Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion involving an interpretation of Illinois' very strict law involving under age drinking, which basically provides that if someone under 21 is caught consuming alcohol, their drivers' licenses are automatically suspended. The Court, however, went the extra step and held that even if the drinking offense did not involve the driving of a car, the suspension still applies.
In this case, which consolidated several appeals from the lower courts, involved individuals charged with underage drinking who plead guilty to that offense. No vehicles were involved. The trial court placed each on court supervision for 90 days and then entered an order declaring unconstitutional as applied the statute requiring suspension of a driver’s license on receipt of court supervision for underage drinking, even where no vehicle is involved. It found a due process violation. The Secretary of State brought the direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the finding of statutory unconstitutionality.
In 1989, the Illinois Supreme Court had held unconstitutional a statutory provision calling for revocation of a driver’s license on conviction of certain sex offenses. There, as here, there was no use of a vehicle. In this decision, the supreme court distinguished its earlier ruling, noting that, here, the legislature may have believed that a young person who consumes alcohol illegally may take the additional step of driving after consuming alcohol, and it is reasonable to believe that a young person disobeying the law against underage consumption may also lack the judgment to decline to drive after drinking. Preventing young people from driving after consuming alcohol is unquestionably in the public interest.
The supreme court also held that the obligation imposed here on the Secretary of State to suspend a driver’s license is mandatory, rather than discretionary.
Thus, the circuit court’s holding of statutory unconstitutionality was reversed.
And, the warning is clear. If you are not yet 21 years of age, and are caught drinking in violation of the law, you will lose your drivers' license, regardless of the circumstances.
Serious food for thought for young people in Illinois who might choose to drink, even if they never step behind the wheel of a car.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Legalizing Marijuana -- What would Happen if we did?
What would happen if marijuana were legal, taxed and regulated just like cigarettes or liquor? I am not necessarily advocating that pot should be readily legal and available, but in today's trying economic times, it could become a reality. Here is a reprint (with some additional comments of my own) from Avvo's "Nakedlaw" website. Read on to find out.
- Drug arrests would purportedly drop and prison space would open for violent offenders. As it stands now, there is a drug arrest made every 18 seconds in America. Now, not all of these arrests are marijuana related, and in fact, marijuana arrests have declined. However, there were more than 800,000 pot-related arrests in 2008, and there are still a number of these arrests taking place as we speak. If marijuana were legalized, these drug-related arrests might drop off -- maybe immensely, freeing up jail space and allowing police to focus on violent crimes.
- Fewer kids would try marijuana. It may be counter-intuitive, but legalizing marijuana for adults could lead to less pot use by kids. Why? Studies have shown that even though pot is currently illegal, kids find it more easily than beer and cigarettes. (Although if you click on that link it goes to a site sponsored by a group advocating for the legalization of marijuana -- sort of a "slanted source" -- is it reliable?) Legalizing marijuana would put street dealers out of business who don’t care about the age of their customers.
- Street violence would drop. According to Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University’s economics department, street violence would drop. The problem with pot being illegal is that it forces people to resolve disputes themselves, often with violence. If pot were legal, buyers and sellers could resolve their business disputes just like everyone else — in court. Gang violence, which is due in part to the illegal marijuana trade, would decrease as well.
- State governments would have a lot more money. If pot were legal, state governments could heavily tax it just like alcohol and tobacco, creating a new stream of revenue. For example, estimates show California could rake in over $1 billion per year in pot taxes. What’s more, according to The Budgetary Effects of Marijuana Prohibition, taxpayers are spending about $14 billion each year on the war against marijuana. That’s money that would be saved if marijuana were legal.
- Accidents and emergency room visits may increase. Although marijuana doesn’t historically conjure up images of wife beating and recklessness like alcohol, it does impair motor skills and judgment, which could lead to more accidents. (Of course, we don't have a history of LEGAL marijuana use, so comparing its potential abuse to alcohol abuse has no logical connection). However, this assumes legalizing marijuana would lead to more people using it, which isn’t necessarily true. In Holland, where marijuana is legal for everyone over 18, the percentage of adults using it is less than half of that in America. Is this just a cultural difference between the Dutch and Americans? Perhaps, but even in Europe, the French, Italians, Spaniards and Britons all use more pot than the Dutch, even though it’s illegal in all those countries.
- The price of marijuana would drop and corporations would profit. In areas where medical marijuana is legal, the increased supply has already caused prices to plummet. If pot were legal for everyone, prices would drop even further as large companies grew, cultivated and distributed marijuana on an industrial scale. Such large companies and their shareholders would make billions in additional profit (a part of which goes back to the government in the form of taxes) and they would need to hire more workers. Of course, some small-scale growers could also thrive, much like some microbreweries thrive in the face of Bud Light.
- Mexican drug cartels would be crippled. Marijuana accounts for as much as half of Mexican drug cartel revenue, which means legalizing it would cripple their business. This would free up the border patrol, the forest service and local law enforcement to worry about deadly drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin, not to mention terrorism. A financial blow to Mexican drug cartels would also weaken their control over American street and prison gangs.
Until marijuana legalization takes place in the US, we’ll never really know how things will pan out. However, we could get a glimpse of it in November when Californians vote on legalizing marijuana for everyone over 21.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The New Health Care Law and Federalism
Its almost ironic. Over the past week, leading up to to Sunday, the House of Representatives was debating the details of the new Health Care Act, which passed (barely!) on Sunday. At the same time, I was working with my daughter Cassi as she was studying about the Constitution at school.
In particular, Cassi was participating in a program called "We the People," where students were placed on debate-style teams and assigned a general topic. They would then appear as a panel before judges, and quizzed on their ability to discuss the topic as it related to the Constitution.
Cassi's topic was about how specific constitutional passages have affected the institutions of American Government -- basically, she needed to discuss the concept how the federal government's power to govern has evolved, and how the interpretation of the Constitution has affected specific aspects of government. Not an easy task, to be sure.
