when we think we are voting to tie the government’s hands on how they spend our tax money, they seem to find ways around it. The problem is that Sacramento is not making education a budget priority.
In Reason's Prop 30 comments they offer this: Finally, since education spending has become the rhetorical lynchpin of Prop. 30, voters need to consider if they want more of their money to go into a system that refuses to reform, and where increases in spending are overwhelmingly being consumed by administration, not going to teachers and classrooms and instruction.
As of October 30 ...
Let's take the easy one first ...
Prop 40 is the easiest with a YES vote.
Prop 40 is a yes/no vote on the new state senate district lines drawn up as a result of the 2010 census. There is no opposition to Prop 40 in any newspaper editorial board or major political party.
The rest are a bit more complicated and as I read through them and form a view, I'll post them below.
Vote NO on Prop 37.
This ballot calls for labeling of some food items to let the consumer know it contains genetically modified ingredients. This Freakonomics.com item highlights some of the problems with the labeling plan. Problem number one is that numerous scientific organizations have gone on record as saying that genetically modified food items are safe. Problem number two is that enforcing this kind of law can be complicated - which items should and should not have the labels - will likely result in lawsuits and could result in costly changes up and down the food production chain to comply with it. Because of all these headaches for no safety benefit, the six newspaper editorial boards I checked all came out against it.
The three-strikes law has broad support and this proposition modifies it in ways that make sense: if the third-strike conviction is not in the category of a serious or violent crime then the heavy punishment required in the current law doesn't apply. This revision to the three-strikes law is supported by all six newspaper editorial boards I checked.
Vote ??? on Prop 35 - leaning toward a NO.
Human trafficking is a terrible crime. Law enforcement should do all it can to stop it. Since Prop 35 claims to fight human trafficking it is likely to gain a lot of support. But is the ballot measure well thought out?
Its a good cause but there is some doubt the measure will actually address the problem. The LA Times and Sacramento Bee came out against Prop 35. The Bee gave its reasons: It's difficult to oppose Proposition 35, a measure that purports to stop a crime as despicable as human trafficking. But the proposition is overbroad and misdirected. The LA Times gave similar reasons: Sex trafficking of minors is a real problem. There is evidence that in Southern California, gangs that once sold drugs are turning now to forced prostitution, especially of vulnerable girls (and sometimes boys) in foster care. Effectively targeting the problem requires carefully crafted and thoughtful laws that keep pace with the constantly changing practices in the shadowy world of human exploitation. Proposition 35 is not equal to the task. However, four other newspaper editorial boards came out in favor as did BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties. The OC Register's endorsement also noted some of the problems with the ballot measure but gave its endorsement despite those reservations. KPCC Airtalk had the two sides on their October 16 show. The supporter of Prop 35 was a prosecutor and the opponent was a sponsor of the current human trafficking laws that are on the books already in California.
How would you vote on such an item?
Have to say, when I am in doubt, I tend to vote no.
NO on Prop 34.
This proposition ends the death penalty in California. If you oppose the death penalty for whatever reasons, the choice is rather obvious. But those who support the death penalty but find the current system unworkable may be tempted to support this proposition figuring what it offers will be better than the way things are now.
In one of my jury duty experiences, I was part of a pool of about 250 potential jurors for a potential death penalty case: murder with special circumstances. In California, the first part of the case is to determine if the defendant is guilty. If found guilty, the same jury continues its service in the second phase where they hear the prosecution argues for the death penalty while the defense argues for life imprisonment. As in the guilty/not guilty phase, the jury decision must be unanimous.
After three days of jury selection, most of us (including me) were excused by either the judge, the prosecution or defense. The experience was informative. I read in the LA Times that jury selection went on for two more days. Ultimately, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder with special circumstances and in phase two returned a verdict for the death penalty.
My experience indicated to me that the death penalty is not given out thoughtlessly. Some argue that LA County's judicial system is more careful than other parts of California but the review and appeals process after conviction and sentencing probably catches any errors. However, after the review and appeals, the death penalty doesn't actually get carried out because there is no approved method of execution. Thus, California has the death penalty on the books and all the mechanisms in place (at great cost) but in practice there is no death penalty. Shall we make it official and vote in Prop 34? Or do we keep the death penalty on the books and work toward reorganizing the death penalty system?
Below is a video in support of the death penalty by Dennis Prager where he discusses common objections and points out the choice is between NO capital punishment for ANY murderer while those who support capital punishment call for it in SOME cases.
Vote YES on Prop 33.
At first hearing, it sounds good to allow portability of auto insurance discounts for people with continuous coverage. But why is the proposition being supported by only one auto insurance company? If this change in auto insurance regulation was supported by more auto insurance companies, I would be more confident in the measure. Although, I suppose if many insurance companies supported it, the NO on Prop 33 people would claim the insurance companies are teaming up trying to gouge the customers. So in a sense it is a no-win situation for the insurance companies. But the fact is that some of the ballot measures this year are sponsored by one/few individual(s) (Prop 33, Prop 35, Prop 39) or seems to offer benefits to only one particular group (see Prop 39) and that immediately raises a caution in my mind. But what about the merit of the idea? If someone you don't like offers a reasonable idea do you dismiss the idea because of the messenger? That, in the realm of logic, is known as the genetic fallacy.
Thus, the question is, on the merits, should continuity of insurance coverage be part of the rate calculation? There are currently three main factors in setting rates in California: driver's safety record, miles driven and years of experience driving. The other discounts they offer are probably relatively minor compared to those three main factors. Would adding continuity of insurance coverage be unreasonable? Could it be that some auto insurance companies actually like the current rules because they don't have to compete to retain customers and fight "churn" which often happens in the cell phone service business? This could account for why they have not joined for or against this measure; they like it the way it is.
UPDATE: I did a google search to see if this kind of discount exists in other states. I found this list of discounts from Nationwide in Maine. The discount amounted up to 5%. I checked a few other states to see if this kind of discounts is also available: Michigan (no), Oklahoma (no) and Georgia (yes, up to 10%). I don't plan to check all 50 states! But suffice to say, this type of discount exists in other states. Whether it is a many or a majority, I do not know.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a customer of Nationwide and have no financial interest in Nationwide. I simply happen to find their auto insurance discount information through a Google search.
Prop 32 - YES
The measure places some additional regulations on political contributions. In particular, it removes the ability to have funds deducted from paychecks for political purposes. As such, it is strongly opposed by unions which gets a lot of money by this method.
