Family is the first school says Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos

Before entering the pulpit, I was certified as a teacher both in Illinois and in Nebraska. Teacher training inculcated the principle that teachers are “in loco parentis,” that is, in the place of parents. Teaching is an extension of the home, not a replacement of it.

While myriad faithful teachers work with parents in wholesome cooperation, too often evil cultural forces co-opt the classroom to undermine parental values. The Bible is mocked. The family is undermined. America’s worldview, oriented toward a transcendent God, is replaced by a worldview where random chance creates nothing of meaning, goodness or purpose.

Recently, Betsy DeVos, secretary of the U.S. Department of Education identified the French Revolution as the source of these cultural forces. It spawned the “view that education was a responsibility of government – not of parents.” Her recent speech at Hillsdale College got my attention.

“Let’s begin by reasserting this fundamental truth: the family is the ‘first school,’” said DeVos. “Many in Washington think that, because of their power there, they can make decisions for parents everywhere. In that troubling scenario, the school building replaces the home, the child becomes a pawn, and the state replaces the family.”

In Washington, money is power—and the Department of Education controls $68 billion annually. Since its inception in 1980, it has spent over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. By distributing money with strings, it drowns out the educational choices of parents in favor of multinational corporations and special interests, politicians and unions.

That inversion of priorities is what she wants to change. “When I took on this role, I said from day one that I’d like to work myself out of a job,” DeVos said. That means empowering parents, not politicians. “Our schools exist because we pay for them,” she said. Therefore, “I fight against anyone who would have government be the parent to everyone.”

Drawing on her own Dutch heritage, DeVos spoke about the legacy of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). In the wake of the French Revolution its impulse to displace the family with government influenced Dutch law. Education became the responsibility of the government alone—to the exclusion of parents.

Kuyper came to the defense of Dutch parents and criticized the government that “claimed the right to set up the school for all children.” To the contrary, DeVos said, “the education of children is within the family’s sphere, so parents are ‘called’ to ‘determine the choice of school’ for their children.”

Kuyper worked for 43 years to return control of education dollars from the government to parents. Finally, in 1917, “Dutch families won a constitutional amendment,” said DeVos, “which gave children’s futures back to parents. And today, they are in control of their education dollars to pay for their kids to attend the schools of their choosing.” This is the legacy that she wants for America as well.

Readers of this column may remember 1917 as the very same year when the Communists in Mexico took over Roman Catholic schools and outlawed all religious education. In that same year, 1917, the Bolsheviks seized all the educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church. Government control of is a totalitarian theme.

DeVos understands that school choice lies at the very heart of human freedom. So do parents. A September survey from RealClear Opinion Research found that three out of four registered voters want school choice. This is a non-partisan issue. Independents (73%), Democrats (72%) and Republicans (76%) all agree.

Parents of students in both public schools (78%) and private schools (79%), are equally interested in school choice. DeVos is not so much pushing an agenda as riding a wave. “If we get the family and its freedom right, everything else that’s wrong about our culture will right itself. Rebuild the family, restore its power, and we will reclaim everything right about America, and us."

That is why the Department of Education actively supports the bipartisan School Choice Now Act. “At the end of the day,” said DeVos, “we want parents to have the freedom, the choices, and the funds to make the best decisions for their children.”

The department also fought alongside the families of Montana all the way to the Supreme Court. In June they won the Espinoza v. Montana case. This case struck down the anti-religious “Blaine Amendments” designed to require parents who want a choice in education to pay twice. First, they have to pay for a public education, which they don’t want. Then, they have to pay again for the education of their choosing.

American families, with one voice, are demanding freedom to regain control over educational dollars. They know that a free society begins with educational freedom. Secretary DeVos is listening and responding. Will Wyoming’s legislators and educators join her?

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 30, 2020.

Betsy DeVos tells Hillsdale College its time to “Go Dutch”

Hillsdale College

Concordia Teachers College in River Forest, Illinois (now Concordia University—Chicago) is the oldest college of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. From it, I graduated with a B.A. in Education and was certified to teach in the state of Illinois. Later, I would also be certified by the state of Nebraska. Although my path led to the pulpit rather than the classroom, I have never forgotten those roots.

Concordia Teachers College inculcated in her students a fundamental rule of education: teachers teach “in loco parentis,” that is, in the place of parents. Every time a teacher sets foot in the classroom he or she serves in the place of parents. Teachers should not push their own agenda, but that of the parents who entrust to them their children. That makes teaching a sacred trust. It is an extension of the home, not a replacement of it.

CUC Administration Building

This fundamental rule is rarely observed these days. Too often evil cultural forces co-opt the classroom to undermine the values that students are learning at home. The Bible is mocked. The “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” is disrupted. America’s worldview, oriented toward a transcendent God, is replaced by a worldview where random chance creates nothing of meaning, goodness or purpose.

