Why a Casino is Bad for Muskegon

A casino is a bad idea for Muskegon or anywhere else. The most common claim in support of a casino, that a casino would boost the local economy, is only partly correct. According to an article in the Washington Post (hardly a conservative voice), while jobs are created, the increase in employment opportunities is measurable, but not earthshaking. While the data cited in the article are not fresh, one has no reason to suspect that the conditions surrounding a Muskegon casino would be any different.

There is a less obvious down-side to casino jobs. First, many of the jobs will be taken by workers at other jobs, destabilizing the workforce in general. Also, the type of jobs that are created are substantially non-productive. By that I mean that nothing is produced for the benefit of others except entertainment. A factory makes goods that people can use; a restaurant feeds people; an insurance company or bank provides useful financial services. A casino adds nothing to the economy; it merely shifts dollars from gamblers’ pockets to the tribes’ coffers.

Some argue that a casino would generate tax revenue. According to the Washington Post article, “[Indian] Casinos aren't even a particularly good source of tax revenue. [A University of Maryland report] notes that a number of studies have found that Indian casinos cannibalize business at nearby restaurants and bars, and in so doing actually reduce state tax revenue.” Even Uncle Sam gets left out of the take since Indian casinos don’t pay corporate income tax.

Indian casinos do participate in revenue sharing in lieu of paying taxes, but it is not clear that they fully compensate local governments. A report in MLive about the Little River Casino in Manistee found that, “The tribe's forked over $30,479,814 in revenue sharing to Manistee area governments since it opened a casino there in 1999.” This is about $1.8 million per year on average. Sounds like a lot until you consider this: “In Manistee, local revenue sharing board uses the funds to reimburse local units of governments for costs due to the casino -- i.e. law enforcement and emergency services -- and to provide a payment in lieu of property tax revenue. Any additional funds are divided by the local governments and have been used for a variety of projects”

A few people have said that casinos are a benefit to the many underprivileged Native Americans in the associated tribes. An article in a Native American media outlet questions this premise. “The idea that money just flows freely into Indian people’s hands is pure fantasy. Approximately 72 tribes give per capita payments from gaming revenue, ranging from hundreds of dollars annually to many thousands. Very few distribute large sums…. Actually, a 2008 report finds that tribal leaders don’t like to disburse cash, contending ‘large per capita payments lead to citizen dependence on tribal governments, undermine the work ethic, and discourage young citizens from finishing their educations.’”

Even if there are some benefits to a community from a casino, the biggest reason not to have one is social. The Washington Post article concludes, “Casinos also lead to a plethora of social ills, including increased substance abuse, mental illness and suicide, violent crime, auto theft and larceny, and bankruptcy. The latter three all increased by 10 percent in communities that allowed gambling.” Prostitution and sex-trafficking may also increase with the casino’s influence. Although there is little statistical arrest evidence, a survey conducted by UNLV found that, “Those classified as problem gamblers were, on average, … 260% more likely to hire a prostitute…. [and] 17% more likely than the average survey respondent to have paid for sex in the past year.”

As a Christian under a representative-type government, I recognize that I only have one vote when it comes to any policy decision. In the Muskegon casino decision, I don’t think I had any direct say whatsoever. However, as a Christian I do have the responsibility to be salt and light. I am taking this opportunity to say that I believe a casino in Muskegon will spread poison and darkness as opposed to salt and light. If there is anything more that can be done to stop a casino from being built here, I believe we should make every effort to do so. For Heaven’s sake.

I Asked God

I asked for relief from pain, and God said, “I allow the pain so that you will lean closer to me.”

I asked for protection from loss, and God said, “I allow loss so that you will understand how I feel when a lost soul slips into eternity.”

I asked for my desires, and God said, “I provide for your needs; I allow your desires to be unfulfilled so that you might pray more earnestly for the truly needy.”

I asked for prosperity, and God said, “Learn to be content with what you have, and you will come to know true prosperity in your soul.”