The public employee unions essentially control Sacramento. This Wall Street Journal opinion piece describes the degree of control in stark terms. Excerpt: The governor originally proposed raising the top rate to 12.3% from 10.3%. That wasn't good enough for the nurses and teachers unions, which pressed for a 13.3% "millionaire's tax." ..... Public unions then picked up about 75% of the tab for gathering signatures and paid workers twice the going rate ($3 per signature) to speed things along. .... And without so much as lifting a finger, the governor has raised $50 million for his ballot campaign—nearly four times as much as the opposition. Public unions have kicked in more than $30 million.
Prop 31 - Leaning to a NO vote.
The proposition institutes some new procedures to state budgeting. Everyone agrees that Sacramento is a mess. But will this measure make things better? Airtalk's October 2 program discussed Prop 31. After listening to the program and hearing Larry Mantle say after reading the proposition in preparation for the broadcast and still not feeling sure about understanding it I don't feel like a total idiot. And after listening to both sides give their case, I don't know who or what to believe.
My impressions is that maybe the people behind prop 31 decided to "shoot the moon" and loaded it up with a grab bag of reforms. Perhaps it would have been better if they just stuck to one or two key reforms that would be easily understood.
My adage on propositions is when in doubt: vote no.
Prop 30, 38 and 39 are tax increase propositions and I plan to vote NO on all three.
Prop 39 makes some changes to business taxes and allocates some of the revenue for clean energy jobs. The first problem is that California is rated (according to Taxfoundation.org) as one of the worst in regards to business taxes compared to other states and so this is not going to repair the reputation of California as not business friendly. Secondly, even if the changes to the business taxes in Prop 39 were a good idea which this might actually be, why commit 1/2 of the revenue to clean energy jobs? California's budget is so out of balance, why carve out money for ONE specific sector of the economy? Sounds fishy to me that the supporters wrote a set-aside like this into the proposition.
Prop 30 and 38 raise taxes for education funding. The way they do so is different with Prop 30 being advocated by Gov. Brown and calls for a mix of increased income taxes and sales taxes. Prop 38 is backed by political activist Molly Munger and raises income taxes.
Education, of course, is a good cause. However, I am very concerned that the public school system needs to be reformed before more money is spent on it. I don't want to as the idiom goes "throw good money after bad." Also, I simply don't trust Sacramento to actually get the money to the right place.
Be sure to check out Reason Foundation where their concerns about Prop 38 was expressed this way:
... for 10 years the state has "deferred" nearly $10 billion of state revenue that is supposed to go to schools under Prop. 98. So even when we think we are voting to tie the government’s hands on how they spend our tax money, they seem to find ways around it. The problem is that Sacramento is not making education a budget priority.
In Reason's Prop 30 comments they offer this: Finally, since education spending has become the rhetorical lynchpin of Prop. 30, voters need to consider if they want more of their money to go into a system that refuses to reform, and where increases in spending are overwhelmingly being consumed by administration, not going to teachers and classrooms and instruction.
As of October 30 ...
30 - NO
31 - NO?
32 - YES
33 - YES
34 - NO
35 - NO??
36 - YES
37 - NO
38 - NO
39 - NO
40 - YES
Politics: The Sequestor
Image source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
The sequestor says that over ten-years, $600 billion needs to be cut in discretionary spending and $600 billion needs to be cut in defense spending. Thus, the target would be $60 billion in each of the two items per year.
Of course, looking at the chart, that leaves 63% of the budget untouched. The 6% that is interest payments is untouchable in the sense not paying it would be defaulting. As a political matter (and perhaps as a legal one as well), the other mandatory, Social Security and Medicare & Medicaid is virtually untouchable.
And that is really the problem: it is hard to balance a budget when 57% of the budget essentially isn't on the table for cuts.
Imagine if we could get at all segments of the pie except interest payments?
How about cutting $24 billion from each of the five pie segments?
Or how about slicing $20 billion from each of the five portions and close loopholes to raise $20 billion in new taxes?
Or how about $16 billion from the five broad categories of spending and raise taxes by $40 billion?
Under the 16/40 scenario, if indeed, about 53% of the people pay Federal Income taxes (159 million of 300 million people) then that is about $252 more per tax-payer.
As you can see, opening all parts of the pie makes things more manageable.
Politics: Rasmussen and Gallup Diverge On 2012
Rasmussen and Gallup Diverge On 2012 ... at the moment, as of this Friday morning, as I look at the RCP numbers. Gallup is saying Romney by 7% and Rasmussen has it tied. Rasmussen claims an MoE of 3%, so the tie could really be a 6 point lead for either side. Gallup cites an MoE of 2%, so Romney's lead could be as big as 11 and as small as 3.
Why are the two polls so divergent?
The likely voter screens they apply are different. But I wonder what aspect of their screens is leading to such different results? Any polling experts out there who can offer a hypothesis as to why the 2 big name polls are so different at this moment?
We shall see if the divergence continues.
At the moment, on RCP, Gallup is the "outlier" data point with the race being much closer if one aggregates the polls.
UPDATE: Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard was on the Hugh Hewitt radio show and suggested that Gallup's use of a tight likely voter screen ironically makes it more volatile to momentum shifts. Thus, the direction of many polls in favor of Romney results in Gallup perhaps overstating the movement. Anyway, that was the impression I got from what he was saying in the interview.
Why are the two polls so divergent?
The likely voter screens they apply are different. But I wonder what aspect of their screens is leading to such different results? Any polling experts out there who can offer a hypothesis as to why the 2 big name polls are so different at this moment?
We shall see if the divergence continues.
At the moment, on RCP, Gallup is the "outlier" data point with the race being much closer if one aggregates the polls.
UPDATE: Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard was on the Hugh Hewitt radio show and suggested that Gallup's use of a tight likely voter screen ironically makes it more volatile to momentum shifts. Thus, the direction of many polls in favor of Romney results in Gallup perhaps overstating the movement. Anyway, that was the impression I got from what he was saying in the interview.