This is not an indictment of the myriad faithful teachers who work with parents to build up (educate) students in both mind and spirit. It is rather, the result of educational decisions that are made without the input of either parent or teacher. It was the French Revolution that introduced the “view that education was a responsibility of government – not of parents,” according to Betsy DeVos, secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

The further removed from the parent-child relationship, the less likely educational choices will serve in loco parentis. You don’t get much further removed than the U.S. Department of Education. So, what DeVos said at Hillsdale College on October 19 turned heads. When the head of a $68-billion bureaucracy speaks like this, she deserves our attention.

Betsy DeVos, Secretary US ED

“Let’s begin by reasserting this fundamental truth: the family is the ‘first school,’” she said, as a foremost principle. “Many in Washington, think that because of their power there, they can make decisions for parents everywhere. In that troubling scenario, the school building replaces the home, the child becomes a pawn, and the state replaces the family.” In Washington, money is power—and the Department of Education throws around a lot of it.

DeVos reminded the audience that the department she heads is the youngest cabinet level department. It only began operation in 1980. In 40 years, it has spent over a trillion dollars of federal taxpayer money. What is the focus of that spending? According to DeVos, it is not students. “It’s on rules and regulations. Staff and standards. Spending and strings. On protecting the ‘system.’”

That inversion of priorities is what she is working to change. “When I took on this role, I said from day one that I’d like to work myself out of a job.” That means empowering parents, not politicians. “Our schools exist because we pay for them,” she said. Therefore, “we should be empowered to spend our education dollars our way on our kids.”

She developed this simple principle throughout the speech. The way to improve our education system is to return control of education dollars to the parents of those being educated. It is through this lens that DeVos’ tenure at the Department of Education should be judged. She wishes not merely to improve the way the department spends money. Her intent is to change who spends the money.

Drawing on her own Dutch heritage, DeVos explained how Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) repaired the education system in the Netherlands and how his work is a model of her own approach. As noted above, the French Revolution introduced the notion that education is the responsibility of the government alone—to the exclusion of parents. From Paris, this idea spread like a virus. Before long, the government in The Hague was importing it into law.

Dutch parents became increasingly unhappy with a government that “claimed the right to set up the school for all children.” This system, said Kuyper, “summons [their] children from [their] homes yet increasingly erases every distinctive feature of families” and “provides uniform guidance to every child.”

Kuyper took the antithetical position. As DeVos explained it: “the education of children is within the family’s sphere, so parents are ‘called’ to ‘determine the choice of school’ for their children.” Elected to parliament in 1874, a central pursuit of Kuyper’s advocacy for parents revolved around the equalization of parent-controlled schools with government-controlled schools.

It took 43 years to accomplish, but in the end “Dutch families won a constitutional amendment in 1917 which gave children’s futures back to parents,” said DeVos. “And today, they are in control of their education dollars to pay for their kids to attend the schools of their choosing.”

As if to punctuate the importance of parental choice in the education of free people, 1917 was the very same year when the Communists in Mexico took over Roman Catholic schools and outlawed all religious education. It was also the year when, within days of taking power, the Bolsheviks seized all the educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Against this backdrop of history, how does DeVos plan to revitalize American education? She hears “a mighty chorus, rising in volume and urgency, supporting parental ‘school choice.’” According to a September survey from RealClear Opinion Research, three out of four registered voters want school choice. This includes, “73 percent of black families and 71 percent of Hispanic families.”

It is also a non-partisan issue. Independents (73%), Democrats (72%) and Republicans (76%) all agree. Parents of students in public schools (78%) want school choice practically as much as the parents of privately-run schools (79%). DeVos is not so much pushing an agenda as riding a wave. In her estimation, “‘School choice’ is not a matter of ‘if,’ it’s a matter of ‘when.’”

DeVos said, “If we get the family and its freedom right, everything else that’s wrong about our culture will right itself. Rebuild the family, restore its power, and we will reclaim everything right about America, and us."

Senator Tim Scott, South Carolina

DeVos wants to work herself out of a job. Toward this end, the Department of Education actively supports the bipartisan School Choice Now Act. This legislation “would directly fund families and empower them to choose the best educational setting for their children.”

The department also fought alongside the families of Montana all the way to the Supreme Court. In June they won the Espinoza v. Montana case. This case struck down the anti-religious “Blaine Amendments” designed to require parents who want a choice in education to pay twice. First, they have to pay for a public education, which they don’t want. Then, they have to pay again for the education of their choosing.

