"The Jew Named Jesus"

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John’s Gospel attributes these words to Jesus. Ironically many Christians use these words to claim an exclusive relationship between them and God.  But the Jesus in whose mouth John placed these words was not a Christian. He was “The Jew Named Jesus.”

That’s the title of a new book written by Rebekah Simon-Peter. Like Jesus, she was born a Jew. Unlike Jesus, she converted to Christianity. Today Rebekah is, as she says, “both a member of the Jewish people and of the community that follows Jesus.”

Jesus was not a marginal Jew. Simon-Peter notes he was an observant Jew. Jesus honored Jewish holidays, customs, and virtually all of his teachings were rooted in Hebrew Scripture.  Remember the Syrophonecian woman who had to literally shame Jesus into healing her daughter after Jesus told her he had come only “for the lost sheep of Israel.” Not a picture of ecumenism.

 When Jesus said the greatest commandments are to love God and one another he wasn’t establishing new Christian doctrine but rather restating long established Jewish doctrine. The Bible from which Jesus taught, the Torah (what Christians call the Old Testament), said it. Jesus was reiterating its teachings. Deuteronomy 6 says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” Leviticus 19 adds, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Simon-Peter acknowledges that prior to the writing of the first Gospel, all of those who were following the crucified Lord were, like him, Jews.  After his resurrection Jesus appeared before the disciples. What was their first concern? “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus’ brother James, his disciple Peter, and the Apostle Paul never renounced Judaism. Christians refer to “the conversion of Saul” as though it was the moment when Paul became a Christian. He didn’t. Long after his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul said, “I am a Jew.” (Acts 22:3).

This is what some theologians call “the Christian problem.” How are Christians to reconcile traditional teachings with the Jewishness of our Jesus? Simon-Peter’s book can help us think through the dilemma.

The result of Christian efforts to distance themselves from Jews despite Jesus is, Simon-Peter writes, centuries of discrimination, hatred, and violence aimed at Jews because Christians learned and taught that the “Jews killed Christ.” Her book includes an excellent analysis of this question, exploring all of the possible answers to the question “who is responsible for Jesus’ death?” Did Jesus offer himself willingly? Was his death part of God’s plan? Did the Romans do it? And, was it the fault of the Jews or some of the Jews?

Scripture often leads, somewhat schizophrenically, to an affirmative answer to each of those questions. This book offers an analysis that will help you integrate what we know about the Roman efforts to control the Jews and anyone else challenging their power, what we know about the times in which Jesus lived, and what we know about the times in which the Gospel was written. Rebekah allows the reader to reach their own conclusions asking only that you see Jesus as part of Jewish culture, history and theology.

I confess I have been one of those Christian preachers who offered my congregation sermons comparing and contrasting what Simon-Peter calls “an inclusive, loving good Christian Jesus against an exclusive, narrow-minded, legalistic Jewish people.” Assuming Jesus to be the first Christian has allowed us to see ourselves as the beneficiaries of a New Covenant while the Jews hold to an old, decayed covenant. Rebekah says that’s a “false dichotomy.”

Her book persuaded me she is correct and I have reformed my teaching around the hope that I can help my congregation find what she calls, “the overlapping space where Judaism and Christianity intersect.”

“The Jew named Jesus” fills that space.

If Congress has its way, the poor will always be with us

In 2003, Governor Dave Freudenthal appointed me Director of Wyoming’s Department of Family Services. During a press conference announcing the appointment, Wyoming Public Radio news director Bob Beck asked, “What happened to all the people Wyoming removed from the welfare roles?”

Following President Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform, Wyoming reduced the roles of the old “Aid for Families With Dependent Children” program by 90%, winning awards and accolades for this “accomplishment.” Beck wanted to know what happened to these folks.

I didn’t know but promised I’d make a point of finding out. I did. They went to work.

Welfare reform put strict limits on the time a person could receive benefits and also created work requirements. If you weren’t disabled, you had to find a job. Welfare reform promised taxpayers lower welfare roles. It promised welfare recipients the support they needed to find work, feed their families, and find childcare.

The first promise was kept. Families were dispatched from AFDC into the workplace. Welfare reform did little more than create a forced labor supply for employers who wouldn’t pay livable wages. Disproportionately high rates of Wyoming people not only got jobs, often more than one, working for low wages with no benefits.