In an effort to help Cassi understand these concepts, I tried to bring her back to basic concepts -- Constitutional Law 101, so to speak. The kind of things that the Founding Fathers debated when the Constitution was ratified. The kinds of things that still form the basis for understanding how Federal Government works.
The United States is a "Federal" system. That is, there are two systems of government co-existing over the people of the United States -- the national government, based in Washington, D.C., and the government of each individual state. The overriding, basic understanding of the power of the Federal government, as expressed by the Founding Fathers (e.g. in the Federalist Papers), and by the interpretations of the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court is one of LIMITED, ENUMERATED POWERS. The Federal power is LIMITED, in that the three branches of the Federal government are only allowed to assert those powers specifically granted to them in the Constitution. Federal Power is ENUMERATED, as the powers granted to the national government are specifically listed in the Constitution. For example, most of the powers granted to Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8, and include things like the power to tax, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war, etc.
Contrast this with the Constitutional understanding of the power of the states' governments. Case law interpreting the Constitution defines State power as "inherent." That is to say, State government would have power and exist even if there was no Federal Constitution, and the State's power is general and not subject to limitation except for specific limitation by the Federal Constitution. This "inherent" authority includes a general "police power," which Courts have defined as the power to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of that State. Thus, an action by a State government is presumed valid under federal law unless it violates some specific limitation imposed on States by the Constitution.
I tried to explain to Cassi that in theory, State power is much broader than Federal power. States have inherent authority to act in any rational way to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their citizens. In contrast, the Federal government action must fall within one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Federal Courts have traditionally held that this means that there is no general Federal "police power." The Federal government technically has no right to regulate the health, safety or general welfare of the people. Each act of Federal legislation or regulation must come from a specific, enumerated power listed in the Constitution (e.g. commerce power, taxing power, spending power etc.). In addition, the Bill of Rights (which was enacted as an effort to further limit Federal Power at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789) specifically provides in the 10th Amendment that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.
Please note, however, that I said these concepts exist "in theory." This is because the enumerated powers for Congress in Article I, Section 8 includes the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Untied States." This so-called "necessary and proper" clause has been used by Federal courts to define and shape certain specific "implied powers" of the federal government. Federal legislation and regulation only needs to be rationally related to a constitutionally specified objective, and it will be deemed valid as an extension of the "enumerated powers." For example, this doctrine was defined in the case of McCullough v. Maryland back in 1819, where the establishment of a national bank via federal legislation was upheld. While getting into the banking business is not one of the enumerated powers, the Court determined that chartering a national bank was a rational and valid extension of the power to regulate commerce and raise revenue. Historically, then, when the Courts have interpreted federal legislation, they have usually deferred to Congressional power by connecting legislative purpose to the enumerated powers via the "necessary and proper" clause.
The same is true of the 10th Amendment. Only in rare occasions have the Courts invalidated Federal legislation on the grounds that it is interfering with powers that belong specifically to the States. There was a time in the early 20th century when the Supreme Court might have struck down legislation that interfered with a State's internal police power (e.g. wage and hour laws were once viewed this way), this has been engulfed by "necessary and proper." In addition, the Court has also viewed the concept that procedural safeguards built into the federal system (things like equal representation in the Senate, and state control over the structures of federal elections) mean that the structure of the federal system is designed to protect State interests.
As I looked at some of the details of the new Health Care Act, it all fit into these concepts of federalism. . . and made me think that Congress and the President may have given us legislation that has overstepped the boundaries of federal authority.
Two things in the new law look to me like they are at least arguably unconstitutional.
One is the concept that everyone will be required to purchase health insurance. The other is making the State governments liable for many of the financial and insurance related liabilities built into the plan.
I can see a valid argument being made that requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance as falling outside of the enumerated powers. Some people will argue that this is no different than being forced to have auto insurance, or paying for Medicare or Medicaid. But it is. First off, required auto insurance only kicks in if you drive a car and have a drivers' license. Thus, its rationally connected to the use of an auto and driving on the roads. Plus, its a STATE requirement. State governments have a general police power -- the feds do not. If I am forced to buy health insurance, but never need to go see a doctor, well, it would be like requiring people who don't have drivers' licenses to buy auto insurance. Thus, there is arguably no rational relation to one of the enumerated powers.
The comparison to Medicare and Medicaid, or Social Security, even, does not work as well. These serve, in essence, as taxes. The Federal government has determined that these concepts and services are necessary (and they arguably fit into the enumerated powers, or at least have been determined to be so by the Courts), and that through the taxing power, they need to be funded. I may not like this as a citizen, but I can't object, because these regulations pass Constitutional muster as a valid extension of the taxing power. But requiring me to purchase insurance is different. Its not a tax. Its a contractual relationship. Also, there will come a time when I will reach an age when I automatically qualify for the benefits of the aforementioned programs funded by taxes. I may never come to use the insurance policy. Again, there is not the same rational relationship to a constitutional objective.
In addition, the provisions of the law that require certain state action and responsibility could run afoul of the 10th Amendment. In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot require States to enact a certain statute, or regulate in a specific manner. Congress does not have the power to "commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." (New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
It does seem ironic. Simple, basic principles of Constitutional law -- principles high school students are learning about as a foundation to understand how our government works. These simple principles could be used to unravel the new Health Care system. There are already talks of legal actions to thwart the enactment of the law. At least 30 states are planning on enacting their own legislation to oppose certain aspects of the law. We could see McCullough v. Maryland revisited in a modern setting, but with a different result.
While I sympathize with the concept of reforming our health care system, the over-broad concept the Obama administration has taken has given its opponents the tools to take it down, and possibly turn back the clock to a time when Federal power was much less extensive. The most comprehensive federal entitlement program in history, including social security, could be brought down or significantly limited -- because the Obama administration insisted this had to be the way to do it, a less extensive overhaul would not work.
This almost arrogant commitment to a liberal ideology that does not mesh with most of America could be a disaster. The question is -- will the voters respond? Will the courts act in a way like I have outlined here? Time will tell. But it is ironic -- the nature of our Federal system, which was designed to limit federal power, may actually work the way its was designed. And Cassi and her high school classmates may get a civics lesson that is up front and real.