I asked how to love my enemies, and God said, “Love them as I do, and forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I asked for peace on earth, and God said, “As much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

I asked why bad things happen, and God said, “Don’t concern yourself with “why” questions; ask “what” questions: what can I learn; what can I do to help; what have I done to stop this?

I asked to know the purpose of my life, and God said, “Live justly, love kindness, and walk humbly in my presence.”

I asked God to change the troublesome people around me, and God said, “You need to change how you see them and love them as I do.”

I asked God to come closer to me, and God said, “If I seem distant, it is not I who moved away.”

Beware of Bowlegged Politicians

And the horse they rode in on. I suspect most of my readers are tired of anything to do with politics at this moment, just having finished the mid-term election cycle with its endless campaign commercials on TV and billboards and yard signs everywhere. In spite of the fatigue, I am going to rant about the sorry state of political “debate” in this country. Again. (See What's Wrong With Politics in America) I saw an evaluation of an interview of a newly minted New York politician that was so shot full of erroneous statements that I nearly became livid.

If the title of this piece has you stumped, it is drawn from the root meaning of the word “prevarication” which literally means bowed legs. Why does the physical condition of bowed legs serve as a metaphor for lying? Dictionary.com lists synonyms: “divergence from the right course, transgression… duplicity, collusion or a stepping out of line.” They also say it meant “to walk crookedly.” I like to think it may come from the idea that a weak set of legs compares to a weak set of facts on which a false stands.

There is no shortage of those who “walk crookedly” in the realm of politics. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Donna Brasile are joined by the newly-minted Democrat representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York. What struck me this time was the utterly ridiculous nature of Ocasio-Cortez’s fabricated facts. The situation was all the more distressing given her college degrees in economics and international relations from Boston University. She is a poster child (age 29) for the working-class-kid-who-wants-to-make-a-difference crowd.

Ocasio-Cortez may also be proof that our higher education system is broken since she obviously has no clue how our economy works despite her degree in economics. If it’s not that, then she is one of the bowlegged politicians. Her story is so appealing, and she is so enthusiastic about her cause that I want her to be genuine. But the only way she can be excused for her stunning misstatements of the facts is to say she is ignorant. That, or she is a liar.

I must pause to say that I am not implying that only women lie or that only Democrats lie. There are plenty of male politicians from both parties who also walk crookedly. However, given the huge Democrat bias in our major news outlets, one supposes that any conservative liar would be treated to days if not weeks of media treatment. You don’t see much of that. True, they tried, “Bush lied; people died.” That charge was proven false when subsequent revelations of fact showed President Bush may have had erroneous intelligence reports, but that he acted truthfully with what he thought was true.

This brings me to the discussion of the essence of truth. Someone has said that perception is reality. This is correct only if one conceives of reality as a personal possession. The reality I possess under this scenario may not be the reality you possess. If one believes in absolute truth, one truth that is true for all, as Christians must, then perception is not reality. By definition, truth is that which comports with reality. That which is true for me must also be true for you. The facts must agree. Experience must prove it. (For more of my take on truth see  “True Lies,” “Liars Figure” and “The Truth about the Truth”)

People like Ocasio-Cortez are apparently disconnected from reality either by choice or by ignorance. The same distinction must have been apparent to Jesus when He reserved His harshest criticism for the hypocrites of His day. (Hypocrisy is a lie with legs; it walks crooked.) He told the Pharisees they were liars born of the father of lies. (John 8:44) Since Jesus was The Truth (John 1:14 and 14:6), lies are especially heinous to Him. Notice that He included liars among the vilest of sinners in one list. (Revelation 22:15)

I’d like to think that I hate lies mostly because I am being conformed into the image of the Truth. I’d also like to think that my fellow-Christians will keep their truth-detectors warmed up as we enter a season of shared power in the US Congress. There will be many more episodes like the shameful one that sparked this rant. As disciples of the One who is Truth, we must take a stand for truth. We must hold our representatives’ feet to the fire. Maybe the heat will un-bow their legs.