Food stamps and Medicaid became a subsidy to low wage-paying employers. Right-wingers like Congressman Stephen Fincher of Tennessee quoted the Bible in support of cutting aid for poor workers, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” That sort of scriptural libel reflects a meanness of spirit rejected everywhere in the Bible. It also conveniently ignores the reality of the world Congress, including our Congressman Cynthia Lummis, created for low income working families.

Lummis first supported a Farm Bill drastically cutting nutrition aid to low-income families saying, “This bill,” Lummis said, “was crafted to save billions for our country and establish long overdue reform to the 1996 welfare and nutrition programs.” The reform she refers to is the reneging on the promise to the poor that if they worked fulltime, they’d at least be able to feed their families. That bill would have cut 20 billion dollars from food aid. It failed mostly because Democrats felt it was too drastic and many Republicans felt it was not drastic enough.

Senate Democrats did the poor no favors when they agreed to cuts of $4.5 billion. The well being of as many as five million people are at stake. The Health Impact Project, a Washington research group, said the cuts would not only affect the ability of low-income households to feed their children, but would also increase poverty.

In the hyper-partisan House of Representatives, the GOP came up with a solution. They removed any mention of nutrition programs and passed, on a near straight party line vote, a bill that would make certain agribusiness subsidies continued even if food stamps didn’t. Lummis voted for that strategy.

Now we learn the Bible-quoting-Congressman Fincher received three and a half million dollars in agricultural subsidies. Lummis Livestock, of which our Congressman owns a large interest, received $47,093 in farm subsidies between 1996 and 2002.

The average monthly benefit paid to Lummis’ constituents who are working yet unable to make enough to feed her family is $133.41. A monthly average of Lummis’ subsidy exceeds 400% that amount. Still she insists it’s poor families dooming the federal budget.

This isn’t about rational, balanced approaches to solving the nation’s fiscal problems. This is opportunism. Some politicians have long targeted these programs. Whether it’s the Wyoming legislature trying to impose drug tests on welfare recipients and reject Medicaid expansion for the uninsured, or Lummis and her Washington colleagues’ efforts to reduce nutrition programs and replace Medicare with vouchers, they are using legitimate concerns over the national debt to make political statements about their disdain for the poor.

Mr. Fincher and Ms. Lummis should be made aware of another Bible verse. Deuteronomy 15:11, “You shall open your hand to the needy and the poor.” God wasn’t talking about the back of your hand.

What are your pet peeves about driving and drivers?

I have three. The first is those who believe that a yellow light doesn't actually mean caution, but throw caution to the wind. There is, in my view, nothing so dangerous as running a red light. Those whose trip is so important that they will put others at risk by failing to stop when the light turns yellow are my biggest peeve.

Second are those drivers who believe a "Yield" sign means give up. That is especially true at intersections like Yellowstone and Dell Range where there is a continuous lane for people turning right off of Yellowstone. Inevitably traffic is held up by someone treating the yield sign as a stop sign.

Finally...I find very annoying those drivers whose car is at the front of the line at a stop light who set there and do not move into the intersection to make a turn once the light turns yellow. I often wonder how many green lights they are willing to set through.

Just saying...maybe it's Monday and I am grumpy.

Wyoming legislators fail another moral test

"The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " Hubert Humphrey said that. If so, the Wyoming legislature has failed the test.

That haunting description, “those who are in the shadows of life,” refers most poignantly and painfully to our neighbors with developmental disabilities, and those who love and care for them. The shadows of life are places occupied by people who have no voice, no political access, people whose goals and aspirations are subjected to the whims and values of the agenda of politicians.

The shadows of life are places legislators seldom visit. Instead they rely on reports, fiscal statements, statistics, and notions. To most lawmakers, the people who live in those shadows are little but the subjects of handwringing taunts about the costs of government.

For years legislators have ignored the needs of people with developmental disabilities who have languished without services on lengthy wait lists. Legislators have allowed the wait list to grow from 68 in 2003 to more than 650 today. The legislature, by and large, has viewed this as a cost control problem, not as the human struggle it is for the disabled and their families.

