Observations and Questions
I’m a pastor from northeast Pennsylvania, in a small church. I follow you and N. D. I would love if you would speak to churches if they should take advantage of the Care Act payment protection money coming from the government. Hope it becomes a post soon. Thanks.
Tim
Tim, I have already urged individuals to avoid taking the payment if they can, but if they were directly harmed by the government’s actions to not worry about it. But I would strongly urge churches and Christian organizations not to take the money. More below.
You ask “How’d it go?”. One word:. Dumpster-fire. Ok it’s really two words but it’s one thought.
Ben
Ben, the hyphen fixes that.
I know you’ve written much already on the Corona panic, so forgive me if I’ve overlooked an answer to my question you’ve already penned down somewhere on your blog. I’m happy to be directed there if so.
I’ve seen your answers and wisdom on individuals taking the stimulus check (or not), but I wondered about churches and schools and the SBA paycheck Protection Program loans.
I am the Headmaster at a cCe school in TN and many other heads in my peer networks are considering applying for these loans as they are 100% forgivable if used properly and would amount to more of a grant than a loan.
We are an ACCS accredited school and though no one at the ACCS office is saying we should apply, they are at least not saying “no” and have even said it doesn’t violate accreditation/membership because it’s a “one off” instead of a “dependence” on government.
I know this is all unprecedented, but I feel odd about asking for/taking federal dollars when we’ve never paid a dime to Caesar in our 13 years as a 501c3.
What are your thoughts on these SBA loans?
Thank you not just for fighting, but for fighting the way you do. My family and school have benefited more than we probably even know from your ministry.
Blessings in Christ,
Nick
Nick, looking at the big picture, you have to ask if we have the kind of government that could conceivably claim jurisdiction over any entity that took such payments. And their lawyers could argue that we in fact ceded jurisdiction when we took the money. I would urge any institution like churches or Christian schools, as you value your independence, stay independent.
I have been reading your commentary on the “dual crises” we are facing with the Covid-19 pandemic, and have appreciated your irenic stance clarifying between the two.
One question I have had concerning the “stimulus” which will be coming to some of us automatically–how do you think a Christian ought to steward such resources, regardless of their merit? Do you think that, since those funds are meant to be re-injected into the economy, we should plan on spending this money? Is it wrong to save it or tithe it? Obviously saving and tithing are long-term injections to the economy in a roundabout way, I’d just be curious to hear your thoughts when our civil authorities grant us funds with a specific intention for them (especially if God has allowed for some of us to continue to work and thus the funds could be considered “superfluous”).
Blessings!
Michael
Michael, if you get the check, I would encourage you to not use it on yourself, but to give it away to someone who has been more harmed by al this than you have been. Do that, if possible. But on the economic end, don’t be fooled by any of it. It is like taking a bucket of water from one end of the pool, and dumping it into the other, spilling a good deal of it on the way.
Re: “And Now for a Spot of Good News, However Unwelcome That Might Be.” In continuing to reflect on the theme of God’s judgment, and in trying to resolve a tension between praying for God’s judgment to have full effect and remaining grateful if it is diminished or delayed, I submit the following conclusions.
1) If COVID-19 and the surrounding circumstances are a judgment, it is right to pray for a full measure that would rid our nation of wickedness through repentance or destruction of the wicked.
2) If we’re back in rosy health and booming economy by June, yet unrepentant (in time for the Pride Parades, as you said in a different post), those of us who said “this is God’s judgment” may need to reflect. Had it been God’s judgment, wouldn’t repentance or destruction have occurred? Did we just pull a Reformed version of the false diagnoses and predictions always flowing from Dispensationalistland? Or do we take COVID-19 as a “warning shot,” to be followed by COVID-2.0 or something worse if we don’t repent? This is completely hypothetical at this point but worth pondering.
3) Regardless, we should be grateful for any mercy shown by God, including the present mercy of the lower-than-projected death toll.
Douglas
Douglas, there was a lag time of some years between the collapse of the tower at Siloam and the destruction of Jerusalem. God does these things methodically, and gives us plenty of time to repent. But we think that the time given to us for repenting is time that shows us there is no need for repenting.
In keeping with the spirit of our “XX Day Free Trial of Sociocommunism” and following ALL of the money, you might want to zoom in on this: “Zoom disclosed in its IPO prospectus last week that most of its product development personnel are based in China. Zoom employs over 500 people across multiple R&D centers in China, which accounts for roughly 30 percent of its total workforce . . .” Here.
And it is not revolutionary type thinking to know that virtually (heh!) all business in China is either infiltrated or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CCP®.
Gray
Gray, thanks.
When Covid-19 began making American waves, we quickly discussed how “public safety,” the ever present cry of the tyrant, would be used to justify a number of infringements against our Natural Rights. Romans 13 v “Public Safety” is a timely study.