Christians are Responsible to be Politically Engaged

Daryl Fulp, a missionary in Guatemala and writer for Church Leaders, wrote an article on election day last week titled, “It’s Not Our ‘Christian Responsibility’ to Be Politically Engaged.” I am going to disagree with Mr. Fulp, so if you have had enough politics for the season (who hasn’t), click elsewhere.

Fulp’s position is that Jesus was apolitical, and he further suggests that the New Testament nowhere encourages political involvement. I will debate each point. First, Fulp’s examples of Jesus’ interaction with the civil systems of His day do not make the author’s point in my opinion. He correctly points out that the first century Jews were expecting (hoping for) a political savior. They hated the Roman occupation and dreamed of a military figure on a white charger delivering them from Rome’s bondage. Fulp is also correct that Jesus declined the role of political savior.

However, Jesus did not teach, as Fulp suggests, that his followers refrain from all political activity. On the contrary, the exact opposite can be inferred from the Scripture passage Fulp recites. Matthew records an incident when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in seditious sentiments in the 22 chapter of his Gospel. They asked if they should pay taxes to Caesar, and Jesus famously said yes. Because Jesus also commanded more spiritual dues as well, Fulp thinks Jesus’ words forbid political activity.

I think the very point Jesus was making was that civil authority is owed their demands. The first century Jews had little or no right to participate in their government, but we do. We have both the duty to pay taxes and the right to enter the process which assigns those taxes. In a participatory government such as ours, part of rendering unto Caesar is giving service time to make the wheels turn. When Paul added to taxes due with, “revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed,” I believe he opened the door to political activity in our generation. It seems disrespectful and dishonoring to decline to participate in a system that is built on citizen participation.

In the last few weeks, the Scripture has been opened to me revealing that Jesus applied political language to the most intimate relationship He had – the Church. I recently posted, “What is the Church” detailing how the very word translated “church” (ecclesia) was a political term in Jesus’ day. I wrote, “In the Greek culture, for several centuries leading up to the coming of Christ, ecclesia referred the council of men who participated in the ruling government. This assembly made the rules that governed the actions of the citizens.”

The ecclesia, as the Romans practiced it and the disciples understood it, was a group of people who left their home culture and entered a conquered region with the express purpose of transforming it into a colony that reflected Roman culture, language and philosophy. The ecclesia took over where the Roman army left off. The army conquered the land; the ecclesia transformed the people. Jesus knew He was about to storm the “Gates of Hell,” and He was telling His disciples that they were going to continue His work.

I believe the purpose of the church, as Jesus instituted it, is to influence a “foreign” culture – the world – with the principles and properties of the “home” culture – heaven. The prayer Jesus once gave as an example says, “Your Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” [Note italics] The church commission is to establish Kingdom culture on earth. If that is not political, I don’t know what political is.

Mr. Fulp may be over-reacting to the over-zealous “Moral Majority” mindset that pervaded evangelical thinking some years ago. There was a false hope, perhaps even an un-Scriptural hope that Christians could take over the US government and make America a Christian nation. Fulp is right that our priority is to make disciples, not to remake government. Fulp is wrong, however, to suggest that Christians should not be involved politically. Any Christian who is moved to become engaged in the process that makes the rules can help influence other rule-makers to lean toward a system that is more, rather than less, conducive to Christian society.

I am blessed to live in a place where state and US legislative districts have Christian lawmakers. With their help, the forces of Lansing and Washington DC have done a few things right recently. Although I held my nose when voting for President Trump (see “Vote Anyway” and “Politics Stinks”), I am pleased to see that his administration has turned back many of the anti-religious-freedom policies of the former administration. Mike Pence had a similar effect during his term as governor of Indiana. Voting for these men was my duty, and it is my pleasure to see that America is more open to Christian activity because of their efforts.

I respect Mr. Fulp’s emphasis on Jesus call to another Kingdom not of this world. However, being a missionary to a politically charged region like Guatemala, Fulp must see that our call is not just to escape from the world, but to transform the world’s culture in any way we can. If escape was what our Heavenly Father had had in mind, I think salvation would have meant instant translation out of this world into Heavenly places. He did not intend that; we are here to bring His Kingdom to Earth. Let’s be about the Father’s business.