This year, the legislature came up with one of its quintessential solutions. They passed a bill with the proclaimed objective of optimizing “the services provided to current clients and to extend appropriate services to persons currently on waiting lists for waiver services.” Then they added words that clearly reflect their values, i.e. “ within the current budget.”

Don’t blame the Wyoming Department of Health. It’s doing the best it can to implement a bad law. They’ve been ordered to serve current clients as well as those on the wait list without any additional funding. In other words, the legislature wants current developmentally disabled clients to receive fewer services than they need so that those on the wait list can receive fewer services than they need.

This injustice is not the result of a budget crisis.

The annual cost of eliminating the entire wait list is 24 million dollars. The federal government picks up half of that tab. The state’s share is, therefore, about one-quarter of the 47 million dollars these same state legislators squandered by their ill-advised failure to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. This is also the same legislature that irrationally continues to sock away hundreds of millions of tax-collected dollars in reserve funds with no defined purpose. Additionally, Wyoming’s general fund revenues are on pace to exceed projections for 2013 by approximately $300 million.

Wyoming’s legislators are not making these choices out of a desperate need to address severe budget deficits, as are lawmakers in many states. Wyoming has the money to serve these families but its legislators don’t have the interest. The Department of Health deserves kudos for making the best of the hand dealt them by the legislature. They’ve worked hard to get stakeholder input and to redesign the program within the legislative constraints.

But face the facts. The Wyoming legislature has made a values decision. It values cost cutting more than it values the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our state. They are hoping those folks remain in the shadows. I am hoping they don’t.

The developmentally disabled, their families and advocates should flood the Capitol Building. They should occupy the rotunda of the building, filling it with the faces of the people who will suffer the impact of the choice the legislature made. These politicians don’t want to come face-to-face with their choices.  They are counting on you remaining in the shadows, fearful and voiceless. Don’t let them get away that easy.

Perhaps Hubert Humphrey should have said, "The moral test of a people is how we all speak up for those who are in the shadows of life.”

Wyoming's governor doesn't like federal regs UNLESS...

Confused by the relationship between the government of Wyoming and the federal government? It used to be easier. Now it’s schizophrenic. There was a time when Wyoming politicians were clear. They wanted the feds to have nothing to do with regulating anything in Wyoming. But the old “Sagebrush Rebels” have given way to a contrived opposition to Obamacare and most other “things-Obama.”

Wyoming is one of only six states where the governor refuses to enforce consumer protection provisions of the healthcare reform law is an example. You might not have expected this administration to be big on protecting insurance consumers after Governor Mead appointed someone from the insurance business to the job of regulating the insurance business. Even so, it was rather odd when the Governor invited the federal government into the state to regulate important consumer-protection provisions of the new law.

Mead is sort of a Pontius Pilate figure when it comes to healthcare reform. He has washed his hands of both Obamacare and developing a state alternative. He washed his hands of responsibility to the uninsured, passing the decision on whether to expand Medicaid to the legislature. Then he washed his hands of any responsibility to create a state insurance exchange, an online marketplace would make it easier and cheaper for consumers to choose their insurance plans.

Now Governor Mead informed the feds that he’ll keep his hands clean of any opportunity to make certain consumers are treated fairly under Obamacare. The consumer protection provisions of the Affordable Care Act include significant protections for Wyoming families. They are the most popular parts of the controversial law. These are the sections of Obamacare prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, allowing children to remain covered under their parent’s policy until age 26, and requiring insurance companies to expend most of your premium for actual healthcare rather than leavened overhead.

The “governor of some of the people” has decided the traditional anti-federal government position he takes on environmental and most other issues should not prevent him from making a political statement about Obamacare. If you’re not among “some of the people” he represents, Mead abdicates this opportunity to protect your rights. Contrast that to the length he’s gone to protect oil and gas companies from federal regulations.

The governor who accedes regulation of insurance to the feds laments federal regulation of the coal industry. Although the coal industry is “slowly and relentlessly smothering” the planet with greenhouse gases, last year Mead complained federal regulations are “slowly and relentlessly smothering America’s coal industry.” He’s asked the feds to not even study the global warming impact of exporting millions of tons of coal.

When fracking is the issue, Mead isn’t so willing to give regulatory power to the feds as he is with your healthcare. Mead demanded the Interior Department scale back proposed rules requiring petroleum companies to disclose the chemicals injected down well bores during hydraulic fracturing.

