Election Results

Some reflections on the election:

1.  Most of America does not think like I do.
2.  The possibility of overturning abortion is probably gone; my tax dollars will soon assist in the killing of the unborn.
3. The assault on religious liberty will continue, emboldened by this political victory.  This will require greater political activity on the part of Christians to defend the rights assured us in the Constitution.
4. Mitt Romney was always a marginal choice for those who hold biblical views.  No one knows what his actual performance would have been like: except the One who knows all things, the end from the beginning - and the One who withheld victory from him.
5.  Barak Obama is not and never has been the hope for saving this country.  Some evangelicals made the mistake of equating a Romney win with that same hope.
6.  The only hope for our country, or of any country, is the life change that comes from meeting Jesus Christ as living Lord and Savior.
7.  He has never moved off His Throne.

My Take on the Amendments to the Florida Consitution

One of the challenges of a democracy is that many times we are asked to make decisions about things that require research (to understand what is being asked) and wisdom (to recognize the agenda behind the change).  The 2012 Florida ballot asks us to make decisions about 11 proposed changes to the Florida Constitution.  Here is my take on what is going on and the direction that I will vote:

Amendment One

No one who is involved in a health fight would deny the need for health care reform.  Most people understand that the reforms made by the Affordable Health Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, have a huge number of problems.  One of the most significant issues is the issue of freedom.  In order to make ObamaCare appear to work, everyone must be in a program of some type: universal health care coverage is a mandate of the program.  This amendment attempts to battle the freedom issue, giving Floridians the right not to participate in health care coverage if they don’t want to.  The problem is that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act is essentially a new tax and the government has the right to levy taxes.

RECOMMENDATION: Though it will be probably be only a symbolic act, I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment One.

Amendment Two

Expands the availability of the property discount on the homesteads of veterans who became disabled as the result of a combat injury to include those who were not Florida residents when they entered the military and schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2013. 

For me, this is obvious.  I would happily pay higher property taxes to make up the discount to honor the sacrifice of a veteran who has become disabled serving our country…and this would be the point.  They served our country whether they lived in Florida while they served or not.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Two.

Amendment Three

Replaces the existing state revenue limitation based on Florida personal income growth with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population changes. Economic rules are hard because they address situations that require something that we don’t have: knowledge of the future.  This amendment is attempting to address the amount of revenue the state has on hand to spend.  This amendment makes sense to me because it addresses the very real fact of inflation.  I may have the same amount of money next year as I have this year, but I am unable to buy as much because prices are higher. 

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Three.

Amendment Four

In certain circumstances, the law requires the assessed value of homestead and specified non-homestead property to increase when the just value of the property decreases.   Should this amendment pass, there will be immediate financial consequences for local (town and county) governments.  There will be an estimated $200 million less available for those entities in our state based on the recalculations of property values that will be required by the amendment.  On the other hand, individuals and small businesses are paying higher property taxes than is equitable under the law.  Since the actual value of their properties have declined,they should be able to pay taxes on the real value of their property and not some mythical amount invented by the property tax code.  If government wants additional revenues, it should have to pay the political price required to pass legitimate property tax increases that affect ALL citizens and not just some.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Four.

Amendment Five

This amendment basically limits the power currently held by two branches of state government.  It limits the power of the Supreme Court by making it easier for the legislature to overturn practices and procedures that seem to be out of line with the desire of the electorate.  Under current law, the Governor appoints a justice of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees provided by a judicial nominating commission, and appointments by the Governor are not subject to confirmation. This revision requires Senate confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court before the appointee can take office.   This would limit the power of the Governor and give the legislature a voice in the makeup of the Supreme Court.

l like anything that provides more checks and balances where power is concerned.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Five.

Amendment Six

This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-beOne of the challenges of a democracy is that many times we are asked to make decisions about things that require research(to understand what is being asked) and wisdom (to recognize the agenda behind the change).  The 2012 Florida ballot asks us to make decisions about 11 proposed changes to the Florida Constitution.  Here is my take on what is going on and the direction that I will vote:

Amendment One

No one who is involved in a health fight would deny the need for health care reform.  Most people understand that the reforms made by the Affordable Health Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, have a huge number of problems.  One of the most significant issues is the issue of freedom.  In order to make ObamaCare appear to work, everyone must be in a program of some type: universal health care coverage is a mandate of the program.  This amendment attempts to battle the freedom issue, giving Floridians the right not to participate in health care coverage if they don’t want to.  The problem is that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act is essentially a new tax and the government has the right to levy taxes.

RECOMMENDATION: Though it will be probably be only a symbolic act, I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment One.

Amendment Two

Expands the availability of the property discount on the homesteads of veterans who became disabled as the result of a combat injury to include those who were not Florida residents when they entered the military and schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2013. 

For me, this is obvious.  I would happily pay higher property taxes to make up the discount to honor the sacrifice of a veteran who has become disabled serving our country…and this would be the point.  They served our country whether they lived in Florida while they served or not.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Two.

Amendment Three

Replaces the existing state revenue limitation based on Florida personal income growth with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population changes. Economic rules are hard because they address situations that require something that we don’t have: knowledge of the future.  This amendment is attempting to address the amount of revenue the state has on hand to spend.  This amendment makes sense to me because it addresses the very real fact of inflation.  I may have the same amount of money next year as I have this year, but I am unable to buy as much because prices are higher. 

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Three.