Open Letter to Any Woman I Might Meet

I will apologize before I say anything. I am an old-fashioned guy, and I am likely to say something inappropriate when we meet. I tend to say what I am thinking without considering how it might be misunderstood. I have always thought that honesty and openness in relationships were good character traits, but I have been told that sometimes I should be less honest, less open. Apparently, I open my mouth and my thoughts fall out and get me into trouble.

I am bringing this into the open (there’s that openness again) because of a recent occurrence that echoes an earlier discussion I had with my very Millennial daughter. Here’s the back-story. Both of my daughters have worked as servers in restaurants at one time. Their experience caused me to understand the rough conditions servers sometimes have and the low hourly wage they earn. One result of this knowledge is that I tip generously unless my server has apparently ignored me or otherwise provided poor service on his or her part.

The other common result of my familiarity with the challenges of the restaurant work environment is that I am usually very friendly, helpful, courteous, kind, and sometimes humorous with my server. Here is where the problem comes: my very Millennial daughter once accused me of flirting with our waitress. I was not consciously doing so, but my daughter saw it as such. Since my wife was also at the table at the time, I asked her if she agreed with our daughter’s assessment. She did. She agreed that sometimes my “friendliness” might be mistaken for flirting.

If I were to flirt with a waitress, I am not so brassy as to do it in front of my wife and daughter, which was my defense to them: I was not intending anything but to make a little light spot in what could be a heavy day for the poor waitress. My two daughters’ experiences taught me that there are plenty of customers who will be rude, crude, cheap and downright mean to their server. I don’t want to be that person; I want to do the opposite. The problem is that in today’s over-sexualized, harassment-sensitive society, a kind or complimentary word spoken innocently can be misconstrued.

I think I may have stumbled into the same tar pit in my part-time job in retail the other day. On Halloween, employees were allowed to dress in costumes. One young lady I had not previously met came to work as what I would call a witch or sorceress. Her costume and make-up were really stunning: purple hair, hat and dress right out of some fantasy tale, and a face transformed cosmetically. I complimented her outfit, asking if she was the good witch, Glenda, from the Wizard of Oz. She corrected me saying she was a character from a tale I do not remember.

Fast-forward a couple days and I saw “Glenda” (names changed to protect the innocent) in her regular attire and make-up. I made some comment about how nice she looked without the purple hair and weird face paint. I think she chuckled; I don’t honestly remember, but I walked away wondering if I had just flirted unintentionally. I did not get summoned to the office, nor have I been served with papers naming me in a harassment suit. I think I am safe.

The problem is that now I am especially self-conscious when I pass Glenda on the sales floor or see her in the break room. I ask myself if she is seeing me as that creepy old guy who flirted with her after Halloween. It’s silly, I know. But having spent years walking on eggshells in the academic world where one accusation by a female can destroy a male teacher’s career, I may be the one over-reacting.

It is an especially sad situation when so many people, not just young women, could use a kind word or a compliment. I don’t know how to talk to women anymore; actually, I never did; it’s just more dangerous to be awkward these days. Jesus’ words to his disciples came to mind in this situation: “Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) Linking serpents and women may create a poor allusion, but the point seems to be that I should be careful what I say lest my dove-like intentions are received as the serpent’s hiss.

The easy solution to my dilemma is just to keep my mouth shut. However, there are plenty of other Bible verses that commend words of encouragement, random acts of kindness as some have called it. I can imagine refraining from any comments related to appearance. That’s a no-brainer. If I tell a woman that I am impressed with the way she handled a tough situation, might she think I am building a bridge for a pick-up line? Maybe I am just paranoid. Maybe I have absorbed too much of the sexualization that is everywhere these days.

If I may make a suggestion to women offended by certain male approaches, don’t make a complimentary remark from an old guy into something it may not be. In fact, even if a guy is angling for a date with you, that can be seen as a compliment too; somebody thinks enough of you to want to spend time with you. Lustful leering, catcalls and whistles have always been despised by women, I know. But maybe you could even receive them as clumsy compliments from guys without taste or manners. They’re still compliments. You can’t always control what a guy says to you, but you can control how you receive it. Am I wrong?