Parents across America, and across Wyoming, are seeing their educational preferences pushed aside as much by multinational corporations and special interests as by politicians and unions. Families are rising up with one voice to regain control over educational dollars. Educational freedom serves children and families. And it preserves freedom for all.

Secretary DeVos is listening and responding. Will Wyoming’s legislators and educators join her?

WTE: Anonymous attacks on a Wyoming church are deeply wrong

An anonymous attacker has published threats against Open Door Church in Gillette, Wyoming. Letters addressed to the secretary of state and to Gillette media outlets claim to have filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and urge multiple government agencies and media outlets to harass the church with investigations. The author even attempts to discourage members to give offerings.

And what has Open Door Church done to deserve this financial terrorism? It opened its doors to an event that was shut out of the local public library. Four local churchgoers running for office publicly signed a campaign pledge in an event that was neither endorsed nor hosted by the church.

This, claimed the anonymous author, “was conducted in a religious institution subject to non-profit status.” Note the word, “subject.” In this twisted worldview, non-profit status subjugates churches to the government. The letter goes on to claim: “They acquire this [non-profit] status by promising not to engage in certain political lobbying or campaigning.” This expresses an astounding ignorance of federal law.

Non-profit status is not “acquired” by churches. It is—and always has been a pre-political reality. Just as human beings have “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” because they are human beings, and not by governmental fiat, so also American churches are exempt from taxes by virtue of their being churches and not by the grace of the government.

Perhaps the author was confused by the so-called “Johnson Amendment.” In 1954, future president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was upset that some churches in Texas openly opposed his election to the Senate. So, he sponsored retaliatory legislation that inserted a condition into IRS code. It says that non-profit corporations must “not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

In the 66 years since the amendment became law, the IRS has never even attempted to enforce it. In 2008, multiple churches sought to precipitate a challenge in open court. Ministers recorded sermons endorsing specific candidates and sent them to the IRS. They knew that any court would strike down the Johnson Amendment as unconstitutional. The IRS’ Exempt Organizations Unit —even under Lois Lerner’s infamous directorship—did nothing.

The Johnson Amendment is like an unloaded gun in the arsenal of anti-religious activists. Pointed at any church, it has massive power to intimidate—loaded or not. This is exactly how it is being used in Gillette. Prosecuting attorneys call it “assault with a deadly weapon” even if the gun is not loaded.

Even if a church endorses candidates for public office, federal law has no power or right to tax it. Recently, Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair, Trey Trainor, took to the airwaves to make this clear. He said that, “religious organizations needed to be treated the same as every other organization. The Johnson Amendment is still on the books but, with lack of enforcement authority by the executive agency, it’s a law that’s not going to be enforced.”

According to Trainor, “the test that the Department of the Treasury uses now is: ‘If that same speech would come from a non-religious organization, could it be prosecuted?’” He continues: “Clearly it would be First-Amendment activity for any other organization to engage in. And, therefore, the church should be able to engage in it.”

Of course, wise and faithful churches will limit their own speech to matters clearly addressed by the Holy Scriptures. Politicizing the Gospel is an affront to God and an abuse of His word. But silence on plain biblical teaching is also an affront to God. This is not only true of topics like abortion and sexuality. It is also true of specific government officials from King Ahab in the Old Testament to Herod Antipas in the New.

The U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of churches to perform these duties and to decide these matters of doctrine. The government has no competence or authority to instruct churches about where they should draw the line.

Not only is the government forbidden to criminalize the church’s speech, it is also forbidden to suppress it through financial pressure. President Trump’s executive order specifically forbids “the imposition of any tax or tax penalty,” as well as “the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit or benefit.”

Attempts to intimidate churches into silence are despicable and shameful. Whether masked rioters are burning buildings, or anonymous assaulters are threatening financial ruin, the evil is the same. Churches are free to be faithful to God’s word. On this, we should all agree.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 23, 2020.

Anonymous attacks on a Wyoming church are deeply wrong

The hate-fueled riots of the past four months have left scores of churches vandalized, torched and desecrated. When war is waging in the streets, it is an especially dark kind of evil that targets people and institutions dedicated to the Prince of Peace.

Last summer’s rash of attacks on church property thankfully spared Wyoming churches. However, the same destructive hate visited our state in a different form. An anonymous attacker has published threats against Open Door Church in Gillette, Wyoming.

In letters addressed to the secretary of state, the governor, the attorney general, and to numerous media outlets in Gillette—along with the unsubstantiated threat of a filing a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—the author is urging multiple government agencies and media outlets to harass the church with investigations. Threatening the tax-exempt status of a church, the letter writer’s obvious intent is to close the doors of Open Door Church. He or she even goes so far as to address members of the church directly, insinuating that they should withhold offerings.