Politics: Nov 2012 California Ballot Measures as Viewed by Newspapers
Proposition
|
||||||
30
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
31
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
32
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
33
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
34
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
???
|
35
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
36
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
37
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
38
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
39
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
40
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
???
|
Politics: Nov 2012 Cal Ballot Recommendation By the Parties
Proposition
|
|||
30
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
31
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
32
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
33
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Endorse
|
34
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
35
|
No Position
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
36
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
37
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Oppose
|
38
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
39
|
Endorse
|
No Position
|
Oppose
|
40
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Endorse
|
Devotional Thoughts: Let's Go, Matthew 28:16-20
At the center of the heart of God is reconciliation. When neighbor, church and God embrace at the center, reconciliation occurs. When reconciliation happens, relationships are restored, forgiveness is experienced and liberation takes place. This is indeed Good News. And God is on the move doing this.
Thus, at the heart of our church is reconciliation. As a church, our aspiration and goal is to be a channel by which this happens.
We are currently in a teaching series examining the core values of our church as shown in the diagram. Each of the core values point to how God is at work for reconciliation. And today, we will look at the core value of commission.
Reconciling the stories of our neighbors with God’s story through COMMISSION. We are commissioned with God to share in the gospel with our neighbors.
Some of you may be able to anticipate what Scriptural text we will examine today to explore COMMISSION. Some of you may have heard teachings on it before and may have even preached on this text at some point in your life. Nonetheless, may God use our reflections today on this famous and familiar portion of Scripture to encourage and challenge us afresh.
So before we read the text, Matthew 28:16-20, let’s set the stage for when this Word from our Lord was given. This Commission is given after the Resurrection. To help in setting the stage, I’d like to read an extended excerpt from Philip Yancey’s book, “Disappointment With God (pp. 149-150).” I think Yancey has a gift for being able to express the internal dialog that takes place inside characters in the Bible and indeed what I suspect rattles around in our minds today.
On Sunday, wild, crazy rumors shot through the close-knit community of mourners. And then later in the week you saw him. It was true! You touched him with your own hands. Jesus! He had done what no one had done before: he had walked voluntarily into death, and walked back out.... Jesus appeared and disappeared seemingly at will. When he showed up, you listened eagerly to his explanations of what had happened. When he left, you and the others plotted the new kingdom. Think of it: Jerusalem free at last from Roman rule! … Now you’d show them. No one would push you around anymore; no one would push Israel around. Peter, James and John would naturally have the inside track on the top positions, but a kingdom would need many leaders – and, after all, you had followed Jesus for three years…. You waited breathlessly for some sign – a call to arms perhaps, a battle plan….
And what happened next?
As was often the case, the disciples had their own agenda and instead Jesus astonishes them.
And so this happened next.
Matthew 28:16-20
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Church, this is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.
After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to various people at various places. Some occurred in and around the empty tomb; some in and around Jerusalem and indeed, some appearances were in and around Galilee like this episode.
From v. 16, Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
They were in Galilee because Jesus told them to go there. Earlier in Matthew chapter 28, we see these instructions coming from the angel to the women who were at the empty tomb in v. 7. Those directions also come from the resurrected Jesus himself in v. 10. Thus, the women passed the instructions to the disciples and they went to Galilee because they were told to be there.
As for the mountain, we simply don’t know which one. Perhaps it was the same hillside where Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount.
In any case, the disciples were at the designated meeting spot and Jesus showed up, v. 17, When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.
They respond by worshipping Him. Indeed, an entirely proper and understandable response when encountering Jesus. But did you catch that phrase at the end of v. 17?
“But some doubted.”
That really jumped out at me. I wonder if doubting Thomas and I share the same Briggs-Myer profile? In any case, some books I read offered some thoughts on this part of v. 17. One idea is that among the 11, some still had lingering doubts. Another idea is that in addition to the named disciples other disciples were present on this occasion and it was in that group of folks where some doubts resided. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, in a passage where Paul expounds on the validity of the Resurrection, Paul reported that Jesus appeared to more than 500 at one time. Perhaps this was the event when that happened. But in either case, doubt was in the minds of some who where there; whether it was within some of the 11 or in a wider group of disciples.
The other thing we don’t know is the nature of that doubt. The text simply doesn’t say. Some scholars speculate that perhaps the doubt had to do with their ability to recognize Jesus. We simply don’t know how different a resurrected Jesus was to the Jesus they knew before the resurrection. Perhaps, they thought, it looks like Jesus, sounds like Jesus and he is saying things I think Jesus might say, but I’m not sure. Another possibility is that some doubted whether they should really commit themselves to following this plan of Jesus.
Whichever is the case, the text says, “But some doubted.”
Christian writer Frederick Buechner reflected, “If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me.” And Jesus was gracious in giving that room to those doubting disciples. And in this great moment of the Gospel story, Jesus commissioned his disciples even though doubts still tugged within their souls. Does this sound like us in any way?
Just as the disciples went to the designated meeting place, we have come here to church. The disciples upon seeing Jesus worshipped, and we here today have been worshipping. “But some doubted.” Does this sound like us?
Thanks be to God, Jesus still sends us. Will we heed that call? Will we heed this commission?
If we wait to get our lives completely organized, we would never go. If we wait until we get all our theological ducks lined up, we would never share our faith. If we wait until all our educational and financial affairs are in order, we would never take the risks. If we wait for all doubt to disappear, we would never follow.
My prayer is often a variation of Mark 9:24, Lord, I believe; help my unbelief; help me as I go.
Verse 18, And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
This reminded me of Genesis 1:1 which says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The pairing of “heaven and earth” suggests everything everywhere. God created everything everywhere.
Jesus who was at the creation, humbled himself and lived among us in weak human flesh, died a humiliating death on a cross, was victorious over death and vindicated by resurrection, now He has all authority over everything everywhere. And what does he do with that authority? He sends out his disciples to make more disciples. Astounding. The Good News of the gospel is to be delivered by this bickering, bumbling and doubting group of disciples. In other words, people like us.
What do you think of this plan? What would you do if you had this kind of power?
This idea was explored in a humorous way in the 2003 film, Bruce Almighty. If you aren’t familiar with the film, briefly, Jim Carrey played self-centered news reporter Bruce Nolan who is given the powers of God temporarily by God, played by Morgan Freeman. In one scene, God, Morgan Freeman, asked Bruce, so what have you done with my powers? To which Bruce replied, I righted a few wrongs and fixed a few things in my life. Suffice to say, as the film continued, more hilarity and chaos ensued.
What would we do if we had this kind of power?
For the justice minded folks among us, we might have wished for Jesus to throw some thunderbolts against the unrighteous. But it would seem this isn’t God current plan.