In particular, Cassi was participating in a program called "We the People," where students were placed on debate-style teams and assigned a general topic. They would then appear as a panel before judges, and quizzed on their ability to discuss the topic as it related to the Constitution.
Cassi's topic was about how specific constitutional passages have affected the institutions of American Government -- basically, she needed to discuss the concept how the federal government's power to govern has evolved, and how the interpretation of the Constitution has affected specific aspects of government. Not an easy task, to be sure.
In an effort to help Cassi understand these concepts, I tried to bring her back to basic concepts -- Constitutional Law 101, so to speak. The kind of things that the Founding Fathers debated when the Constitution was ratified. The kinds of things that still form the basis for understanding how Federal Government works.
The United States is a "Federal" system. That is, there are two systems of government co-existing over the people of the United States -- the national government, based in Washington, D.C., and the government of each individual state. The overriding, basic understanding of the power of the Federal government, as expressed by the Founding Fathers (e.g. in the Federalist Papers), and by the interpretations of the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court is one of LIMITED, ENUMERATED POWERS. The Federal power is LIMITED, in that the three branches of the Federal government are only allowed to assert those powers specifically granted to them in the Constitution. Federal Power is ENUMERATED, as the powers granted to the national government are specifically listed in the Constitution. For example, most of the powers granted to Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8, and include things like the power to tax, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war, etc.
Contrast this with the Constitutional understanding of the power of the states' governments. Case law interpreting the Constitution defines State power as "inherent." That is to say, State government would have power and exist even if there was no Federal Constitution, and the State's power is general and not subject to limitation except for specific limitation by the Federal Constitution. This "inherent" authority includes a general "police power," which Courts have defined as the power to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of that State. Thus, an action by a State government is presumed valid under federal law unless it violates some specific limitation imposed on States by the Constitution.
I tried to explain to Cassi that in theory, State power is much broader than Federal power. States have inherent authority to act in any rational way to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their citizens. In contrast, the Federal government action must fall within one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Federal Courts have traditionally held that this means that there is no general Federal "police power." The Federal government technically has no right to regulate the health, safety or general welfare of the people. Each act of Federal legislation or regulation must come from a specific, enumerated power listed in the Constitution (e.g. commerce power, taxing power, spending power etc.). In addition, the Bill of Rights (which was enacted as an effort to further limit Federal Power at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789) specifically provides in the 10th Amendment that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.
Please note, however, that I said these concepts exist "in theory." This is because the enumerated powers for Congress in Article I, Section 8 includes the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Untied States." This so-called "necessary and proper" clause has been used by Federal courts to define and shape certain specific "implied powers" of the federal government. Federal legislation and regulation only needs to be rationally related to a constitutionally specified objective, and it will be deemed valid as an extension of the "enumerated powers." For example, this doctrine was defined in the case of McCullough v. Maryland back in 1819, where the establishment of a national bank via federal legislation was upheld. While getting into the banking business is not one of the enumerated powers, the Court determined that chartering a national bank was a rational and valid extension of the power to regulate commerce and raise revenue. Historically, then, when the Courts have interpreted federal legislation, they have usually deferred to Congressional power by connecting legislative purpose to the enumerated powers via the "necessary and proper" clause.
The same is true of the 10th Amendment. Only in rare occasions have the Courts invalidated Federal legislation on the grounds that it is interfering with powers that belong specifically to the States. There was a time in the early 20th century when the Supreme Court might have struck down legislation that interfered with a State's internal police power (e.g. wage and hour laws were once viewed this way), this has been engulfed by "necessary and proper." In addition, the Court has also viewed the concept that procedural safeguards built into the federal system (things like equal representation in the Senate, and state control over the structures of federal elections) mean that the structure of the federal system is designed to protect State interests.
As I looked at some of the details of the new Health Care Act, it all fit into these concepts of federalism. . . and made me think that Congress and the President may have given us legislation that has overstepped the boundaries of federal authority.
Two things in the new law look to me like they are at least arguably unconstitutional.
One is the concept that everyone will be required to purchase health insurance. The other is making the State governments liable for many of the financial and insurance related liabilities built into the plan.
I can see a valid argument being made that requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance as falling outside of the enumerated powers. Some people will argue that this is no different than being forced to have auto insurance, or paying for Medicare or Medicaid. But it is. First off, required auto insurance only kicks in if you drive a car and have a drivers' license. Thus, its rationally connected to the use of an auto and driving on the roads. Plus, its a STATE requirement. State governments have a general police power -- the feds do not. If I am forced to buy health insurance, but never need to go see a doctor, well, it would be like requiring people who don't have drivers' licenses to buy auto insurance. Thus, there is arguably no rational relation to one of the enumerated powers.
The comparison to Medicare and Medicaid, or Social Security, even, does not work as well. These serve, in essence, as taxes. The Federal government has determined that these concepts and services are necessary (and they arguably fit into the enumerated powers, or at least have been determined to be so by the Courts), and that through the taxing power, they need to be funded. I may not like this as a citizen, but I can't object, because these regulations pass Constitutional muster as a valid extension of the taxing power. But requiring me to purchase insurance is different. Its not a tax. Its a contractual relationship. Also, there will come a time when I will reach an age when I automatically qualify for the benefits of the aforementioned programs funded by taxes. I may never come to use the insurance policy. Again, there is not the same rational relationship to a constitutional objective.
In addition, the provisions of the law that require certain state action and responsibility could run afoul of the 10th Amendment. In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot require States to enact a certain statute, or regulate in a specific manner. Congress does not have the power to "commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." (New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
It does seem ironic. Simple, basic principles of Constitutional law -- principles high school students are learning about as a foundation to understand how our government works. These simple principles could be used to unravel the new Health Care system. There are already talks of legal actions to thwart the enactment of the law. At least 30 states are planning on enacting their own legislation to oppose certain aspects of the law. We could see McCullough v. Maryland revisited in a modern setting, but with a different result.
