City of Lee's Summit and the Mobile Vendors

The City of Lee’s Summit is considering an ordinance to regulate mobile food vendors. My purpose here is not to discuss whether such ordinances are needed or even advisable. Rather, it is to issue a caution about potential unintended consequences that could arise should the ordinance be poorly crafted or even a properly crafted but unwisely enforced.

In numerous communities nationwide, such ordinances have been used to stifle one of the great American rights of passage for children. For example:

Hazelwood, MO, March 2011: Girl Scouts were prohibited from selling cookies in their own driveway.

Rio Nido, CA, August 7, 2001: Zoning officials shut down a 12-year old girl’s snack stand.

Naples, FL, June 28, 2011: Naples officials demanded closure of a lemonade stand operated by three kids under the age of 9.

St. Louis, MO, August 2004: The St. Louis Health Department shut down two girls selling lemonade.

Salem, MA, August 3, 2005: An 11 year-old and a 9 year-old selling lemonade were ordered to shut down after a nearby sausage vendor complained they were negatively affecting his business.

Midway, GA, July 15, 2011: Police shut down a lemonade stand of three young girls because they did not first obtain a business license, a peddler’s license, and a food permit.

I do not mean imply that anything nefarious is going on in the City Council. The point is to make sure that any ordinance is specific in its reach and is designed to solve clearly defined problems, if in fact there really is a problem.

Having said that, whether there really is a problem to be solved is the question that should be answered first.

Masters of Deceit

J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the FBI, has been much maligned in our day, but this book, written in 1958, presents us with insights into the activities of Communism in the United States from the perspective of the day.

Although many have discounted Hoover’s account, it’s striking to me that many of the tactics Hoover describes are strikingly similar to those we find encouraged some 15 years later in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Also, substitute the word “Jihadist” for “Communist”, and the book could have been written in the 21st Century. And in some places we could substitute the word “cult” for “party”, and we would have a universal description for how controlling religious movements capture and retain the true believer.

Fascinating book.

On the Right Hand and the Left

Things aren’t always as they seem.

The family of General Ulysses S Grant owned slaves. Robert E. Lee did not. Republican President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and Affirmative Action. A larger percentage Republicans than Democrats – in both houses of Congress -- voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even the devil can appear as an angel of light, and it’s evident from the Gospels that the disciples failed to see clearly the light of Jesus until some time after his resurrection.

Two of them approached him about sitting on his right hand and his left in the kingdom, showing among other things how little they grasped what the kingdom is all about. To them such a place seemed like a position of power and influence, but Jesus instructed them otherwise.

"Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

"We can," they answered.

Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." (Mark 10:38-40 NIV)

The disciples assumed that the cup of which Jesus spoke was a cup of blessing, as the one in the 23rd Psalm that overflows with the good things of life. But Jesus’ cup was different indeed, for he pleaded that if there were any way that cup could pass from his lips, then so let it pass. The cup of which he was to take was his reason for coming to this earth, and he simply had to drink of the vile sins that filled it (Luke 22:42, John 18:11).

To be on his right hand and his left might have been an honor, but at his last there were two men, one on his right hand and his left. Two thieves had that place of honor, and they would have given anything not to have had it. Truly the disciples did not know what they had asked when they requested such a cup.

But, then again, that’s the way life is. Things aren’t always as they seem.

The Heart of the Matter

There is a curious phenomenon this election cycle that has been building for decades and has now come into full blossom.

Forty years ago a president could not have been elected if he did not support family, marriage, and faith. This year, this 2012 campaign, such positions at least in some vocal quarters are considered to be too right wing to be acceptable to the voting public.

We’re not talking about government mandates for religious observance or lack of help for those in difficult situations. Rather, it’s a simple acknowledgement of the lessons of history. It acknowledges that if the family gets weaker, the government gets larger. It acknowledges that society is based on the family and perpetuates itself through values passed on through the family. It acknowledges that faith plays a dominant role in providing the rules of a civil society without government coercion. And it acknowledges that government’s role is to base its policies on upholding and encouraging such intermediary institutions rather than hindering and discouraging them.

This presidential cycle we’re being treated to the subtle propaganda that the main focus should be on economics, and indeed that is one central issue. But today the candidate who tells the truth is skewered as a right wing nut. And the truth is our economic problems are no more and no less than a reflection of our cultural problems. No matter that there is a demonstrable correlation between single parenthood and poverty. No matter that learning to work at an early age breaks the cycle of dependency on public and private charity. No matter that defining one’s self-worth on the ownership of stuff leads to unsustainable debt.