One wonders if perhaps, reconciliation is only possible by incarnation?
Jesus, the Word who became flesh, the one filled with grace and truth made his dwelling among us. We call this the incarnation. This process is humbling and slow. He did this so we could come back home to the Father. This is very Good News.
And so Jesus continues His mission of reconciliation by inviting the disciples to continue His mission. Now, we, the church, the body of Christ, are brought into this astounding work. We are to exhibit grace and truth to all nations. We are to bring the Good News to all we meet while we go about our lives.
And so Jesus gave the commission in vv. 19-20: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.
Last week, we heard about the story of the Prodigal Son and how the son who was lost came home and the Father threw his arms around that wayward son and welcomed him home.
God has been on the move searching for the lost since the beginning. In Genesis 3:9, when Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit, what did God say? The LORD God asked, “Where are you?” In the calling of Abraham in Genesis 12:3, the LORD blessed Abraham and the nation that arose from him in order that “all the people on earth will be blessed.” The mandate of Israel as seen in Psalm 96:2-3, “Sing to the LORD, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples.”
In Jesus’ life, he had open arms for all peoples. After the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), which some call the Constitution of the Kingdom of God, the great teaching of how to live as kingdom people, whom did Jesus minister to in chapter 8? Right off the bat: a leper, a centurion and Peter’s mother-in-law. These were a mix of quote-unquote “insiders” and “outsiders.” Peter’s mother-in-law was an “insider” since Peter was one of the disciples of Jesus. A centurion is a Roman solider commanding 100, definitely an outsider. In fact, he would be a despised outsider because the Romans oppressed the Jewish people. A leper was an outsider, a feared outsider, because of the dreaded disease. Yet, Jesus reached out to each one.
How about two more examples?
In John 3, Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a top level Jewish leader. In John 4, Jesus talked with a Samaritan woman with an unsavory past. Nicodemus was an insider’s insider. The Samaritan woman was an outsider of an outsider group. Jesus gave grace to both. Jesus gave truth to both.
And so may God give us big hearts and wide arms as we go about our lives day-to-day. May he expand our imagination of who we think might welcome the Good News.
In some cases, it may be asking God to helping us respond when someone unexpectedly interrupts our lives. In other cases, it may be listening to the promptings of the Spirit to invite ourselves more deeply into the life of someone we already know. Lord, fill our hearts with graciousness and ready our minds to share the Good News of who you are and what you have done.
How did this story unfold for me? How did the Shepherd find me?
When I get to meet Jesus at the summation of all things, I hope he shows me the daisy chain that links my life all the way back to Matthew 28:16-20. Because generations of Jesus followers lived up to this Commission, we are here today.
In my case, I can trace the story back to the early 1950s before I was born. A white Southern Baptist missionary had a vision that a church should be planted in Chinatown Los Angeles to reach Chinese people. Chinatown is about eight miles southeast of where we are. The church was planted and had its first meetings in a noodle factory back in the 1950s. Humble beginnings just like us here in Atwater Village.
By the 1970s, there were some kids in a youth group at that church who befriended me at Thomas Starr King Junior High School. That was the school where we joined Enrich LA to do some clean up and gardening a few months back. Those friends eventually invited me to church. And so it began, little baby steps of belonging and believing.
Belonging through friendship, acceptance, and participation in activities at the youth group. Believing through the preaching and teaching of the Word and the life examples of various people who loved Jesus that I met at the church. Little baby steps of belonging and believing, God was at work bringing me to trust in Jesus.
And so over time, the Great Shepherd brought me into his fold and I wanted to follow. It hasn’t been easy but it’s been good.
And since baptism is part of the Great Commission and in good Baptist church fashion, I was encouraged to partake in that sacrament. Just as we partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to say, “I remember what you did,” we partake of baptism to say, “I belong to you.” I was baptized on August 24, 1980. The date is written in a dog-eared copy of one of my old Bibles.
What were some of God’s movements in moving me into this journey?
Certainly, a big part was those who befriended me, accepted me and invited me to church. There were two adults working with the youth group that I got to know. They knew I was a shy nerd science kid who had questions but would be too timid to ask with other people around. And so they listened in some one-to-one conversations. They gave me a space to ask my questions. They offered what answers they had and they had some good ones. But other times, for those unanswerable questions, they just listened. They gave me a space to ask my questions and explore and grow in faith.
There was a well-to-do businessman in the church. He exhibited such joy when he would talk to people and when he would lead singing. He saw his money as a gift from God to be used generously to support humanitarian organizations and Christian missions work. This man taught me about the ways of Jesus by his example.
There was a pastor. I estimate he preached maybe 30 sermons a year over a 7-year period. Throw in a few church camps and youth group talks; I probably heard maybe 250 sermons from him. I may remember perhaps half a dozen specific sermons. But by faithfully opening up the Bible each time he preached, he set an example to me that the Bible contained what God wanted me to know. In the pages of Scripture, truth could be found, wisdom for life could be gained and comfort for difficult times was available. He said preaching is like going to a restaurant where a chef prepares the meal for you. And that is fine and good, but you also need to learn to cook for yourself. He encouraged us to read and mediate on the Scriptures consistently for ourselves and as a result God’s truth slowly works in our lives changing us from the inside.
God is often working slowly in His mysterious way through multiple people in multiple situations. This is how disciple making happens. I would imagine many of the stories in our community are the same.
Reconciliation is slow sledding. The Good News often works quietly and imperceptible to our eyes but not to God’s. The metaphors in Matthew’s gospel tell us that that is how God works. Matthew 5 describes kingdom people as “salt of the earth” and “lanterns not to be hidden.” Matthew 13 describes the kingdom as like “a mustard seed” and “yeast in flour.” These are all plain ordinary things: salt, lanterns, mustard seeds and yeast. But they are purposeful things and they accomplish their purpose usually slowly and almost unnoticed.
Verse 20, And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
As we reflect on the core value of Commission, let us remember God is with us when we go forth. We don’t go forth on our own. Jesus has the power. What we supply is the willingness. The disciples obeyed enough to show up at Galilee. Their hearts were convinced enough to worship. And Jesus commissioned those disciples 2000 years ago and he commissions us today.