While I sympathize with the concept of reforming our health care system, the over-broad concept the Obama administration has taken has given its opponents the tools to take it down, and possibly turn back the clock to a time when Federal power was much less extensive. The most comprehensive federal entitlement program in history, including social security, could be brought down or significantly limited -- because the Obama administration insisted this had to be the way to do it, a less extensive overhaul would not work.
This almost arrogant commitment to a liberal ideology that does not mesh with most of America could be a disaster. The question is -- will the voters respond? Will the courts act in a way like I have outlined here? Time will tell. But it is ironic -- the nature of our Federal system, which was designed to limit federal power, may actually work the way its was designed. And Cassi and her high school classmates may get a civics lesson that is up front and real.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Bill Pearce 1926-2010
Saturday night, while I was attending a church related social event, a friend asked me to comment on the passing of a "great trombone player." He thought I would know who he was talking about, but I was clueless, and he couldn't recall the name. Later, I learned that it was Bill Pearce. He died on February 22, after a long illness.
Bill Pearce was a huge inspiration to me when I was a teenager. You see, he was exactly what I wanted to be -- a jazz-style, lyrical trombone player with a sound like Tommy Dorsey and the technical fluidity of Bill Watrous, as well as a professional singer, and a well known radio announcer with his own nationally syndicated radio show. And he did all of this in the context of Christian ministry. He had his hands in and was at the top of his game in all of the arenas I aspired to be successful in as a teen.
I had learned about him first through his radio program -- "Nightsounds." I used to fall asleep listening to the radio as a teenager, and when I was in 8th grade and as a freshman or sophomore in high school, I was fascinated both the late night programming on WLNR radio from Lansing, Illinois. It was quite a variety -- the play by play of the Chicago Cougars, the new hockey team in the fledgling World Hockey Association, or Chuck Shaden's "Those were the days," rebroadcasts of old time radio programs. But after all that ended, around 11:30 or midnight, Bill Pearce's program came on. It was a time when I was really struggling with my spiritual identity, and the Nightsounds program really ministered to me with its biblical quotes and beautiful music.
It was much later that I learned of Mr. Pearce's singing and trombone prowess. I still have several of his recordings. It was my goal to become a professional trombonist and singer, and use my talents to glorify God. Later, in college, when I got the "radio bug," I also thought that being a radio professional would also be in my future. I wanted to do exactly what Bill Pearce was doing.
I got to meet Bill Pearce once. He was a featured clinician at a convention for Trombonists I attended with my Trombone professor, Dr. Tom Streeter, and our studio at Illinois Wesleyan, while I was in college. Probably 1978 or 1979. It was just Bill, presenting a workshop, playing his horn and singing to backup trax. It was an inspiring performance. He was genuinely warm and humble. I really didn't get much of a chance to talk to him -- it was more like "can I have your autograph." But he didn't brush any of us off.
Below is a great article, an interview he gave late in his career. There are a few links to audio files. Its a shame he wasn't more well known. Though I don't think fame meant a whole lot to Bill. He was just happy to play, sing, and minister on the radio.
Bill's theme song was his own arrangement of the artsong "Beau Soir" by Debussey. It was the opening theme for his radio show. I had the lead sheet for it. I could never play it as well as him. His haunting, lyrical interpretation defined how he played. And I can't hear that song, or even that style of music without thinking of Bill, and what he represented, and what he meant to me as a musician and in my walk with God. He was a shining example of a truly humble musician who used his gifts to further God's kingdom, without putting his own ego first.
I hope you enjoy the link to the interview. It really paints a great picture of Bill's life and contribution to our lives.
http://www.trombone.org/articles/library/pearce-int.asp
Bill Pearce was a huge inspiration to me when I was a teenager. You see, he was exactly what I wanted to be -- a jazz-style, lyrical trombone player with a sound like Tommy Dorsey and the technical fluidity of Bill Watrous, as well as a professional singer, and a well known radio announcer with his own nationally syndicated radio show. And he did all of this in the context of Christian ministry. He had his hands in and was at the top of his game in all of the arenas I aspired to be successful in as a teen.
I had learned about him first through his radio program -- "Nightsounds." I used to fall asleep listening to the radio as a teenager, and when I was in 8th grade and as a freshman or sophomore in high school, I was fascinated both the late night programming on WLNR radio from Lansing, Illinois. It was quite a variety -- the play by play of the Chicago Cougars, the new hockey team in the fledgling World Hockey Association, or Chuck Shaden's "Those were the days," rebroadcasts of old time radio programs. But after all that ended, around 11:30 or midnight, Bill Pearce's program came on. It was a time when I was really struggling with my spiritual identity, and the Nightsounds program really ministered to me with its biblical quotes and beautiful music.
It was much later that I learned of Mr. Pearce's singing and trombone prowess. I still have several of his recordings. It was my goal to become a professional trombonist and singer, and use my talents to glorify God. Later, in college, when I got the "radio bug," I also thought that being a radio professional would also be in my future. I wanted to do exactly what Bill Pearce was doing.
I got to meet Bill Pearce once. He was a featured clinician at a convention for Trombonists I attended with my Trombone professor, Dr. Tom Streeter, and our studio at Illinois Wesleyan, while I was in college. Probably 1978 or 1979. It was just Bill, presenting a workshop, playing his horn and singing to backup trax. It was an inspiring performance. He was genuinely warm and humble. I really didn't get much of a chance to talk to him -- it was more like "can I have your autograph." But he didn't brush any of us off.
Below is a great article, an interview he gave late in his career. There are a few links to audio files. Its a shame he wasn't more well known. Though I don't think fame meant a whole lot to Bill. He was just happy to play, sing, and minister on the radio.
Bill's theme song was his own arrangement of the artsong "Beau Soir" by Debussey. It was the opening theme for his radio show. I had the lead sheet for it. I could never play it as well as him. His haunting, lyrical interpretation defined how he played. And I can't hear that song, or even that style of music without thinking of Bill, and what he represented, and what he meant to me as a musician and in my walk with God. He was a shining example of a truly humble musician who used his gifts to further God's kingdom, without putting his own ego first.