Amendment Four

In certain circumstances, the law requires the assessed value of homestead and specified non-homestead property to increase when the just value of the property decreases.   Should this amendment pass, there will be immediate financial consequences for local (town and county) governments.  There will be an estimated $200 million less available for those entities in our state based on the recalculations of property values that will be required by the amendment.  On the other hand, individuals and small businesses are paying higher property taxes than is equitable under the law.  Since the actual value of their properties have declined, they should be able to pay taxes on the real value of their property and not some mythical amount invented by the property tax code.  If government wants additional revenues, it should have to pay the political price required to pass legitimate property tax increases that affect ALL citizens and not just some.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Four.

Amendment Five

This amendment basically limits the power currently held by two branches of state government.  It limits the power of the Supreme Court by making it easier for the legislature to overturn practices and procedures that seem to be out of line with the desire of the electorate.  Under current law, the Governor appoints a justice of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees provided by a judicial nominating commission, and appointments by the Governor are not subject to confirmation. This revision requires Senate confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court before the appointee can take office.   This would limit the power of the Governor and give the legislature a voice in the makeup of the Supreme Court.

l like anything that provides more checks and balances where power is concerned.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Five.

Amendment Six

This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

I could spend a whole lot of time discussing this, but for me, abortion is the huge moral issue of our generation. 

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Six.

Amendment Seven

NOTE :Amendment 7 was removed from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled that some of the language in the ballot summary was misleading. It was replaced by Amendment 8, which clarified the language.

Amendment Eight

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

Current law discriminates against faith groups by not allowing access to state funding when it comes to services that faith groups provide that contribute to the public good. 

I would never personally lead a church to seek funding from the government.  If the Lord wants us to do something, I believe He will provide resources that bring glory to Him and not to the state.  That said, my personal conviction should not limit the freedom of another church to seek funding.  It also has overtones into the use of state scholarship funding to Christian colleges.  Again, the choice of college by a student should not dictate their right to scholarships that would be available should they choose another type of school.

 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Eight.

Amendment Nine

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to provide by general law ad valorem homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouse of a military veteran who died from service-connected causes while on active duty or to the surviving spouse of a first responder who died in the line of duty.

It would be different if these important jobs were paid on the higher level of the wage scale, but they aren’t.  When one of these important people go down, we should acknowledge it in a long term way since their loss is, definitely, long term for their families.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Nine.

Amendment Ten

This amendment makes a slight change to the way property taxes are calculated.  This change would help small businesses individually in a small way, but collectively could provide additional revenues that would create jobs.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Ten.

Amendment Eleven

An amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law and subject to conditions set forth in the general law, to allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of homestead property if the property has a just value less than $250,000 to an owner who has maintained permanent residency on the property for not less than 25 years, who has attained age 65, and who has a low household income as defined by general law.

This enshrines protections in the constitution for long-time Floridians when an area becomes involved in a land-boom and the property values sky-rocket.  This has happened over and over again in the history of our state and is likely to happen again. 

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Eleven.

Amendment Twelve

This is an esoteric amendment to the constitution that would normally be handled by the legislature, but in this case must be treated by an amendment change because of the way that it was originally handled.  It expands the representation among the student government organizations of our universities and colleges in its representation on the state Board of Governors.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we vote FOR Amendment Twelve.

On the Calvinism debate

The first time I encountered the “Doctrines of grace” produced one of the greatest crises of faith that I have experienced in my life.  I was auditing a course at a Bible college while attending university.  My crisis was, perhaps, augmented by the fact that I was facing the concepts of Hegel in literature.  I emerged from the crisis stronger in my faith; I did not emerge as a Calvinist.  Later on, I had the privilege of studying “The Life and Ministry of John Calvin” under one of the leading lights of Calvinistic advance during this generation: Tom Nettles.  The Lord allowed me to pair this encounter with a course called “The Calvinist-Arminian Controversy” under Dr. Reginald Barnard.  Dr. Barnard had been the Prizeman in Theology in his class at Spurgeon’s College and had gone on to pastor in London for 25 years before coming to the States and taking his doctorate.  His European perspective on the subject is something I have valued as I have continued my personal struggle through these difficult concepts. For almost 15 years, I worked my way through various African countries as a missionary. At every stop, I found myself in the training of pastors and leaders. These experiences have also contributed to the understanding that I have about the debate.

I have come to the place where I do not allow the theological position of a brother to determine how I relate to him.  My standard is to discover if grace is operational in a person’s life, in that they have become what I label “a great lover of Christ”.  Tom Nettles was an inspiration.  He came through the door of class with a song on his lips and joy in his heart; joy that was produced by his love for Jesus Christ and Him alone.  It was not his Calvinism that made him a “great lover of Christ”.  It was the living Lord, working in and through Him.  No less was this true of Dr. Barnard.  The quiet European demeanor could not hide an affectuous joie de vivre that came from his love of the Lord.  I walked by the side of wonderful African pastors; men whose educational level did not give them great entrance into the Word of God, but whose commitment to Christ was unequivocal and whose desire to learn was undeniable.  They were “great lovers of Christ” though they will never enter into the debate that seems so important to many in our Convention today. 

So, I’m going to refuse to participate in debate.  I will happily discuss my understanding of the Scripture and the great themes of theology with those whose love for Jesus is palpable.  I will avoid those who are contentious and pray that they will discover the admonition to “love the brotherhood” (1 Pt. 2:17).  The issue is far larger than the Southern Baptist Convention.  It is the very warp and woof (as Schaeffer used to say) of the outworking of the Christian faith.