The Holy Spirit is with us and gives us power. God is already on the move. A river of life is already flowing out from God. The tide of reconciliation is already flowing and rising. Remember the lightness of being we felt when we experienced forgiveness? Think of how the world seemed totally different when Jesus liberated us from something that chained us down? Recall the joy we had when we first realized that God had welcomed us home?
The Good News of the Gospel can do all this and more. God is already on the move. The question for us is whether we will join him? We need to decide if we want to be a part of what he is already doing and in doing so share in the incredible joy God has when the lost is found.
Our Father, thank you for bringing us home through Jesus. My you renew within us the joy of the salvation you have given us. May we allow the Holy Spirit to have his way in our lives. Help us be people who exhibit grace and truth. Let us be beautiful music to the people we meet and when the time is right to share the lyrics of the Good News. Thank you that you are at already at work. Thank you for inviting us to join you in your work. In Jesus name, amen.
Northland Village Church
Los Angeles, California
October 14, 2012
UPDATE: This presentation is on iTunes podcast! At iTunes, type in "Northland Village Church" and look for Matthew 28.
Thus, at the heart of our church is reconciliation. As a church, our aspiration and goal is to be a channel by which this happens.
We are currently in a teaching series examining the core values of our church as shown in the diagram. Each of the core values point to how God is at work for reconciliation. And today, we will look at the core value of commission.
Reconciling the stories of our neighbors with God’s story through COMMISSION. We are commissioned with God to share in the gospel with our neighbors.
Some of you may be able to anticipate what Scriptural text we will examine today to explore COMMISSION. Some of you may have heard teachings on it before and may have even preached on this text at some point in your life. Nonetheless, may God use our reflections today on this famous and familiar portion of Scripture to encourage and challenge us afresh.
So before we read the text, Matthew 28:16-20, let’s set the stage for when this Word from our Lord was given. This Commission is given after the Resurrection. To help in setting the stage, I’d like to read an extended excerpt from Philip Yancey’s book, “Disappointment With God (pp. 149-150).” I think Yancey has a gift for being able to express the internal dialog that takes place inside characters in the Bible and indeed what I suspect rattles around in our minds today.
On Sunday, wild, crazy rumors shot through the close-knit community of mourners. And then later in the week you saw him. It was true! You touched him with your own hands. Jesus! He had done what no one had done before: he had walked voluntarily into death, and walked back out.... Jesus appeared and disappeared seemingly at will. When he showed up, you listened eagerly to his explanations of what had happened. When he left, you and the others plotted the new kingdom. Think of it: Jerusalem free at last from Roman rule! … Now you’d show them. No one would push you around anymore; no one would push Israel around. Peter, James and John would naturally have the inside track on the top positions, but a kingdom would need many leaders – and, after all, you had followed Jesus for three years…. You waited breathlessly for some sign – a call to arms perhaps, a battle plan….
And what happened next?
As was often the case, the disciples had their own agenda and instead Jesus astonishes them.
And so this happened next.
Matthew 28:16-20
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Church, this is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.
After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to various people at various places. Some occurred in and around the empty tomb; some in and around Jerusalem and indeed, some appearances were in and around Galilee like this episode.
From v. 16, Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
They were in Galilee because Jesus told them to go there. Earlier in Matthew chapter 28, we see these instructions coming from the angel to the women who were at the empty tomb in v. 7. Those directions also come from the resurrected Jesus himself in v. 10. Thus, the women passed the instructions to the disciples and they went to Galilee because they were told to be there.
As for the mountain, we simply don’t know which one. Perhaps it was the same hillside where Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount.
In any case, the disciples were at the designated meeting spot and Jesus showed up, v. 17, When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.
They respond by worshipping Him. Indeed, an entirely proper and understandable response when encountering Jesus. But did you catch that phrase at the end of v. 17?
“But some doubted.”
That really jumped out at me. I wonder if doubting Thomas and I share the same Briggs-Myer profile? In any case, some books I read offered some thoughts on this part of v. 17. One idea is that among the 11, some still had lingering doubts. Another idea is that in addition to the named disciples other disciples were present on this occasion and it was in that group of folks where some doubts resided. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, in a passage where Paul expounds on the validity of the Resurrection, Paul reported that Jesus appeared to more than 500 at one time. Perhaps this was the event when that happened. But in either case, doubt was in the minds of some who where there; whether it was within some of the 11 or in a wider group of disciples.
The other thing we don’t know is the nature of that doubt. The text simply doesn’t say. Some scholars speculate that perhaps the doubt had to do with their ability to recognize Jesus. We simply don’t know how different a resurrected Jesus was to the Jesus they knew before the resurrection. Perhaps, they thought, it looks like Jesus, sounds like Jesus and he is saying things I think Jesus might say, but I’m not sure. Another possibility is that some doubted whether they should really commit themselves to following this plan of Jesus.
Whichever is the case, the text says, “But some doubted.”
Christian writer Frederick Buechner reflected, “If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me.” And Jesus was gracious in giving that room to those doubting disciples. And in this great moment of the Gospel story, Jesus commissioned his disciples even though doubts still tugged within their souls. Does this sound like us in any way?
Just as the disciples went to the designated meeting place, we have come here to church. The disciples upon seeing Jesus worshipped, and we here today have been worshipping. “But some doubted.” Does this sound like us?
Thanks be to God, Jesus still sends us. Will we heed that call? Will we heed this commission?
If we wait to get our lives completely organized, we would never go. If we wait until we get all our theological ducks lined up, we would never share our faith. If we wait until all our educational and financial affairs are in order, we would never take the risks. If we wait for all doubt to disappear, we would never follow.
My prayer is often a variation of Mark 9:24, Lord, I believe; help my unbelief; help me as I go.
Verse 18, And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
This reminded me of Genesis 1:1 which says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The pairing of “heaven and earth” suggests everything everywhere. God created everything everywhere.
Jesus who was at the creation, humbled himself and lived among us in weak human flesh, died a humiliating death on a cross, was victorious over death and vindicated by resurrection, now He has all authority over everything everywhere. And what does he do with that authority? He sends out his disciples to make more disciples. Astounding. The Good News of the gospel is to be delivered by this bickering, bumbling and doubting group of disciples. In other words, people like us.
What do you think of this plan? What would you do if you had this kind of power?
