Planes, Trains, and Automobiles

On April 18, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled that U.S. health agencies do not have the authority to uphold a national transportation mask mandate. In her ruling, she said that the CDC failed to properly justify its mask order and did not follow proper federal procedures in implementing it. For a little background, U.S. airlines had been requiring that passengers and crew wear a mask since mid-2020. In addition, the Biden administration and the CDC had issued orders in January 2021 requiring that masks be worn on and in virtually all forms of public transportation (including Uber and Lyft), as well as in airport terminals, train stations, ferry terminals, and the like. Following Judge Mizelle’s ruling, virtually all airlines and Amtrak, as well as Uber and Lyft, did away with their mask mandates.

Following the ruling, when a reporter asked President Biden whether Americans should continue to wear a mask on a plane, he responded, “That’s up to them.” However, both the Department of Justice and White House spokesperson Jen Psaki soon undermined what Biden had said. Psaki, for example, said, “Public health decisions shouldn’t be made by the courts. They should be made by public health experts.” She also said that the Biden administration is “abiding by the CDC recommendations . . . and we would advise all Americans to do that.”

To no one’s surprise, the response of many on the left has been nothing short of apoplectic. Here are a few examples. An ABC news commentator said that Judge Mizelle’s ruling was a legal ruling, not a scientific one. (More on the second part of that later.) Paul Krugman, a New York Times opinion columnist, predicted harassment of mask-wearers and even violence against them. In response to video of airline passengers cheering the announcement of the lifting of the mask mandate during a flight, foul-mouthed TV host Joy Reid said, “Did announcing the end of the mask mandate, literally in the the middle of the flight, kinda let those a-holes win?”

If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you know that I’m firmly against vaccination and mask mandates. Please note the word mandates. I simply believe that people should be free to choose whether they get vaccinated and/or wear a mask. Listening to some of the strident voices on the left, one might think that Judge Mizelle has made it illegal to wear masks on public transportation, which is simply not true.

I came across an interesting website which gives brief summaries of the findings of 167 studies regarding mask ineffectiveness, mandates, and harm(s); here is the link, if you’re interested: https://centerforneurologyandspine.com/do-masks-work-see-the-review-of-over-150-studies-below/ I haven’t read all 167 of them, but I did read several, especially some of the 61 summaries of studies regarding mask “harms.” You may recall that very early in the pandemic, it had become obvious that the elderly and those with certain comorbidities were most at risk from COVID. Some of the studies in the above link refer to physical harm, even death, from mask-wearing, particularly in children. For example, in China in April of 2020, there were “three cases of students suffering sudden cardiac death (SCD) while running during gym class. All three students were wearing masks at the time of their deaths, igniting a critical discussion over school rules on when students should wear masks.” Maybe you’ve seen the video of Maggie Williams, a high-school student in Oregon who collapsed while crossing the finish line at a track meet in April of 2021; she was wearing a state-required mask. Thankfully, the state of Oregon revised its previous foolish outdoor mask mandate as a result, “allow[ing] people to take off face coverings when competing in non-contact sports outdoors.”

There are other studies that refer to not only physical harm, but psychological and emotional harm as well. One example that essentially combines all three of these types of harm is language acquisition, which has been made more difficult for children because of muffled voices and the inability to see the faces of the people who are talking to them. I believe that only time will tell how much injury of various kinds we have unwittingly inflicted on our children because of foolish government (worldwide) policies made during the pandemic.

Since this blog is focused on Biblical answers to questions and issues, how are we as Christians to respond to the lifting of the mask mandate on public transportation? Here’s what Romans 12:18 tells us: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” If you desire to continue wearing a mask (in various contexts, not just on public transportation), then do so; while I would prefer to see your face, I’m not going to harass or become violent against you–note to Paul Krugman. In fact, I will gladly talk with you if you so desire. Regardless, I would also hope that you treat me with civility, even if you prefer not to see my face! I should also add that if Judge Mizelle’s ruling is overturned, I will continue to wear a mask where required. Let’s live at peace with one another, regardless of our differing opinions and preferences.

“Give Us Barabbas!”

Back in the 1980s, when I was a young believer, I heard a sermon called something like “Three of the Most Frightening Words in Scripture.” I don’t remember who the pastor was, but the message was incredibly powerful. In this post, I will share some of the things I remember from that sermon, as well as adding some of my own thoughts.