Last year, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing might have contaminated groundwater in a gas field outside Pavillion, Wyoming Mead didn’t acquiesce in federal regulation. He didn’t trust the feds to regulate fracking.

But when it comes to your health, the ability of Wyoming families to obtain insurance, and the need to protect insurance consumers from insurance company predators, Matt Mead trusts the federal government.

Contrast Mead’s approach to that taken by California. Its governor saw Obamacare as an opportunity. As a result, insurance companies posted bids on the insurance exchange and premium costs are lower than anyone anticipated. Policymakers who actually wanted it to work made the difference.

In the end Wyoming consumers may be better off with federal regulation than relying on the Governor or the legislature to protect their interests. The sad but denied truth is that’s also true on environmental matters as well. But nobody ever lost a vote complaining about federal regulations, which makes turning over health insurance regulation to the feds that much more odd. 

Congressional dysfunction starts at home

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds twelve of every 100 voters approve the job Congress does. What are those twelve smoking? The question is relevant. While there’s no polling on the question, the number of Americans using marijuana would signal that drug dealers most likely have higher job approval ratings than members of Congress.

Wouldn’t you like to know what those twelve percent think Congress is doing right? Perhaps they’re the same folks who attend NASCAR races hoping to see fiery wrecks or the fans going to hockey games for the fistfights. They’d probably enjoy watching snake-handlers and playing Russian roulette.

While the National Security Agency is collecting personal information on Americans, they should identify these people. Anyone willing to admit they believe Congress is doing a good job is a security risk. We have a “need-to-know” who these people talk to on their cellphones, what they watch on TV, websites they visit, and comic books they read.

A disproportionate number of those twelve-per centers are most probably Wyoming voters. How else can you explain the fawning responses when a member of our Congressional delegation appears on a local radio talk show or holds a so-called “town hall” meeting? Listening to their groupies, you’d think that neither Senators Enzi or Barrasso, nor Congressman Lummis play no role whatsoever in congressional dysfunction. You might conclude they are the solution to the problems all those other politicians have created.

Only 12% of the voters think Congress does its job. Sixty-percent believe all the rascals should be thrown out and replaced. But last year, John Barrasso was reelected with 76% of the vote, virtually an identical percent given Senator Mike Enzi when he last ran for reelection in 2008. US Representative Cynthia Lummis received almost 70% of the vote in 2012. There’s a rationality gap.

What is it the vast majority don’t like about Congress that these our congressmen different from their colleagues? Nothing. Voters claim to dislike the partisanship and gridlock. Wyoming’s congressional delegation can be counted on by their party to support the gridlock whether stopping a vote on legislation or blocking the confirmation of an appointee.

While in Wyoming Senator Barrasso says things like, “People need to work together, find areas of common ground, things we agree with." Back on the banks of the Potomac, he prides himself in being a part of his party’s efforts to block and blame.

Remember how angry voters were when Congress shut down the government rather than reach a compromise? Though a fellow Republican called it the “dumbest idea I’ve ever heard,” Enzi joined other Republicans in threatening another shutdown if Democrats don’t agree to repeal Obamacare, virtually assuring the nation’s economy will again be put at-risk because of the Republicans’ obsessive vitriol over healthcare reform.

Voters claim to be concerned about the relationship between congress and campaign contributors. Whether you’re the 12% who think favorably of congress or the 70% who voted for Lummis, you should check out maplight.org, a website correlating the amounts and dates of campaign contributions with whether a congressman votes as the contributor wishes.

There you’ll find a list of opportunities for Lummis to take money one day and vote as the contributor asked the next. HR 2454, for example, was introduced in the 111^th Congress to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, and reduce climate change. On June 25, 2009, Alpha Natural Resources, one of America’s largest coal producers who opposed HR 2454, wrote two checks to the Lummis campaign for a total of $4,999, an odd figure suggestive of a need for further examination. On June 26th, Lummis voted as Alpha asked.

To be fair, there are times Lummis voted contrary to the desire of a contributor. Those votes are relatively few.

Voters set standards for other congressmen we won’t impose on our own. Do you really believe Congress is doing a poor job? Are you genuinely unhappy with the direction the country is headed? If so, the cleanup begins at home.