This idea was explored in a humorous way in the 2003 film, Bruce Almighty. If you aren’t familiar with the film, briefly, Jim Carrey played self-centered news reporter Bruce Nolan who is given the powers of God temporarily by God, played by Morgan Freeman. In one scene, God, Morgan Freeman, asked Bruce, so what have you done with my powers? To which Bruce replied, I righted a few wrongs and fixed a few things in my life. Suffice to say, as the film continued, more hilarity and chaos ensued.
What would we do if we had this kind of power?
For the justice minded folks among us, we might have wished for Jesus to throw some thunderbolts against the unrighteous. But it would seem this isn’t God current plan.
One wonders if perhaps, reconciliation is only possible by incarnation?
Jesus, the Word who became flesh, the one filled with grace and truth made his dwelling among us. We call this the incarnation. This process is humbling and slow. He did this so we could come back home to the Father. This is very Good News.
And so Jesus continues His mission of reconciliation by inviting the disciples to continue His mission. Now, we, the church, the body of Christ, are brought into this astounding work. We are to exhibit grace and truth to all nations. We are to bring the Good News to all we meet while we go about our lives.
And so Jesus gave the commission in vv. 19-20: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.
Last week, we heard about the story of the Prodigal Son and how the son who was lost came home and the Father threw his arms around that wayward son and welcomed him home.
God has been on the move searching for the lost since the beginning. In Genesis 3:9, when Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit, what did God say? The LORD God asked, “Where are you?” In the calling of Abraham in Genesis 12:3, the LORD blessed Abraham and the nation that arose from him in order that “all the people on earth will be blessed.” The mandate of Israel as seen in Psalm 96:2-3, “Sing to the LORD, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples.”
In Jesus’ life, he had open arms for all peoples. After the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), which some call the Constitution of the Kingdom of God, the great teaching of how to live as kingdom people, whom did Jesus minister to in chapter 8? Right off the bat: a leper, a centurion and Peter’s mother-in-law. These were a mix of quote-unquote “insiders” and “outsiders.” Peter’s mother-in-law was an “insider” since Peter was one of the disciples of Jesus. A centurion is a Roman solider commanding 100, definitely an outsider. In fact, he would be a despised outsider because the Romans oppressed the Jewish people. A leper was an outsider, a feared outsider, because of the dreaded disease. Yet, Jesus reached out to each one.
How about two more examples?
In John 3, Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a top level Jewish leader. In John 4, Jesus talked with a Samaritan woman with an unsavory past. Nicodemus was an insider’s insider. The Samaritan woman was an outsider of an outsider group. Jesus gave grace to both. Jesus gave truth to both.
And so may God give us big hearts and wide arms as we go about our lives day-to-day. May he expand our imagination of who we think might welcome the Good News.
In some cases, it may be asking God to helping us respond when someone unexpectedly interrupts our lives. In other cases, it may be listening to the promptings of the Spirit to invite ourselves more deeply into the life of someone we already know. Lord, fill our hearts with graciousness and ready our minds to share the Good News of who you are and what you have done.
How did this story unfold for me? How did the Shepherd find me?
When I get to meet Jesus at the summation of all things, I hope he shows me the daisy chain that links my life all the way back to Matthew 28:16-20. Because generations of Jesus followers lived up to this Commission, we are here today.
In my case, I can trace the story back to the early 1950s before I was born. A white Southern Baptist missionary had a vision that a church should be planted in Chinatown Los Angeles to reach Chinese people. Chinatown is about eight miles southeast of where we are. The church was planted and had its first meetings in a noodle factory back in the 1950s. Humble beginnings just like us here in Atwater Village.
By the 1970s, there were some kids in a youth group at that church who befriended me at Thomas Starr King Junior High School. That was the school where we joined Enrich LA to do some clean up and gardening a few months back. Those friends eventually invited me to church. And so it began, little baby steps of belonging and believing.
Belonging through friendship, acceptance, and participation in activities at the youth group. Believing through the preaching and teaching of the Word and the life examples of various people who loved Jesus that I met at the church. Little baby steps of belonging and believing, God was at work bringing me to trust in Jesus.
And so over time, the Great Shepherd brought me into his fold and I wanted to follow. It hasn’t been easy but it’s been good.
And since baptism is part of the Great Commission and in good Baptist church fashion, I was encouraged to partake in that sacrament. Just as we partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to say, “I remember what you did,” we partake of baptism to say, “I belong to you.” I was baptized on August 24, 1980. The date is written in a dog-eared copy of one of my old Bibles.
What were some of God’s movements in moving me into this journey?
Certainly, a big part was those who befriended me, accepted me and invited me to church. There were two adults working with the youth group that I got to know. They knew I was a shy nerd science kid who had questions but would be too timid to ask with other people around. And so they listened in some one-to-one conversations. They gave me a space to ask my questions. They offered what answers they had and they had some good ones. But other times, for those unanswerable questions, they just listened. They gave me a space to ask my questions and explore and grow in faith.
There was a well-to-do businessman in the church. He exhibited such joy when he would talk to people and when he would lead singing. He saw his money as a gift from God to be used generously to support humanitarian organizations and Christian missions work. This man taught me about the ways of Jesus by his example.
There was a pastor. I estimate he preached maybe 30 sermons a year over a 7-year period. Throw in a few church camps and youth group talks; I probably heard maybe 250 sermons from him. I may remember perhaps half a dozen specific sermons. But by faithfully opening up the Bible each time he preached, he set an example to me that the Bible contained what God wanted me to know. In the pages of Scripture, truth could be found, wisdom for life could be gained and comfort for difficult times was available. He said preaching is like going to a restaurant where a chef prepares the meal for you. And that is fine and good, but you also need to learn to cook for yourself. He encouraged us to read and mediate on the Scriptures consistently for ourselves and as a result God’s truth slowly works in our lives changing us from the inside.
God is often working slowly in His mysterious way through multiple people in multiple situations. This is how disciple making happens. I would imagine many of the stories in our community are the same.
Reconciliation is slow sledding. The Good News often works quietly and imperceptible to our eyes but not to God’s. The metaphors in Matthew’s gospel tell us that that is how God works. Matthew 5 describes kingdom people as “salt of the earth” and “lanterns not to be hidden.” Matthew 13 describes the kingdom as like “a mustard seed” and “yeast in flour.” These are all plain ordinary things: salt, lanterns, mustard seeds and yeast. But they are purposeful things and they accomplish their purpose usually slowly and almost unnoticed.