All of this is an over-the-top bid to intimidate the church into silence. Why? What has it done to deserve this financial terrorism? When COVID closed the public library to an event featuring local churchgoers running for public office, Open Door Church opened its doors to them to use its facility. Even though it was not an official church event, the anonymous letter writer would like to burn it down.

The spurious basis for this attack is that the appearance of four candidates for public office, “was conducted in a religious institution subject to non-profit status.” Note the word, “subject.” In this twisted view of the world, non-profit status subjugates churches to the government. It gets worse. The letter goes on to claim: “They acquire this [non-profit] status by promising not to engage in certain political lobbying or campaigning.”

In these two sentences, the anonymous letter writer expresses an astounding ignorance of federal laws governing the relationship of churches to the state. First, non-profit status is not “acquired” by churches. It is—and always has been—a pre-political reality—just as human beings have “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” because they are human beings, and not because the government grants it to them. So also, churches are exempt from taxes by virtue of their being churches and not from the conditional largess of the government. Churches in communist regimes are required to make promises as a condition of recognition. Churches in America are not.

The anonymous author can, perhaps, be excused for his ignorance because of the confusion introduced by the so-called “Johnson Amendment.” In 1954, future president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, introduced retaliatory legislation into the United States Senate.

Johnson was upset that some churches in Texas openly opposed his re-election bid. So, he persuaded his colleagues to insert a condition into IRS code for 501(c)3 corporations that stipulated they, “not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

This language, limiting the speech of any church that incorporates under paragraph 501(c)3, is obviously unconstitutional. For this reason, in 66 years, it has never been enforced. Not only has no court of law ever stripped a church of 501(c)3 status for violating this amendment, the IRS itself has never once taken a church to court.

Despite its obvious unconstitutionality, legislators have not repealed the amendment. Therefore, in a bid to challenge it in court, Pulpit Freedom Sunday was organized in the summer of 2008. Numerous ministers preached sermons that endorsed specific candidates. These sermons were recorded and sent to the IRS inviting a legal challenge. The IRS—even under the infamous directorship of Lois Lerner—refused to enforce the amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is not lawful, but it is a useful cudgel against religious voices. As long as it remains on the books, the mere threat of litigation can be used to intimidate churches into silence on the issues and candidates of the day. This is exactly how it is being used in Gillette. The anonymous letter writer is figuratively pointing a gun at Open Door Church in order to silence it. Whether he knows that it is an empty gun, or is misinformed enough to think it is loaded, it is still an assault on the church.

To be clear, even if a church officially hosts candidates for public office, it is not in violation of the law. Lest there be any doubt about this, Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair, Trey Trainor, took to the airwaves on September 15.

He noted that, “One of the first things he [President Trump] did when he came into office in 2017 was issue an executive order to the Department of the Treasury, telling them that they could no longer enforce that provision of the law and that religious organizations needed to be treated the same as every other organization. The Johnson Amendment is still on the books but, with lack of enforcement authority by the executive agency, it’s a law that’s not going to be enforced.”

Key to understanding why the Johnson Amendment is unenforceable is the phrase, “treated the same as every other organization.” According to Trainor, “the test that the Department of the Treasury uses now is: ‘If that same speech would come from a non-religious organization, could it be prosecuted?’” He goes on to answer his own question. “Clearly it would be First-Amendment activity for any other organization to engage in. And, therefore, the church should be able to engage in it.”

The entire interview is well worth listening to. Trainor explains that modern notions of the “separation of church and state” are clearly contrary to the First Amendment. Neither the text nor the intent of the U.S. Constitution can be construed as a prohibition of the church speaking to the state. The entire thrust of the Constitution is to prevent the state from interfering in the speech or activity of the church.

Of course, wise and faithful churches will limit their own speech to matters clearly delineated by the Holy Scriptures. They know that politicizing the Gospel is an affront to God and an abuse of His word. But they also know that it is an affront to God to avoid plain biblical teaching that confronts the rulers of this age. This is not only true of topics like abortion and sexuality. It is also true of specific rulers like Nebuchadnezzar and Herod Antipas.

The U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of churches to perform these duties and to decide these matters of doctrine. The government has no competence or authority to instruct churches about where they should draw these lines.

Not only is the government forbidden to criminalize the church’s speech, it is also forbidden to dampen it through financial pressure. That’s why the executive order specifically forbids “the imposition of any tax or tax penalty,” as well as “the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit or benefit.”

In this political season, especially, churches should be assured that they are free to be faithful to God’s word without the threat of financial penalties. Attempts to intimidate churches into silence are despicable and shameful. No wonder the attacker is ashamed to sign his name.

WTE: Privilege is both a gift and a responsibility

It is a privilege to be alive! You did not ask to be here. You had no say in the matter. But here you are. You have parents you did not choose. You have a birthday that you did not ask for. All these unmerited privileges, and more, define you.