Ask the Right Question.

Yesterday I attended the memorial service for a young man who died from a drug overdose. One of the speakers suggested that given the deceased’s religious belief, one might ask why God allowed such an evil to occur. The speaker suggested that a better question might be why anything good ever happens given the fallen state of Creation and the deplorable condition of humanity in general.

Believers and unbelievers alike wonder why a supposedly good God would allow bad things to happen. Both camps will sometimes suggest that the Bible has been misinterpreted, and either God is not good, or that He is not powerful enough to stop the spread of evil. A true reading of the Bible does not support either one of these options; God is good, and He is all-powerful. This leaves the believer with an unanswered question.

The unbeliever is really asking a question that has no meaning if he honestly thinks there is no god. Since most unbelievers, and sadly, some believers, think that Creation is a myth, and that the material universe came into existence as the result of time and chance, asking a moral question is illogical. If there is no design to the universe, no moral imperative behind it, there is no such thing as good or evil.

Creatures that evolved through eons of time and chance mutation from ever lower life forms would not have any moral qualities. When a worm dies under to hoof of a passing cow, there is no question of evil; it’s just life. When a squirrel is snatched from a tree and eaten by a hawk, there is no question of evil; it’s just life. When a baby seal dies from exposure because he was separated from his mother, there is no question of evil; it’s just life. When tens of thousands of people die in the aftermath of a tsunami, there is no question of evil; it’s just life.

The other side of the coin for the unbeliever is the existence of fortuitous circumstances. (Notice I did not call them “good.”) If the cow misses the worm, or the hawk goes hungry, or the seal reunites with his mother, or someone escapes the raging ocean, there is no question of good; it’s just the time for chance to allow another day of life. A true agnostic or atheist cannot ask a moral question because it reveals a hidden belief that there is a standard of good and evil that can only come from an outside source.

Granted, the unbeliever may propose that society creates moral laws as a function of a higher level of intellectual evolution. This is an unsatisfactory explanation since there is a core morality that is evident in all societies in all eras that bespeaks an underlying code that preceded the supposed evolution of the human intellect. The framers of the US Constitution recognized this when they supported their cause based on certain unalienable rights drawn from what was then known as natural law, or as they believed, rights granted by a Creator: sanctity of life, freedom of operation, and property rights. I would add that familial loyalty is another moral quality also evident everywhere across the ages.

The real question is why any moral standards exist which incorporate the concept of good and evil. The unbeliever may resist an explanation that proposes a moral being of higher power than humans, but the believer realizes that therein lies the only acceptable answer. God created everything and declared it good. It was only after the creatures He created rebelled that evil entered the equation. The operative question then becomes, why God allowed rebellion. The easy answer is that humans were created with the freedom to choose not to obey. This is necessary if freedom of will is to mean anything. If His creatures had no possibility of disobedience, obedience to His standards would be meaningless.

Now I am ready to go back to the better question posed by the speaker at yesterday’s memorial service: why do we experience moral good in this fallen world? The answer is easy for a believer: God gives grace. There is something called general grace which provides rain for both the just and the unjust, the believer and the unbeliever. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat all come from the gracious provision of the Creator God. The concept of Earth as the “privileged planet” makes it clear that the very existence of life is only possible because of multiple exact “coincidences” which support life here. General grace is available to all.

There is another kind of grace, specific grace, which is only available to some. This grace is given as a gift to those who believe in the Giver, to those who place their trust in His graciousness. The family and friends of the deceased were told they would see him again because of the promise that those who trust God will spend eternity with him after life on Earth is over. It is tragic that the young man we were remembering yesterday had his life cut short (by our measure, not God’s) due to the evil that consumed him. That young man died struggling with an imperfection; he is now perfect.

That is the promise of grace. Imperfect people (the only kind that exist) are promised perfection on the other side of the grave. There is no sting in death because it is the door to perfection. There is no victory in the grave because the All-Gracious One overcame the grave and promised His followers the same thing. Today the young man we remembered sees that clearly rather than through a glass darkly as we do. By grace, evil is eventually overcome. The real question is whether a person will accept the grace that is freely offered or reject it. It is really that simple.