Verse 20, And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
As we reflect on the core value of Commission, let us remember God is with us when we go forth. We don’t go forth on our own. Jesus has the power. What we supply is the willingness. The disciples obeyed enough to show up at Galilee. Their hearts were convinced enough to worship. And Jesus commissioned those disciples 2000 years ago and he commissions us today.
The Holy Spirit is with us and gives us power. God is already on the move. A river of life is already flowing out from God. The tide of reconciliation is already flowing and rising. Remember the lightness of being we felt when we experienced forgiveness? Think of how the world seemed totally different when Jesus liberated us from something that chained us down? Recall the joy we had when we first realized that God had welcomed us home?
The Good News of the Gospel can do all this and more. God is already on the move. The question for us is whether we will join him? We need to decide if we want to be a part of what he is already doing and in doing so share in the incredible joy God has when the lost is found.
Our Father, thank you for bringing us home through Jesus. My you renew within us the joy of the salvation you have given us. May we allow the Holy Spirit to have his way in our lives. Help us be people who exhibit grace and truth. Let us be beautiful music to the people we meet and when the time is right to share the lyrics of the Good News. Thank you that you are at already at work. Thank you for inviting us to join you in your work. In Jesus name, amen.
Northland Village Church
Los Angeles, California
October 14, 2012
UPDATE: This presentation is on iTunes podcast! At iTunes, type in "Northland Village Church" and look for Matthew 28.
Politics: VP debate
First reaction:
Taking into account that almost nobody votes on the basis of a VP debate ... VP Biden clearly got the memo of being more energetic which President Obama apparently missed and so the two clashed repeatedly so in that regard a real debate. But the optics of VP Biden's condescension was distracting.
"Fact" checkers:
On Points:
Biden on Libya was defensive and in essence events on the ground really overshadowed anything he could say. But otherwise, his line of defense of what would you do differently was pretty effective. On economic plans, Biden played the fairness card while Ryan critiqued the sluggish economy of the last 4 years and pushed pro-growth tax proposal. Again, events on the ground will determine which argument carries the day with undecided voters.
Taking into account that almost nobody votes on the basis of a VP debate ... VP Biden clearly got the memo of being more energetic which President Obama apparently missed and so the two clashed repeatedly so in that regard a real debate. But the optics of VP Biden's condescension was distracting.
"Fact" checkers:
As usual both candidates tossed out their share of "numbers" to support their case. They have their briefings down pat. The whole $5 trillion tax cut came around again that was kicked around repeatedly in the debate last week. The debate went into eye glazing repetition about cutting tax rates and reducing deductions. The bottom line is some think tank gave Obama-Biden that talking point saying it is a bad plan and some think tank gave Romney-Ryan the talking point that it is a good plan.
I do wonder if VP Biden's comments on Libya will hold up. My gut reaction was that Biden was trying to shift the blame on that item. We shall see how that story actual shakes out in terms of who knew what and when.
I do wonder if VP Biden's comments on Libya will hold up. My gut reaction was that Biden was trying to shift the blame on that item. We shall see how that story actual shakes out in terms of who knew what and when.
On Points:
Biden on Libya was defensive and in essence events on the ground really overshadowed anything he could say. But otherwise, his line of defense of what would you do differently was pretty effective. On economic plans, Biden played the fairness card while Ryan critiqued the sluggish economy of the last 4 years and pushed pro-growth tax proposal. Again, events on the ground will determine which argument carries the day with undecided voters.
30,000 feet:
Team Obama clearly gave the green light to Biden to go on the attack and stress they are the defenders of the middle class.
Team Obama clearly gave the green light to Biden to go on the attack and stress they are the defenders of the middle class.
Team Romney knew Biden would be on the attack and Ryan's job would to be keep his guard up and fire off a few jabs. The main jab was to highlight that in the last 4 years the economy remains sluggish. The 10% unemployment rate in Scranton, PA was clearly a talking point and highlights that in many places the economy is still not doing well even if the overall national numbers are slowly recovering.
The meme Team Obama wants to push is that Romney-Ryan are if not outright lying are seriously uninformed about what is going on in the economy. This may fire up the base but is risky if undecided voters conclude the meme is wrong making Team Obama seem arrogant and out-of-touch.
The meme Team Obama wants to push is that Romney-Ryan are if not outright lying are seriously uninformed about what is going on in the economy. This may fire up the base but is risky if undecided voters conclude the meme is wrong making Team Obama seem arrogant and out-of-touch.
Politics: Popular vote versus electoral college
In practice, the electoral college rarely diverges from the total popular vote.
The most recent exception was in 2000.
Bush 271 Gore 266 in the electoral college but Gore got about 500,000 more votes out of about 100,000,000 votes cast.
Could something like that happen again in 2012? According to RCP, the map looks like this today.
Since the race is very close in the grey colored states, any margin of victory in those states will add little to the margin of victory in the overall national popular vote.
Hypothetically, in a very extreme example, let's say Romney were to win most of the grey toss-up states by narrow margins of 1,000 to 10,000 votes yielding an electoral college map like this.
According to Geraghty, Obama won California in 2008 by 3.2 million votes.
What if President Obama were to win California again in 2012 by a similar margin but in the rest of the USA, Romney were to win by say 2.2 million votes. Thus, President Obama would win the national popular vote by 1 million votes but lose in the electoral college by the margin hypothesized above.
Which reflects the "will of the people?"
The national popular vote or the electoral college?
In the scenario, described, the narrow national popular vote victory is driven almost exclusively by the wide margin of victory of only one state.
Which reflects the "will of the people?"
Winning the total national popular vote or winning the popular vote in a wider number of states as reflected in the electoral college?
UPDATE: Trende at RCP offers a very detailed analysis on a possible electoral college/popular vote divergence but from the perspective of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. I wonder how the numbers look if Trende ran his numbers under my scenario of Obama racking up huge popular vote wins in big states like California, New York and Illinois but losing narrowly in the key swing states?
UPDATE: This item over at NRO suggests a divergence is unlikely if the popular vote margin is greater than 2%. The previous divergences occurred in 2000 (0.5%), 1888 (0.8%) and 1876 (3%). 1824 was another example but that was an unusual four-candidate race. Trende at RCP describes a study that suggested that 1960 could be another example.
Could something like that happen again in 2012? According to RCP, the map looks like this today.
Since the race is very close in the grey colored states, any margin of victory in those states will add little to the margin of victory in the overall national popular vote.