It’s obvious that some in our communities continue to go to work, visit one another over dinner, congregate at parks and generally disregard the ladies in lab coats telling us to stay home.
May I please commend a study of proper civil government authority and it’s primary role as protector of our Natural Rights, not our “public safety” : (here)
“2. The people create their governments primarily to serve one supreme purpose: to ‘secure’ the safety and enjoyment of their God-given, unalienable rights. To make and keep them secure is government’s primary function and chief reason for existence, according to the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.”
Of course, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion (including expression), acknowledged, not granted, in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, leap to mind.
There are various pastors who have defied the tyrants in obedience to God (see the proposed design of the Great Seal), giving us the juxtaposition of counties releasing prisoners while arresting pastors.
I’ll stipulate that my perspective is a distinctly Americanized Christianity, but this pairs well with your recent discussions on America’s Founding being distinctly Christian.
So let’s talk Trump! Call me old fashioned, but POTUS and these governors are using the 1990s MTV term “Shoutout” more than they’re asking God to Bless the USA. This observation makes me cringe, then quickly fries my bacon. Instead of repenting while eating the humble pie God is serving, these heads of State are indeed doubling down, as you observe, taking credit for saving thousands/millions of lives.
This makes me look down the road for what could actually humble a fella of Trump’s ilk. Constantly being tested for a global pandemic doesn’t seem to affect his persona. Seeing the economic devastation of believing the modelers hasn’t been enough. For a guy who has such a God complex to constantly give his podium to doctors and that amazing CDC guy who just figured out what asymptomatic means, it’s all rather amazing.
Are we really going to keep all the church buildings closed on Easter because the global warming alarmists are in charge? Couldn’t we all just sew up a mask and get to the pews?
Ron
Ron, thanks for sharing, and there is much in what you say.
Just a practical question for you.
In this time of quarantines and virtual Sunday services, is it okay to do a kind of virtual Lord’s Supper? May a pastor—over livestream—’administer’ the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which families take in their separate homes, eating their own bread and drinking their own wine?
Thank you
Zach
Zach, the problem is that, taken in isolation, the sacrament is a sacramental oxymoron. It is a communal sign of our life together in Christ, and I believe we should avoid such contradictions.
I work as a data analyst and the questions asked by you and Toby regarding the Imperial College of London model are the exact same statements that any first year grad student would make about the limitations of any similar model. As those ambiguities become less so over time, a given model will improve and morph into different models for different regions/ countries/ ethnicities/ ages, etc. but will still retain some degree of limited applicability.
That is NOT to say that computer (read: statistical) modeling is not science. There are strict conventions and protocols around what a given model does and does not say, which very much conform to the scientific method. What is definitely not science is the degree of accuracy granted to these models by those who like what they say, who typically disregard the uncertainty inherent in the model (which is stated mathematically).
If the conventions of analytics and their applicability in a given area are not followed this can be fairly easily teased out by a competent statistician, which renders the resulting erroneous (or even dishonest) model “unscientific” but not the tools improperly employed to construct it.
Computer modeling as practiced by responsible data scientists is inherently mathematical and as such can hardly be excluded from the field of science. It is however prone to a higher level of misunderstanding than any other scientific endeavor I can think of. Is it possible you are objecting more to its misapplication than its validity?
Regards
Al
Al, thanks. I believe that computer modeling done right can be a rigorous and respectable discipline, but I want to reserve the term science for something particular. History is a rigorous discipline, but not science, etc.
Pastor Wilson, a simple question from a long time reader and old simple man with bad lungs. How does a government official telling us we can’t assemble in numbers greater than 50 (now 3 in my state) fall in line with Romans 13 but our current “shelter in place” violate biblical principles? How is Romans 13 negated because this isn’t a biblical quarantine? Many taxes are unbiblical but we are still instructed to pay them. As my wife would say, ‘I’m confuse-ded.”
John
John, thanks. I will need to write much more about all of this. Romans 13 is going to be a key text in the years to come.
Hey Doug, “As a nation we deserve God’s judgments, and we deserve far worse than what we have gotten thus far. We are praying that God might stay His hand. But why should He? If He does stay His hand, is June still going to be pride month? If He does stay His hand, will the slaughter of American babies by the metric ton pick right up again? If He does stay His hand, will we continue to vaunt our secular little selves, pretending in our insolence that we have no king but Caesar?”
I know that you are treading carefully and, believe me, I’m tempted to agree with a statement like the one I’ve quoted above. But when Christ was killed on the cross didn’t his death pay for all sin? Yes, we are called to repent (referencing what you said about Siloam) but why would God pour out his wrath on Christ and then on us just a wee bit more 2000 years later? Were I to push a little harder I would say ask: If this is even just an ounce of wrath from God why pour most of it out on the elderly and the immuno-compromised?
My father-in-law said something interesting the other day. I mentioned, like another person who wrote in a few weeks ago, that God is tearing down the idols. He replied that “It’s possible but maybe this is just what idols do.”