The central fact about privilege is that you have done nothing to deserve it. It comes unbidden. Some may envy you for your privileges, others may thank God that they were not born in your shoes. But nobody can change places with you. Your privileges are yours alone to use—either for good or for ill.

Being born is the first and foremost privilege. Not everyone has it. Every day in America 2,362 children are aborted before they are born. You are alive today because you are privileged to have a mother who carried you to birth.

You live in the year 2020. You didn’t choose this time. It chose you. You live in America where millions of people around the globe want to be. Living in America, and particularly in Wyoming, is an undeserved privilege.

A person’s home life is also a privilege of birth. Married, biological parents give a life-long advantage to those lucky enough to have them. They impart both emotional and material advantages.

Your parents also introduced you to your faith and taught you a worldview. They determined the neighborhood where you grew up. This, in turn, contributed to the way you view neighbors and authorities. It also influenced the quality of your education.

As we look at our privileges, we notice two things: first, we had no control over them; second, they make us different from other people. Sometimes the differences are advantageous, sometimes disadvantageous. How shall we think about this? And what shall we do?

There are two ways of approaching privilege. One is to envy other people for the advantages they have, and that you don’t. We can dwell on disadvantages that we did nothing to deserve. This will make us bitter and envious but cannot change our situation. It only blinds us to the advantages that we do have.

The other option is to focus on the advantages. Thank God for the privileges that you do have. The fact that you are alive, that you have people in your life who love you and that you have opportunities to work and love and care are also privileges that you do not deserve. They are pure gifts. They are not the same gifts that others have. But they are yours and they are priceless.

In thankfulness for these undeserved gifts, how shall we use them? Love for our neighbor calls us to extend advantageous privileges to as many as possible. It impels us to work at preventing circumstances that bring disadvantages to others.

That starts with life. We should be working together to give more and more people the privilege of being born. Because life is a gift, being pro-life is a duty. Similarly, because we can clearly see the privilege of those from stable homes and married parents, we should all work together to support and strengthen every marriage and every home.

We can also see that a good relationship with teachers, neighbors, police and other authorities gives some people privileges over others. For this reason, we should be working together to improve every person’s relationship with these people.

Because it is simply impossible to live in this world without knowing the truth about how it works, we are duty bound to keep science free from crippling ideologies. To live in a society with truthful education is a privilege that should be extended to all.

Most of all, it is a privilege to know the God who freely gives all these gifts. For that reason, we should all be in the business of promoting true religion. Study God’s Word. Support your church. Encourage others to learn. Fight for policies that make it easier—not harder—to live in faith.

Future generations will look at us and see all the undeserved privileges that we had. They will also judge how we used them.

Will they say that we used our privileges to create privileges for them? Or will they say that we squandered our privileges in selfish policies that disadvantaged them? We, the born, should help others have that same privilege. Those with privileged home life should work with those who do not to create the privilege of stable homes for the next generation.

You have been born for this moment. See it for the privilege that it is. Thank God that He has given you such a grand opportunity. Then use your privilege for your neighbor. That’s why God gave it.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, October 16, 2020.

 

Privilege is both a gift and a responsibility

It is a great time to be alive! You have been born for this moment.

Did you ever look back in history and wish that you had been there? Some want to return to simpler times. They fantasize about living in the wild west, the Victorian era, or the days of Jesus. By such daydreams they long to enjoy the advantages of other times and places.

There are other reasons to wish that we had been there. When we contemplate pivotal events in world history—especially those that have brought great harm to the world—we could wish that we had been there to make a difference. We criticize the German people for allowing the Nazis to take power. Had we been there, we hope, we would have stood against Hitler and his henchmen.

We can also criticize America’s past and say, “Had I lived in the 1800s, I would have opposed America’s injustices toward native tribes, or risked my life to end slavery.” Perhaps we harshly judge the people of Jesus’ day and convince ourselves that, had we been there, we would have stood up and defended Him.

However we might fantasize, one thing remains true: We were not privileged to be there. Rather, it is our privilege to be here. We did not ask to be here. We had no say in the matter. But here we are.

One day, our progeny will look back on our times and think about us as we think about past generations. Will future people long to be here for the advantages that we have? Or will they wish they could come back and make better decisions and undo some great evil that we unleashed?

Whatever they may think about how this generation handled its privilege, they will not be able to take it from us. It is ours, and ours alone to administer and manage. The central fact about privilege is that you have it before you have made any choices or done anything to deserve it. It simply comes.

Others may envy you for your privileges or thank God that they were not born in your shoes. But nobody can change places with you. Your privileges are yours alone to use—either for good or for ill. That is why it's good to take stock of them. When you do, you find that you have more than you know.