Music for the Soul

With what I am about to write, I risk offending someone. I hope all who read this will understand that I am hoping to open a dialogue, not cast criticism on anyone. I want all who read this to think more deeply about music and what it does to the soul of those who hear it.

I was brought up in a musical household, even though neither Mom or Dad played an instrument regularly. Every Sunday during our sit-down, stay in your Sunday clothes eat on the good china dinner, we listened to classical music on the phonograph. As we grew up, we were required to listen to an equal amount of “good” music to balance the popular stuff played on our transistor radios. We each had to take piano lessons as well as being encouraged to participate in a school ensemble of some type.

I hated my first eight years of piano lessons. Mom would not let me go out to play after supper unless I had practiced my piano lesson. In high school I took up the coronet, later the baritone, and found that my ability to read music (thanks, Mom) allowed me to advance to first chair in every band I played in. At sixteen I finally had an eccentric, but wonderful teacher who made me discover a love for classical piano music. A couple of the pieces I played for my senior recital will still fall off my fingers if I sit at a piano today. I can enjoy, or at least appreciate every style of music there is, from the old classical to the new electronica. Again, thanks Mom and Dad.

Because of my training and my broad tastes, I judge music more critically than most. I find that most contemporary musicians are either completely without talent, or else they hide behind electronic gadgetry to produce a muddled sameness of dull repetition. I admit to listening to so-called ambient music which embodies that last slam against popular music, but when I do, it is for mindless background. If I put real music on, like Bach or McCartney, it distracts me; ambient music stills my thoughts and helps me concentrate.

A Facebook friend posted an article by Jon Henschen that bemoaned the loss of musical intelligence or musical literacy. The author rightly blamed the chronic cutting of music from public education programs for this cultural demise. Henschen also decried the lack of obvious musical talent in the popular scene today. Even though every generation has “invented” its own music, I have trouble imagining people 300 years from now listening to punk rock the way many of us still enjoy J.S. Bach. Henschen suggests that the last real music was being written in the 1960s. Maybe that explains why young and old alike still crave the Beatles or Eagles or Simon and Garfunkle.

I was struck by Henschen’s article because of the lack of creativity in typical modern worship music: same chords, same patterns over and over and over. (Please! No offense intended.) Like the article said, most young people don’t have the training or the listening experience to fuel their creative engines. Unless I go back to Michael W. Smith or Phil Keaggy, I can’t think of a contemporary Christian artist doing really inventive things. (They aren’t exactly contemporary, are they?) I don’t even want to get started on the theological or psychological aspects of the repetition ad infinitum in many worship services these days.

Music is the language of the soul. It reaches a place that mere words cannot. Rhythm, melody, and harmony combine to affect our inner being. Martin Luther said, "Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world." Michael W. Smith writes, “forever, until the world ends, music is the most powerful language there is. It can transform your life on every level, not just the spiritual. It can help people reconnect with why they’re here.” I suspect Michael would agree that why we’re here is to worship God. Period.

Most of us are not as fortunate as the people of Leipzig to have for our worship music leader a J.S. Bach who said, "I play the notes as they are written, but it is God who makes the music.” Yet in this globally interconnected world, finding good music is as easy as… no, it is not easy. It takes training and gifting by the Holy Spirit. The task of the worship leader is no less a spiritual assignment than that of the one who prepares the message from the Word of God. The worship leader must find the music made by God, to paraphrase Bach.

It was Francis Schaeffer who wrote about the connection between truth and beauty. Because we worship the God who is Truth, we owe it to Him to make our music beautiful. I know we joke about making a joyful noise unto the Lord, but those who create what we offer in worship ought to have the natural talents and spiritual gifts to write truly beautiful music. Those of us standing in the room following the worship leader don’t have to have performance level voices – there is your “joyful noise.” But the worship leaders have the responsibility to seek out the best there is in music or write it themselves if they are capable. Anything less is an unworthy offering.