Thanks,
Jordan
Jordan, yes. Christ’s death was a sufficient payment for the guilt of all sin. But it does not erase all the consequences of sin. A woman guilty of fornication can certainly be forgiven, but she still has the baby.
Deuteronomy 24:6 says, “No one shall take a mill or an upper millstone in pledge, for that would be taking a life in pledge.” (ESV) Does this not imply that taking a man’s means of earning a living is also, in some sense, taking his life?
The government rhetoric could be translated, “We’re taking your life to save your life.” That’s not a good solution.
This coronavirus response is destroying life, probably even more than the virus itself. I’d love to see you quote Deut. 24:6 to give explicit Biblical support to your common-sense writings on this issue. If our policy makers were God-fearing men, I would hope that they could see the folly of their current lock down tactics
Smith
Smith, thank you. That passage is fully apropos.
Several have written regarding judgment, pride parades, etc. We don’t know what will happen when the draconian orders are lifted. The virus is still out there. The majority of people haven’t been exposed to it. Will it flare up like a wild fire the firefighters thought was out or under control?
We will have to wait and see.
The tricky thing isn’t the stimulus check as much as the increase in unemployment benefits. Unemployment is taxable income and taxes are not usually taken out of the checks. A lot of people will have a nasty surprise when they fill out next year’s taxes.
Wilson wrote: … if you get the check, I would encourage you to not use it on yourself, but to give it away to someone who has been more harmed by al this than you have been. Our government has seen fit to do direct deposit, so the symbolism of not even cashing the check is removed for many. “We are all socialists now.” I’ve been thinking that since our government has signed up to take care of everyone, none of us should have any neighbors with any needs, right? So perhaps it would be more effective to instead give… Read more »
I plan on supporting American Industry by buying AR15 and ammo.. The irony of using government money to exercise my 2nd amendment right is fun. I will probably try to help some small businesses I know that have been impacted.
I’ve never named a gun before but I think I’m going to name my new AR15 “Social Distancing” It has a nice ring to it. I’m going to get its name printed on the side.
I don’t know if it’s a good suggestion, but my husband and I have been talking a lot about what to do with any stimulus money we may get. (We are still somewhat skeptical stimulus checks are going out at all, honestly.) Our current thinking is that we will give 1/2 to the deacon’s fund at our church, put 1/4 into savings (because right now our income is secure but we don’t know how long that will be the case, especially if this drags on much longer), and then spend 1/4 on local businesses. But, by the time the money… Read more »
Not everyone is getting a check. I know immigrants who are here legally, who don’t have a green card. They probably are not getting a check.
If they are legal immigrants without a green card then presumably they aren’t a full part of the U.S. economy anyway. So it seems a reasonable place to draw the line, if you’re going to do the thing in the first place.
I said, IF you’re going to do the thing in the first place. I’m just talking about the internal logic of it, not the desirability of any of it.
If you give it to your church, is that equivalent to the church accepting SBA loan/grant money?
If your church is already considering applying for SBA money is that a reason to NOT give your check to your church?
I have (thus far) no arguments with the varied suggestions regarding the proper disposition of the “Stimulus” money/checks. The King’s money/King’s man is easily understood.
This question: With a foundational assumption that faithful men tithe of the increase, how then does that prevent the Church from receiving the King’s money regardless of the recipient, either the designated citizen, or the transferee in the event of the funds be a gift or donation?
Does the act of transferring the money as a gift or donation effectively launder the King’s imprint from the funds?
What springs to mind is that even the king’s man still owes a tithe to God, wherever he gets it from. But I’m not sure if that’s the right way to look at it.
Gray wrote: Does the act of transferring the money as a gift or donation effectively launder the King’s imprint from the funds? I provoked above using the quote that, “we are all socialists now”, but in regard to Gray’s question I believe Jesus taught that money transfers do not necessarily transfer culpability. In the case of a Christian rendering tax money to Caesar, someone could be tempted to argue that the Christian is guilty of supporting Caesar’s bloodguilty agenda. Someone could be tempted to use this logic to refuse to pay taxes to Caesar. However, Jesus indicated that guilt doesn’t… Read more »
Pr. Wilson, your response to my letter was well stated and corrected my thinking where needed. I’m deeply grateful. Thank you.
Some scientists understand that the models don’t have enough good data yet. The Stanford professor interviewed in this link is working overtime to find out how widespread is infection with the coronavirus. He is an MD who is also a PhD economist who understands that civil authorities are unthinkingly trading lives for lives. This speaks to the practical side of how do we lift the atmosphere of panic, and is well worth watching.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-UO3Wd5urg0&feature=youtu.be
Creative. I certainly wouldn’t be against exercising the tax deduction on it, to lawfully resist the high level of illegitimate taking of money that I actually did earn.
The Facebook link function for your blog posts is spotty at best, and when shared it doesn’t always show up.
Small wonder…