Being born is the first and foremost privilege. Not everyone has it. Every day in America 2,362 children are aborted before they are born. You are alive today because you are privileged to have a mother who carried you to birth.

We have already noted that you live in the year 2020, but you are also living in America. Chances are, that is a privilege too. Millions of people around the globe want to be here. But, they cannot afford to come, are forbidden by their own governments from doing so or cannot get a visa. Living in America, and particularly in Wyoming, is an undeserved privilege.

Think also about your home life. Those who grew up in a household where their biological parents were married have another undeserved privilege. This gave them both emotional and material advantages that are hard to quantify. How can you thank God enough for a childhood of emotional stability? Your parents gave you an example that not everyone has. They introduced you to your faith and imparted to you a worldview.

The decisions of your parents also determined the sorts of neighbors you had and the relative safety of your streets. These contributed to the way you view authorities and influenced the quality of your education. They even determined your experiences of nature and your attitude toward the land and the things living on it.

As we look at our privileges, we notice two things: first, we did nothing to deserve them; second, they make us different from other people. Sometimes the differences are advantageous, sometimes disadvantageous. How shall we think about this? And what shall we do?

There are two ways of approaching privilege. One is to envy other people for the advantages they have, and that you don’t. We can dwell on disadvantages and stew about the fact that we did nothing to deserve them. In this way we can become bitter and envious. This approach does nothing to change our situation, but it does much to blind us to the advantages that we do have.

The other option is to focus on the advantages. Thank God for the privileges that you do have. The fact that you are alive, that you have people in your life who love you and that you have opportunities to work and love and care are all privileges that you do not deserve. They are pure gifts. They are not the same gifts that others have. Some have more, some have fewer. But they are valuable gifts, nonetheless.

Once we have thanked God for these undeserved gifts, what shall we do with them? One answer is immediately clear. Out of love for our neighbor, we should work to extend every advantageous privilege to an ever-widening circle. Likewise, we should do everything in our power to prevent other people from suffering under disadvantages.

That starts with life. We should be working together to give more and more people the gift of being born. If life is a privilege, being pro-life is a duty. Similarly, because we can clearly see the privilege of those from stable homes and married parents, we should all work together to support and strengthen every marriage and every home.

We can also see that a good relationship with teachers, neighbors, police and other authorities gives some people privileges over others. For this reason, we should be working together to improve every person’s relationship with these people. It is a duty of love.

Because it is simply impossible to live in this world without knowing the truth about how it works, we are duty bound to keep the disciplines of astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics and psychology free from crippling ideologies. Plain facts about the world should not be stifled or perverted for the sake of advancing ideologies. To live in a society with truthful education is a privilege that should be extended to all.

Most of all, we can clearly see the privilege of knowing the God who gives all these privileges before we even thought to ask for them. For that reason, we should all be in the business of teaching the truth about God. That means studying His Word and supporting our own church. It also means encouraging others to learn and making it easier—not harder—to live out this faith.

Privilege is a two-way street. None of us deserves to have any of it. All of us can help extend it to others. Future generations will look at us and see all the undeserved privileges that we had. They will also know how we used them.

Will they say that we used them to provide even more for their generation? Or will they say that we deprived them of similar privileges? Will they say that we extended stable homes and a true worldview to an ever-expanding circle of our neighbors? Or will they say that we selfishly allowed millions to die or to be raised in broken homes when we could have worked to prevent it?

You have been born for this moment. See it for the privilege that it is. Thank God that He has given you such a grand opportunity. Then use your privilege for your neighbor. That’s why God gave it.

WTE: Christians consider authorities to be gifts from God

In recent months, Romans 13 has received a great deal of attention. While this chapter is too great to cover completely, let’s walk through a few of its most important teachings.  

Paul begins, “Let every soul be subject unto the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whosoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God. and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:1-2).

We should notice, first, that Paul puts submission to authority as the first priority. It is the foundation stone of a godly life. God himself has created human beings to live in hierarchies. To be godly people requires recognition that God puts us in relationships of authority and humility. To live in insubordination brings harm (judgment) to ourselves.

Second, know that authorities are not only presidents and governors. God-ordained relationships also include parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and students, police and citizens. Authority is not oppression, and subordination is not being oppressed. On the contrary, humbling ourselves before authority that has been ordained by God is empowering. And authorities that recognize the source of their power are necessarily humble.

Third, St. Paul reminds us that God gives authority for our good. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:3-4).

Government is not merely a “necessary evil.” It is a divine and blessed gift. That’s why Christians thank God for presidents, governors, husbands, parents, teachers and police. We don’t only thank God when they do what we want. We thank him for their very existence.