I hope you enjoy the link to the interview. It really paints a great picture of Bill's life and contribution to our lives.
http://www.trombone.org/ar
Monday, February 8, 2010
Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 18 (closing out the Book of Galatians, and my Journal!)
Galatians 6:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.
The last verse of the entire book/letter. We could pass over this quickly if we’re not careful – it just seems like a typical “doxology” style closing. Not bereft of meaning, but ostensibly not a lot of practical application. But if we dismissed this so easily, we’d be wrong – we'd miss Paul’s final sentence summary/emphasis on the major themes of the book.
Paul uses this type of blessing to sum up and close many of his letters (see Romans 16:20, Philippians 4:23, 2 Timothy 4:22, Philemon 1:25). But in the context of Galatians, this simple blessing serves to help sum up the entire message.
If we pick this simple sentence apart, there are 4 sections and concepts to emphasize. “Grace;” “Lord Jesus Christ;” “your spirit;” and “brothers.”
“Grace” The foundational concept for the book of Galatians. It is not what we do, or what we try to make ourselves into that brings us favor with God – it is the promise, it is God’s merit-less favor, His merciful kindness that unites us with Him, and nothing more.
“Lord Jesus Christ” It is Christ’s merciful kindness, His sacrifice that opens the gateway to our relationship with God. It is His Grace, and his Grace alone. Plus, he is “Lord.” He is the King of Creation, and the Universe. Each of us is part of his divine plan and purpose, and he lives us enough to have died for us.
“with your Spirit” The word here for Spirit is the same word used to describe the Holy Spirit – the third person of the trinity. This word can be used to describe the Spirit’s personality or character (as in “Holy” Spirit) or to emphasize His work and power (i.e. the “Spirit of Truth”), but the emphasis here shows that “Spirit” is not some depersonalized force – this is a Person, with a real and distinct identity, the co-equal of God the Father and God the Son. But because of the transformation of our lives in Christ – the “new creation” – He is now “our Spirit.” Paul has emphasized throughout the letter (Galatians 3:2-5; 5:16-26) that once we’ve been baptized in the Spirit, and filled by the Spirit, we “walk” with him in a supernaturally transformed life. Fulfilling the law was impossible (see Galatians 3:10-12), but now that Jesus has paid the price for the curse and the Spirit has filled and empowered us, we can walk in the fullness of the kingdom and please God. (see Galatians 5:16-18, 22-24).
“brothers” And here is the second major emphasis in the book of Galatians. The word for “brothers” here is a very powerful Greek term. “Adelphos,” a term we Americans recognize today from the name of the city of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love.” The ancient Greeks used this term to describe a sibling relationship, or in more general terms, to describe people of the same race or nationality. It might also be used to describe any fellow human being in the sense of a common bond of humanity (i.e. “the brotherhood of man”), it implies an extremely strong bond of affection. Paul, a Jew by birth (and an aristocratic one at that) was closely identifying himself with the ethnically Greek Galatians as if they were part of his family. Paul’s use of this term, I believe, is meant to show that ethnicity has no place in the Kingdom of God as far as acceptability to God or each other is concerned. The great heresy of the Galatian churches was as much ethnic prejudice as it was theological – the two concepts are inextricably wed to each other. The great sin of the American churches no different – we separate by ethnicity and culture as well. Many of us American Christians have correct theology to start – we believe in the promise, believe in salvation by grace, and recognize that obeying a set of rules will not make us right with God. But then we use a standard of cultural conformity to reject whole classes of other Christians, calling it “theology” when its really all about race, ethnic culture, or denominationalism. 1 John 2:9 say “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in darkness.” Many of Christians here in America today have a correct view of theology, but walk in that same darkness. I pray for a gift of repentance for myself and my brethren, that we may turn from our arrogance and pride in our ethnicity and traditions and embrace the truth. We need to grasp the essence of Paul’s message in Galatians if we are to be effective witnesses of the Gospel in the world today.
The last verse of the entire book/letter. We could pass over this quickly if we’re not careful – it just seems like a typical “doxology” style closing. Not bereft of meaning, but ostensibly not a lot of practical application. But if we dismissed this so easily, we’d be wrong – we'd miss Paul’s final sentence summary/emphasis on the major themes of the book.
Paul uses this type of blessing to sum up and close many of his letters (see Romans 16:20, Philippians 4:23, 2 Timothy 4:22, Philemon 1:25). But in the context of Galatians, this simple blessing serves to help sum up the entire message.
If we pick this simple sentence apart, there are 4 sections and concepts to emphasize. “Grace;” “Lord Jesus Christ;” “your spirit;” and “brothers.”
“Grace” The foundational concept for the book of Galatians. It is not what we do, or what we try to make ourselves into that brings us favor with God – it is the promise, it is God’s merit-less favor, His merciful kindness that unites us with Him, and nothing more.
“Lord Jesus Christ” It is Christ’s merciful kindness, His sacrifice that opens the gateway to our relationship with God. It is His Grace, and his Grace alone. Plus, he is “Lord.” He is the King of Creation, and the Universe. Each of us is part of his divine plan and purpose, and he lives us enough to have died for us.
“with your Spirit” The word here for Spirit is the same word used to describe the Holy Spirit – the third person of the trinity. This word can be used to describe the Spirit’s personality or character (as in “Holy” Spirit) or to emphasize His work and power (i.e. the “Spirit of Truth”), but the emphasis here shows that “Spirit” is not some depersonalized force – this is a Person, with a real and distinct identity, the co-equal of God the Father and God the Son. But because of the transformation of our lives in Christ – the “new creation” – He is now “our Spirit.” Paul has emphasized throughout the letter (Galatians 3:2-5; 5:16-26) that once we’ve been baptized in the Spirit, and filled by the Spirit, we “walk” with him in a supernaturally transformed life. Fulfilling the law was impossible (see Galatians 3:10-12), but now that Jesus has paid the price for the curse and the Spirit has filled and empowered us, we can walk in the fullness of the kingdom and please God. (see Galatians 5:16-18, 22-24).