The bastion of freedom against intrusive government is the intermediary institutions of family, faith, charitable institutions, and the army of volunteers that provide their energy. A government dedicated to protecting liberty will encourage such institutions rather than co-opting or minimizing them.

Don't Sell Your Birthright

“Don’t sell your birthright for a bowl of red soup.” That little allegory might be hard to understand, but it should be a part of our cultural literacy. It’s based on a story in the book of Genesis, where twin brothers became rivals and vied for supremacy. In ancient times, the older brother was entitled to the family birthright, but in this story the younger brother through savvy and deceit talked the older one in a moment of hunger to give up his birthright for one bowl of red soup.

Jacob and Esau were the two brothers’ names, and the account is in Genesis 25:29-34. It reads like this:

Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. He said to Jacob, "Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I'm famished!" … Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright." "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?" But Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.

It is striking that someone could be shortsighted enough to give up the right by inheritance to wealth and position because of the expediency of the moment. I have an immediate physical desire (“right now I’m tired and hungry”), and I don’t have any immediate use for some undefined future bequest (“What is this birthright to me?”), so I’ll trade my most valuable crown jewels for some immediate gratification.

Is it any wonder that the writer of Hebrews calls Esau profane (Hebrews 12:16 KJV)?

It's tempting to think that no one would be foolish enough to sell one’s future for such a pittance, but a nation can also sell its birthright. Once the world’s largest creditor nation, the United States is now the world’s largest debtor nation. How did our nation morph from a nation of tremendous productive capacity to one that can’t seem to live within its means? How could a nation that was at one time economically self-sufficient become dependent upon nations who hate us and what we stand for?

Do you think this might have something to do with craving a bowl of red soup at the expense of greater things? Is it possible that life’s pleasures mean more to people than life’s purpose? Is it possible that the ambition of politics and finance leads to the erosion of our national treasure and will?

Is there a bowl of red soup on our national table?

Economics in One Easy Lesson

We create wealth by growing it, mining it, or manufacturing it.

We do not create wealth by borrowing it from the Chinese. We do not create wealth by printing more paper. We do not create wealth by appropriating it from one person to give it to another. We do not create wealth by increasing government payrolls. We do not create wealth by educating more lawyers. We do not create wealth by more regulations.

We either grow it out of the ground, dig it out of the ground, or mold it into stuff after it comes out of the ground.

Got it?

Sparrows Fall from Heaven

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” (Matt 10:28-31 NIV)

Comforting words, those. If God is aware of sparrows falling from the sky, how much more does he know of our travails! Yet missed in this talk of God’s omniscience is a troubling fact: sparrows do fall from heaven, and God does nothing to stop it. Many sparrows have fallen in his sight, and not just sparrows. People fall too. It must grieve a loving God’s heart to see the sufferings of the ages. Pestilence and storms. Warfare and tyranny. The suffering of martyrs. Earthquakes and terror. It has all been in God’s plain view, and just as Jesus wept over Jerusalem, one must wonder if the Father’s heart is also grieved over the helpless falling of many sparrows.

I believe he does grieve, and I believe he can and does weep. “Why will you die, O house of Israel?” God asks more than once. (Ezekiel 18:31, 33:11 NIV) And yet the sparrows continue to fall. Because God’s purposes are beyond our poor power to understand, asking why can become an exercise in frustration.

The “why” is important, but something else is more so. Perhaps the better question when sparrows fall is not why, but what. What am I going to do about it? If a sparrow falls from the sky, do I curse the law of gravity? Do I resign myself to the inevitable evils of the world? Or do I nurse it back to health?

When the storms of the world strike our brothers, do we curse God? Do we languish in the misery of others? Or do we rush to their aid and help carry them? Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ (II Corinthians 5:20 ), and as such we need to be in the business of reconciliation. The “what” is to be a tool in God’s hands, to offer the comfort, the support, the cold cup of water, the shelter over one’s head, or a hot meal to the fallen.

In such times, the fallen sparrows need Christ. As his ambassadors we represent the God of the universe, and it is through us that God lights the world and reveals his love. If we want to see God’s hand, perhaps it is at the end of our own arms.