Fourth, we also recognize that they have a God-given responsibility. When they execute their office according to God’s command, it not only benefits us, it benefits them. Christians pray, “May all that receive the sword as Thy ministers bear it according to Thy commandment.” We do this not only for our own sake, but also for their benefit. We ask God’s blessing upon them as persons.

Fifth, authorities are persons. We must never lose sight of that. The great evil of vitriolic “identity politics” is that people seek to dehumanize political opponents. Those who get caught up in this evil, never succeed in dehumanizing their targets. They do, however, dehumanize themselves. Christians must fight against this evil by praying constantly for all those in authority.

Sixth, the current political ugliness has another consequence as well. Those under our own authority learn from our attitudes toward others. That is why we see—across the board—a widespread disrespect for authority. Students are rude and disobedient toward teachers. Children disrespect parents. This will not be reversed unless we learn to treat state and national authorities with honor and dignity.

“Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake” (Rom. 13:5). The unbelieving world grudgingly submits to authority only as much as necessary to escape punishment. Christians have a completely different attitude. We consider authorities as gifts from God. We help and support them with kindly advice, patience, deference, and fervent prayer.

We know that they are crowned by Jesus Christ, the One who Himself was crowned with thorns and rules over all the kingdoms of this world.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on October 9, 2020.

 

Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children

President Trump recently signed an “Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children.” The September 25 Order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, to implement “the policy of the United States to recognize the human dignity and inherent worth of every newborn or other infant child, regardless of prematurity or disability, and to ensure for each child due protection under the law.” The policy is not new, but the ramifications of its enforcement are far reaching.

In 1999, Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, became the epicenter of a scandal that rocked the nation. The hospital, operated jointly by the United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was placed under formal investigation by the Illinois Department of Health after nurse, Jill Stanek, testified before congress that babies who survived abortions there were left to die unattended in a “utility room.”

As the scandal grew to implicate other hospitals, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was passed by voice vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush, on August 5, 2002.

BAIPA simply says that “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress [etc.], the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” The President’s Executive Order applies this law to two specific acts of congress.

For 34 years, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) has required health care facilities to offer the full range of life-saving care that they have available to every individual regardless of circumstances. The Executive Order instructs the HHS to make sure that these facilities apply this 1986 law to “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”

Emergency medical treatment should apply this same standard of care to children born-alive regardless of how premature, or whether the birth was spontaneous or induced. In the same way, babies with disabilities should receive equal treatment. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discriminating against disabled people “in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The Executive Order specifies that children born with disabilities like spina bifida and Trisomy—even if premature—are equally protected under the Act.

These directives became necessary, according to the Order, because “some hospitals refuse the required medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or otherwise do not provide potentially lifesaving medical treatment to extremely premature or disabled infants, even when parents plead for such treatment.” This is not a hypothetical statement.

HHS secretary Azar reported that “in May 2020, HHS determined that an Ohio hospital had failed in 2017 to ensure medical screening examinations required by EMTALA were performed for twins born prematurely (at 22 weeks gestation) who were not sent to the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit and died within several hours after delivery.”

Emery, the first-born, lived unattended for 45 minutes after he was born.  On a video which has been deleted by YouTube his mother, Amanda Finnefrock, can be heard crying and pleading with the hospital staff to give emergency care to her dying son.

Elliot, the second-born and larger twin, survived for over two hours breathing on his own. Despite Amanda’s pleading, the hospital did nothing. After he died, she can be heard crying, “Mommy tried. Mommy tried.” The HHS Office of Civil Rights is also investigating this incident for civil rights violations.

In addition to specific violations, the Order also found that: “Hospitals might refuse to provide treatment to extremely premature infants — born alive before 24 weeks of gestation — because they believe these infants may not survive, may have to live with long-term disabilities, or may have a quality-of-life deemed to be inadequate.”

This excuse, cited by President Trump’s Executive Order as a clear violation of EMTALA and the Rehabilitation Act, echoes the justification that Governor Gordon gave for his veto of SF 97 “Born alive infant-means of care.” In his veto letter, Gordon wrote, “This bill would eliminate the opportunity for a child to pass away in the loving arms of its parents, rather it would require that a child be removed from those loving parents and placed in a situation where the child might still pass away...” Just because a child “may not survive,” is no reason to deny emergency medical care.

Until now, hospitals have been allowed to ignore BAIPA, in part, because the 2002 law did not include any criminal penalties. SF 97 sought to address that omission in Wyoming law. Meanwhile, Wyoming’s own Representative, Liz Cheney, has been a cosponsor and tireless proponent of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, to close the loophole in Federal law.