“brothers” And here is the second major emphasis in the book of Galatians. The word for “brothers” here is a very powerful Greek term. “Adelphos,” a term we Americans recognize today from the name of the city of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love.” The ancient Greeks used this term to describe a sibling relationship, or in more general terms, to describe people of the same race or nationality. It might also be used to describe any fellow human being in the sense of a common bond of humanity (i.e. “the brotherhood of man”), it implies an extremely strong bond of affection. Paul, a Jew by birth (and an aristocratic one at that) was closely identifying himself with the ethnically Greek Galatians as if they were part of his family. Paul’s use of this term, I believe, is meant to show that ethnicity has no place in the Kingdom of God as far as acceptability to God or each other is concerned. The great heresy of the Galatian churches was as much ethnic prejudice as it was theological – the two concepts are inextricably wed to each other. The great sin of the American churches no different – we separate by ethnicity and culture as well. Many of us American Christians have correct theology to start – we believe in the promise, believe in salvation by grace, and recognize that obeying a set of rules will not make us right with God. But then we use a standard of cultural conformity to reject whole classes of other Christians, calling it “theology” when its really all about race, ethnic culture, or denominationalism. 1 John 2:9 say “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in darkness.” Many of Christians here in America today have a correct view of theology, but walk in that same darkness. I pray for a gift of repentance for myself and my brethren, that we may turn from our arrogance and pride in our ethnicity and traditions and embrace the truth. We need to grasp the essence of Paul’s message in Galatians if we are to be effective witnesses of the Gospel in the world today.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 17
Galatians 6:17 Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
“Finally, let no one cause me trouble” Throughout this letter, Paul has been on the defensive. The heresy of the Judiazers threatened his whole ministry and purpose, as well as the purity and fundamental truth of the Gospel. The “trouble” I believe he is trying to head off is the concept of the Galatian Christians continuing to put him in a position where it is necessary to vindicate his apostolic authority (as he did in Galatians 1:11 – 2:10) and the divine truth of the message he brought to the Gentiles (as he did in Galatians 2:11 through 4:7). He is really concluding this letter by stating that the issues he’s discussed and the conclusions he’s reached are settled – there is no more reason to debate any of these concepts.
“for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.” The word for “mark” here is the Greek word “stigma.” It literally means to make a mark on the skin through sticking or pricking. It’s a word that describes the process of tattooing the skin, or branding with a hot iron, or even cutting the skin so as to leave a distinctive mark. In Paul’s day, slaves, criminals and prisoners of war were tattooed for identification. Certain pagan religious cults, such as those in Egypt and Syria, also used tattoos to show devotion to their Gods or to designate that a person was set apart to serve the Gods. Tattoos were used to show to which master the person being marked belonged. The mark was a testimony to whom the person belonged, or to whom the animal belonged (the Greeks and Romans generally associated tattoos with barbarians, and branding was reserved for animals). The law of Moses specifically prohibited tattoos, so Jewish tradition allowed for other outward signs of a slave or servant – an earring, for example.
But this Greek word “stigma” had broad application, and could be used to describe any mark or puncture wound. Our modern English use of the word “stigma” is a direct descendant of the Greek usage. The mark placed on a slave or criminal denoted shame. Today, in English, “stigma” means something that serves to be a mark of shame or infamy, a stain, or reproach, especially regarding a person’s reputation.
So what did Paul mean by “marks of Jesus” that he bore in his body? I believe he meant it both literally and figuratively. Paul did bear actual scars and wounds that evidenced the persecution he suffered for the sake of Christ. He had been stoned (Acts 14:19), beaten (Acts 16:22, 2 Corinthians 11:25) suffered a variety of illnesses, some of which may have been the product of the stoning and beatings (2 Corinthians 12:7, Galatians 4:13-14). These physical “scars” marked him as a servant of Christ (see Galatians 1:10 and 2 Corinthians 4:10) in the same way the slave’s tattoo marked his as a bond servant.
But there is, of course, a deeper, spiritual meaning. Christ’s wounds were affected through the concept of sticking or pricking or piercing. Literally, in the meaning of the ancient Greek word, “stigma.” Thus, the ancient Greeks would have used the very same word to describe the wounds that crucifixion produced – nails driven through the hands (or wrists) and feet, the spear thrust into Christ’s side. Indeed, the Latin derivation of this word – “stigmata” – has been used to describe not just the wounds of Christ , but a cultic practice among Roman Catholic ascetics whereby the wounds of Christ ostensibly and purportedly supernaturally appear on the hands and feet of a person devoted to Christ. Paul certainly isn’t referring to that – but crucifixion is a major theme in this book – being crucified with Christ, dying to self, and walking in the newness of life in Jesus just as Christ rose from the dead. Paul noted that he – and all believers – are “crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20). Paul had not been literally crucified (no actual “stigmata” in his body), but was one with Christ’s death and resurrection in the Spirit. Therefore, he bore the “marks” of Jesus in the Spirit. (Galatians 6:14). For while the word here for “body” literally means the human body, it can also be translated simply as “me.” I do think Paul is referring to literal marks on his body from the wounds he received in persecution, but we miss so much if we don’t also consider this deeper meaning.
“Finally, let no one cause me trouble” Throughout this letter, Paul has been on the defensive. The heresy of the Judiazers threatened his whole ministry and purpose, as well as the purity and fundamental truth of the Gospel. The “trouble” I believe he is trying to head off is the concept of the Galatian Christians continuing to put him in a position where it is necessary to vindicate his apostolic authority (as he did in Galatians 1:11 – 2:10) and the divine truth of the message he brought to the Gentiles (as he did in Galatians 2:11 through 4:7). He is really concluding this letter by stating that the issues he’s discussed and the conclusions he’s reached are settled – there is no more reason to debate any of these concepts.