Hypothetically, in a very extreme example, let's say Romney were to win most of the grey toss-up states by narrow margins of 1,000 to 10,000 votes yielding an electoral college map like this.
According to Geraghty, Obama won California in 2008 by 3.2 million votes.
What if President Obama were to win California again in 2012 by a similar margin but in the rest of the USA, Romney were to win by say 2.2 million votes. Thus, President Obama would win the national popular vote by 1 million votes but lose in the electoral college by the margin hypothesized above.
Which reflects the "will of the people?"
The national popular vote or the electoral college?
In the scenario, described, the narrow national popular vote victory is driven almost exclusively by the wide margin of victory of only one state.
Which reflects the "will of the people?"
Winning the total national popular vote or winning the popular vote in a wider number of states as reflected in the electoral college?
UPDATE: Trende at RCP offers a very detailed analysis on a possible electoral college/popular vote divergence but from the perspective of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. I wonder how the numbers look if Trende ran his numbers under my scenario of Obama racking up huge popular vote wins in big states like California, New York and Illinois but losing narrowly in the key swing states?
UPDATE: This item over at NRO suggests a divergence is unlikely if the popular vote margin is greater than 2%. The previous divergences occurred in 2000 (0.5%), 1888 (0.8%) and 1876 (3%). 1824 was another example but that was an unusual four-candidate race. Trende at RCP describes a study that suggested that 1960 could be another example.
Politics: California Here We Come?
Some people say, the way the USA is going, we will be Greece real soon.
Maybe so.
But the example of national decline can already be seen in the State of California.
Excerpts from VDH:
California may face the nation’s largest budget deficit at $16 billion. It may struggle with the nation’s second-highest unemployment rate at 10.6 percent. It will soon vote whether to levy the nation’s highest income and sales taxes, as if to encourage others to join the 2,000-plus high earners who are leaving the state each week. The new taxes will be our way of saying, “Good riddance.” And if California is home to one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients and the largest number of illegal aliens, it is nonetheless apparently happy and thus solidly for Obama, by a +24 percent margin in the latest Field poll. The unemployment rate in my hometown is 16 percent, the per capita income is $16,000 — and I haven’t seen a Romney sticker yet. ............. Although the state is facing a $16 billion annual budgetary shortfall, Governor Brown is determined to press ahead with high-speed rail — estimated to cost eventually over $200 billion. Such is his zeal that he intends to override the environmental lawsuits that usually stymie private projects for years. ............. On any given day, beautiful weather, the Pacific Coast, and the majestic Sierra Nevada are trumped by released felons, $5-a-gallon gas, and a 1970 infrastructure crumbling beneath a crowded 2012 state. There are many lessons from California. One is that the vision of the present administration is already here — and it simply does not work.
Maybe so.
But the example of national decline can already be seen in the State of California.
Excerpts from VDH:
California may face the nation’s largest budget deficit at $16 billion. It may struggle with the nation’s second-highest unemployment rate at 10.6 percent. It will soon vote whether to levy the nation’s highest income and sales taxes, as if to encourage others to join the 2,000-plus high earners who are leaving the state each week. The new taxes will be our way of saying, “Good riddance.” And if California is home to one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients and the largest number of illegal aliens, it is nonetheless apparently happy and thus solidly for Obama, by a +24 percent margin in the latest Field poll. The unemployment rate in my hometown is 16 percent, the per capita income is $16,000 — and I haven’t seen a Romney sticker yet. ............. Although the state is facing a $16 billion annual budgetary shortfall, Governor Brown is determined to press ahead with high-speed rail — estimated to cost eventually over $200 billion. Such is his zeal that he intends to override the environmental lawsuits that usually stymie private projects for years. ............. On any given day, beautiful weather, the Pacific Coast, and the majestic Sierra Nevada are trumped by released felons, $5-a-gallon gas, and a 1970 infrastructure crumbling beneath a crowded 2012 state. There are many lessons from California. One is that the vision of the present administration is already here — and it simply does not work.
Politics: Debate #1
Impressions:
Style points
President Obama seemed low on energy and repetitive.
Gov. Romney seemed more energetic and organized.
"Fact" checkers
Both candidates tossed out their share of "numbers" to support their case. Without a doubt those numbers were handed to them by some staffer who found it from some think tank. Thus, the number has some basis but may be "half-true" due to how that think tank looked at the data. So unless there is a proven "whopper" the "fact" checking game is pretty pointless.
30,000 feet
President Obama's case seems to be we are making some progress on the economy and more government intervention will make it better so re-elect me.
Gov. Romney's case seems to be that the economy is very sluggish and it is government intervention that is holding it back and I can do better than the last four years.
All the talk of Romney "won" is overblown. Let's not get crazy. As in baseball, can't get too high or too low.
I think the problem is that the media pundits have seen all the negative ads run against Romney and they themselves highlight any actual or perceived mis-statement on his part. So they basically thought Romney was going to stumble and bumble on stage and be robotic. Instead, he came across as in command and accessible so the pundits were just stunned by how much Romney "exceeded" expectations.
You can be sure President Obama will be more prepared in the next debate and the media will redouble their efforts to knock Romney down.
In a sense the race has hit the reset button.
Style points
President Obama seemed low on energy and repetitive.
Gov. Romney seemed more energetic and organized.
"Fact" checkers
Both candidates tossed out their share of "numbers" to support their case. Without a doubt those numbers were handed to them by some staffer who found it from some think tank. Thus, the number has some basis but may be "half-true" due to how that think tank looked at the data. So unless there is a proven "whopper" the "fact" checking game is pretty pointless.
30,000 feet
President Obama's case seems to be we are making some progress on the economy and more government intervention will make it better so re-elect me.
Gov. Romney's case seems to be that the economy is very sluggish and it is government intervention that is holding it back and I can do better than the last four years.
All the talk of Romney "won" is overblown. Let's not get crazy. As in baseball, can't get too high or too low.
I think the problem is that the media pundits have seen all the negative ads run against Romney and they themselves highlight any actual or perceived mis-statement on his part. So they basically thought Romney was going to stumble and bumble on stage and be robotic. Instead, he came across as in command and accessible so the pundits were just stunned by how much Romney "exceeded" expectations.
You can be sure President Obama will be more prepared in the next debate and the media will redouble their efforts to knock Romney down.
In a sense the race has hit the reset button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)