Introduced almost two years ago, H.R. 962 adds penalties and definitions to BAIPA. Since then, 205 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have petitioned Speaker Pelosi to bring it up for a vote. They have brought the “discharge petition” on 80 separate occasions, and on 80 occasions the bill has been blocked from receiving a vote.

Unlike SF 97 and H.R. 962, the Executive Order does not rely on criminal penalties, but on monetary incentives. By instructing the HHS to follow the law and withhold federal funding from institutions that do not comply with BAIPA, it gives a greater incentive for health-care institutions to offer medically appropriate care to premature babies, including those with birth defects and genetic anomalies.

In addition, the Executive Order also prioritizes discretionary grant funding, available from the National Institutes of Health, to direct “research dollars for programs and activities conducting research to develop treatments that may improve survival—especially survival without impairment—of infants born alive, including premature infants or infants with disabilities, who have an emergency medical condition in need of stabilizing treatment.“ These grants are to be made available both to research programs and to training hospitals.

The Order protecting vulnerable newborns is little more than 900 words long, and it makes no policies or regulations not already contained in federal law. Nevertheless, it could have a major impact on the lives and well-being of countless tiny people. It powerfully applies America’s principle that, “Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under Federal law.”

The Federalist: Babies Are Being Left To Die In America. President Trump Just Helped More Of Them Live

‘Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under Federal law.’

President Trump recently signed an “Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children.” The Sept. 25 order directs Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to implement “the policy of the United States to recognize the human dignity and inherent worth of every newborn or other infant child, regardless of prematurity or disability, and to ensure for each child due protection under the law.” The policy is not new, but the ramifications of its enforcement are far-reaching.

Continue reading on the Federalist.

WTE: Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children

Last Friday, President Trump signed an “Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children.” Having a direct connection to recent events in Wyoming and to the column I published only hours earlier, it merits further comment.

The September 25, EO directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement “the policy of the United States to recognize the human dignity and inherent worth of every newborn or other infant child, regardless of prematurity or disability, and to ensure for each child due protection under the law.” This policy is not new, but the ramifications of its enforcement are far-reaching.

In 1999, Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, became the epicenter of a scandal that rocked the nation. The hospital, operated jointly by the United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was placed under formal investigation by the Illinois Department of Health after nurse, Jill Stanek, testified before congress that babies who survived abortions there were left to die unattended in a “utility room.”

As the scandal grew to implicate other hospitals, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was passed by voice vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush, on August 5, 2002. BAIPA simply says that “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress [etc.], the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” The President’s September 25, Executive Order applies this law to two specific acts of congress.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 requires hospitals to offer the full range of life-saving care that they have available to every individual regardless of circumstances. Since BAIPA obviously applies, the Order instructs the HHS to make sure that health care facilities know this. Emergency medical treatment should apply this same standard of care to children born-alive regardless of how premature, or whether the birth was spontaneous or induced.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discriminating against disabled people “in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The Executive Order specifies that children born with disabilities like spina bifida and Trisomy—even if premature—are equally protected under the Act.

These directives became necessary, according to the Order, because “some hospitals refuse the required medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or otherwise do not provide potentially lifesaving medical treatment to extremely premature or disabled infants, even when parents plead for such treatment.”

The Order further found that: “Hospitals might refuse to provide treatment to extremely premature infants — born alive before 24 weeks of gestation — because they believe these infants may not survive, may have to live with long-term disabilities, or may have a quality-of-life deemed to be inadequate.” Readers should recall that these are the exact concerns that were raised in debate on SF 97, “Born alive infant-means of care,” and were named in Governor Gordon’s veto letter.

Until now, hospitals have been allowed to ignore BAIPA, in part, because the 2002 law did not include any criminal penalties. As a remedy, H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was introduced almost two years ago to add penalties and definitions. Since then, it has been blocked from receiving a vote in the House of Representatives on 80 separate occasions, and twice in the Senate.

The Executive Order does not rely on criminal penalties, but on monetary incentives. By instructing the HHS to follow the law and withhold federal funding from institutions that do not comply with BAIPA, it gives a greater incentive for health-care institutions to offer medically appropriate care to premature babies, including those with birth defects and genetic anomalies.

In addition, the Executive Order also prioritizes discretionary grant funding, available from the National Institutes of Health, to direct “research dollars for programs and activities conducting research to develop treatments that may improve survival — especially survival without impairment — of infants born alive, including premature infants or infants with disabilities, who have an emergency medical condition in need of stabilizing treatment.“ These grants are to be made available both to research programs and to training hospitals.

The Order protecting vulnerable newborns is little more than 900 words long, and it makes no policies or regulations not already contained in federal law. Nevertheless, it could have a major impact on the lives and well-being of countless tiny people. It powerfully applies America’s principle that, “Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under Federal law.”

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on October 2, 2020.