“for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.” The word for “mark” here is the Greek word “stigma.” It literally means to make a mark on the skin through sticking or pricking. It’s a word that describes the process of tattooing the skin, or branding with a hot iron, or even cutting the skin so as to leave a distinctive mark. In Paul’s day, slaves, criminals and prisoners of war were tattooed for identification. Certain pagan religious cults, such as those in Egypt and Syria, also used tattoos to show devotion to their Gods or to designate that a person was set apart to serve the Gods. Tattoos were used to show to which master the person being marked belonged. The mark was a testimony to whom the person belonged, or to whom the animal belonged (the Greeks and Romans generally associated tattoos with barbarians, and branding was reserved for animals). The law of Moses specifically prohibited tattoos, so Jewish tradition allowed for other outward signs of a slave or servant – an earring, for example.
But this Greek word “stigma” had broad application, and could be used to describe any mark or puncture wound. Our modern English use of the word “stigma” is a direct descendant of the Greek usage. The mark placed on a slave or criminal denoted shame. Today, in English, “stigma” means something that serves to be a mark of shame or infamy, a stain, or reproach, especially regarding a person’s reputation.
So what did Paul mean by “marks of Jesus” that he bore in his body? I believe he meant it both literally and figuratively. Paul did bear actual scars and wounds that evidenced the persecution he suffered for the sake of Christ. He had been stoned (Acts 14:19), beaten (Acts 16:22, 2 Corinthians 11:25) suffered a variety of illnesses, some of which may have been the product of the stoning and beatings (2 Corinthians 12:7, Galatians 4:13-14). These physical “scars” marked him as a servant of Christ (see Galatians 1:10 and 2 Corinthians 4:10) in the same way the slave’s tattoo marked his as a bond servant.
But there is, of course, a deeper, spiritual meaning. Christ’s wounds were affected through the concept of sticking or pricking or piercing. Literally, in the meaning of the ancient Greek word, “stigma.” Thus, the ancient Greeks would have used the very same word to describe the wounds that crucifixion produced – nails driven through the hands (or wrists) and feet, the spear thrust into Christ’s side. Indeed, the Latin derivation of this word – “stigmata” – has been used to describe not just the wounds of Christ , but a cultic practice among Roman Catholic ascetics whereby the wounds of Christ ostensibly and purportedly supernaturally appear on the hands and feet of a person devoted to Christ. Paul certainly isn’t referring to that – but crucifixion is a major theme in this book – being crucified with Christ, dying to self, and walking in the newness of life in Jesus just as Christ rose from the dead. Paul noted that he – and all believers – are “crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20). Paul had not been literally crucified (no actual “stigmata” in his body), but was one with Christ’s death and resurrection in the Spirit. Therefore, he bore the “marks” of Jesus in the Spirit. (Galatians 6:14). For while the word here for “body” literally means the human body, it can also be translated simply as “me.” I do think Paul is referring to literal marks on his body from the wounds he received in persecution, but we miss so much if we don’t also consider this deeper meaning.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 16
Galatians 6:16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.
There is an interesting parallelism at the opening and closing of the book of Galatians. In 1:3, Paul blesses his readers with “grace and peace,” here, the third verse from the end of the letter, he blesses them with “peace and mercy.” As we discussed in the comments for Chapter 1, verse 3, the pronouncement of blessing there was connected to the common custom in ancient Greece to wish “peace” as a greeting, sort of the way we modern Americans say “Hello.” A greeting of “peace” was also common in Hebrew culture (“Shalom!”). Paul’s introductory greeting and blessing seemed like an effort to sort of bridge the two cultural forces that came together in the Galatian churches – recognizing the validation of the roots of each culture (Greek and Hebrew) while looking forward to a unified, newly forged cultural identity that has more to due with Christ than ethnicity.
Here, in 6:16, Paul does a similar turn, but the emphasis is on the other side. That is, in Chapter 1, the greeting felt more slanted towards a “Greek” sensibility, tempered for the Jewish listener. Here, its completely the opposite, and for good reason –
“Peace and mercy” By connecting this phrase with the concept of Israel at the end of the verse, this becomes more than just a benediction – the phrase “peace be upon Israel” was a cultural icon to the Jews. It was extremely common for a Jewish person in that time to bless others with the phrase “peace be upon . . . “ Jewish tombs often bore the phrase “Peace be upon Israel.” These same words were also the common closing prayer in services in Jewish synagogues – the formal benediction known as the “Amidah,” with its origins in Psalm 125:5 and Psalm 128:6. Paul is pronouncing the benediction and blessing upon the Christians of Galatia in the same manner as a Jewish Rabbi.
“to all who follow this rule” The Greek word for “all” here is translated in the King James Version as “as many as.” The poetic image of the latter is a more fitting translation, in my opinion. While it implies “everybody,” the English word “all” also seems to imply something finite. The Greek word means “as great as,” “as far as.” “whoever,” etc. It implies a number that is always increasing. God’s economy has no limitations, his love and mercy have no boundaries. Salvation is a gift given freely – everyone – “as many as” – will have the opportunity to make this choice.
“follow this rule” the word here for “follow” literally means to “walk.” As discussed in the commentary for Galatians 5:16, where Paul speaks of “walking” in the Spirit, the concept of “walking” with God was a distinctly Jewish cultural consideration, expressed in the Hebrew concept of “Halakah.” But the “Halakah” implied strict discipline and rigid conformity to the rule – the Greek word for “walk” used here implies an orderly walk, like soldiers marching in a line. As emphasized in Chapter 5, the “walk” here, the “rule” of discipline is one of freedom. The very covenant is following a rule, but one that is manifested in the freedom of Christ, rather than slavish devotion to statutes. When viewed in the context of Paul’s entire message to the Galatians, this blessing proves to be the perfect bookend, and exact opposite of the curse pronounced against the disasters of following the Law in Galatians 1:8-9.
“even to the Israel of God.” Paul has been arguing both impliedly and directly throughout the letter that defining our Christianity by culture and ethnicity is wrong. Circumcision is more than just an issue of obeying the rules, but in the context of the argument used by the Judiazers for the Galatians to submit to it, its an issue of ethnic intimidation. The “rule” Paul is encouraging us to follow is embracing a relationship with Christ, not of ethnic traditions. And while the Messiah comes out of Israel, and is the fulfillment of the Law, Paul puts that in proper context here.
In 1 Corinthians 10:18, Paul uses the phrase “people of Israel.” Literally, it means “Israel according to the flesh.” When we put together all of Paul’s arguments in Galatians, we see a picture of the people of God that has nothing to do with “the flesh.” The many churches of Galatia were made up of believing Jews and Gentiles of various ethnic groups, the new “seed” of Abraham according to Galatians 3:15-20, and the heirs of the promise according to Galatians 3:29 (see also Romans 9:6 and Philippians 3:3). Some bible scholars insist that by using the phrase “Israel of God,” Paul is limiting this to Christian Jews. But that doesn’t fit in to the overall context of Paul’s message. “Israel of God” means all believers, the spiritual heirs of Abraham, Jew and Gentile together. But by making his final blessing distinctively Jewish, he is both giving the right emphasis and proper place of honor to the Jewish people and culture (for after all, Jesus himself was culturally Jewish, and the Jews were God’s chosen people), but he is also putting the Judiazers in their place – showing the true purpose for the Law and the promise. Its ironic – at least to those who insisted on obedience to the Law in order to be a “proper Christian” – the blessing here has a distinctively Jewish flair that depicts a distinctively Jewish promise fulfilled in a distinctively Jewish Messiah that was always meant for all people – Jew and non-Jew alike.
There is an interesting parallelism at the opening and closing of the book of Galatians. In 1:3, Paul blesses his readers with “grace and peace,” here, the third verse from the end of the letter, he blesses them with “peace and mercy.” As we discussed in the comments for Chapter 1, verse 3, the pronouncement of blessing there was connected to the common custom in ancient Greece to wish “peace” as a greeting, sort of the way we modern Americans say “Hello.” A greeting of “peace” was also common in Hebrew culture (“Shalom!”). Paul’s introductory greeting and blessing seemed like an effort to sort of bridge the two cultural forces that came together in the Galatian churches – recognizing the validation of the roots of each culture (Greek and Hebrew) while looking forward to a unified, newly forged cultural identity that has more to due with Christ than ethnicity.
Here, in 6:16, Paul does a similar turn, but the emphasis is on the other side. That is, in Chapter 1, the greeting felt more slanted towards a “Greek” sensibility, tempered for the Jewish listener. Here, its completely the opposite, and for good reason –
“Peace and mercy” By connecting this phrase with the concept of Israel at the end of the verse, this becomes more than just a benediction – the phrase “peace be upon Israel” was a cultural icon to the Jews. It was extremely common for a Jewish person in that time to bless others with the phrase “peace be upon . . . “ Jewish tombs often bore the phrase “Peace be upon Israel.” These same words were also the common closing prayer in services in Jewish synagogues – the formal benediction known as the “Amidah,” with its origins in Psalm 125:5 and Psalm 128:6. Paul is pronouncing the benediction and blessing upon the Christians of Galatia in the same manner as a Jewish Rabbi.
“to all who follow this rule” The Greek word for “all” here is translated in the King James Version as “as many as.” The poetic image of the latter is a more fitting translation, in my opinion. While it implies “everybody,” the English word “all” also seems to imply something finite. The Greek word means “as great as,” “as far as.” “whoever,” etc. It implies a number that is always increasing. God’s economy has no limitations, his love and mercy have no boundaries. Salvation is a gift given freely – everyone – “as many as” – will have the opportunity to make this choice.
“follow this rule” the word here for “follow” literally means to “walk.” As discussed in the commentary for Galatians 5:16, where Paul speaks of “walking” in the Spirit, the concept of “walking” with God was a distinctly Jewish cultural consideration, expressed in the Hebrew concept of “Halakah.” But the “Halakah” implied strict discipline and rigid conformity to the rule – the Greek word for “walk” used here implies an orderly walk, like soldiers marching in a line. As emphasized in Chapter 5, the “walk” here, the “rule” of discipline is one of freedom. The very covenant is following a rule, but one that is manifested in the freedom of Christ, rather than slavish devotion to statutes. When viewed in the context of Paul’s entire message to the Galatians, this blessing proves to be the perfect bookend, and exact opposite of the curse pronounced against the disasters of following the Law in Galatians 1:8-9.
“even to the Israel of God.” Paul has been arguing both impliedly and directly throughout the letter that defining our Christianity by culture and ethnicity is wrong. Circumcision is more than just an issue of obeying the rules, but in the context of the argument used by the Judiazers for the Galatians to submit to it, its an issue of ethnic intimidation. The “rule” Paul is encouraging us to follow is embracing a relationship with Christ, not of ethnic traditions. And while the Messiah comes out of Israel, and is the fulfillment of the Law, Paul puts that in proper context here.
In 1 Corinthians 10:18, Paul uses the phrase “people of Israel.” Literally, it means “Israel according to the flesh.” When we put together all of Paul’s arguments in Galatians, we see a picture of the people of God that has nothing to do with “the flesh.” The many churches of Galatia were made up of believing Jews and Gentiles of various ethnic groups, the new “seed” of Abraham according to Galatians 3:15-20, and the heirs of the promise according to Galatians 3:29 (see also Romans 9:6 and Philippians 3:3). Some bible scholars insist that by using the phrase “Israel of God,” Paul is limiting this to Christian Jews. But that doesn’t fit in to the overall context of Paul’s message. “Israel of God” means all believers, the spiritual heirs of Abraham, Jew and Gentile together. But by making his final blessing distinctively Jewish, he is both giving the right emphasis and proper place of honor to the Jewish people and culture (for after all, Jesus himself was culturally Jewish, and the Jews were God’s chosen people), but he is also putting the Judiazers in their place – showing the true purpose for the Law and the promise. Its ironic – at least to those who insisted on obedience to the Law in order to be a “proper Christian” – the blessing here has a distinctively Jewish flair that depicts a distinctively Jewish promise fulfilled in a distinctively Jewish Messiah that was always meant for all people – Jew and non-Jew alike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