If you’re a Christian, you probably recognize the name Barabbas because of what happened on Good Friday. All four of the Gospels tell us that Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion against the Roman empire. Mark and Luke tell us that he had committed murder; Luke also reminds us in Acts 3:14 that Barabbas was a murderer. Matthew, Mark, and John all tell us that it was the custom for the Roman governor (at that time Pilate) to release a prisoner at the time of the Passover Feast. When Jesus appears before Pilate, he finds nothing to charge Jesus with, so Pilate wants to release Him. In John 18:39, Pilate asks the Jewish mob, “Do you want me to release the king of the Jews?” In verse 40, they respond, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” If you look at Matthew 27:20, you will see that the chief priests and elders had persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

One of the most frightening things about the mob asking for Barabbas, not Jesus, to be released is that just 4-5 days earlier, the “great crowd” (John 12:12) of Jewish people were shouting something very different when Jesus entered Jerusalem (verse 13): “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!” Yes, even calling Jesus their King! Now, I’m not saying that all of those in the Jewish crowd did a complete about-face five days later, but the implication is that the vast majority of them did. Acts 1:15, for example, tells us that before Pentecost, there were only 120 believers. Even taking into account I Corinthians 15:6, which says that Jesus appeared to more than 500 brothers at the same time after His resurrection, that still doesn’t sound like the “great crowd” in John 12:12. Some have studied mob mentality in regard to what happened; while I find that interesting, it is beyond the scope of this post.

A second frightening thing about the Jewish mob asking for Barabbas instead of Jesus is what we read in Matthew 27:24-25: “When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said. ‘It is your responsibility!’ All the people answered, ‘Let his blood be on us and our children!'” Ponder those chilling words from the mob for a moment; truly frightening–and prophetic. Israel ceased to exist as a nation just two generations later, in 70 A.D., when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

I believe the most frightening thing of all about the mob’s desire to have Barabbas released rather than Jesus is this: it reveals the human heart, not just at that time, but for all time. Obviously, people don’t consciously think of it in terms of choosing a criminal rather than our Savior, the perfect One, but whenever people reject Jesus, that is in essence what they are doing. I suppose thinking of it in a slightly different way may make it clearer: most people choose sin instead of Jesus; they choose to follow the crowd rather than the Lord. Here are the words of Jesus Himself, from Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Indeed, following Jesus is becoming increasingly hard in today’s world.

Thankfully, the death of Jesus a few hours later was not the end of the story! And even though following Jesus is not the easy road, people put their faith in Him every day. There’s a message by S.M. Lockridge called, “It’s Friday, But Sunday’s Comin’!” Short, but powerful. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gx6_rGLz20

Speaking of Sunday’s comin’: A year ago, I wrote a post about evidence for Jesus’ resurrection; here’s the link, if you’re interested: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2021/03/24/evidence-for-the-resurrection/ The beginning of Holy Week is just a few days away; may you have a most blessed one, culminating in the celebration of Easter! And if you’re not a Christian, may this be the time you put your faith in Jesus Christ.

How Low Can We Go?

Sometimes I read or hear something so outrageous that after my initial emotional reaction, I tend to dismiss it. However, when I hear essentially the same thing from a second person, I give it more notice. I’m sorry to say that many of these outrageous things come from professors. (I’m retired, but I used to be one.)

A few months ago, I heard about an Old Dominion University professor named Allyn Walker, who has called for us to use the euphemistic term “minor-attracted persons” to refer to people who are “preferentially attracted to minors.” Such people have historically been referred to as pedophiles, but Walker says that this term unfairly stigmatizes such persons, particularly if they are “non-offending,” meaning that they have not acted on such attraction–or at least, I might add, they have not been caught. Thankfully, although there were those who defended Walker, the outcry against him was so great that he was pressured into resigning at the end of this academic year.

More recently, I heard about another academic like Walker, this time at SUNY Fredonia; his name is Stephen Kershnar, and he takes things several steps further. Some of the things he has said are so vile that I don’t want to repeat them here, but here’s a telling statement: “I don’t think it’s blanket wrong at any age.” To justify his position about adult-child sex, he chillingly says we make children do other things they don’t want to do, like going to church or their sister’s ballet recital. SUNY Fredonia has suspended Kershnar, but it’s not over yet; his lawyer is arguing that Kershnar has a first-amendment right to say and teach what he wants.

As I write this, Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is in her third day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the things she is being grilled on is her sentencing of child porn offenders. To understand her pattern of sentencing, I think it’s instructive to take note of what she said back in law school in the 1990s: she spoke against the “current climate of fear, hatred, and revenge associated with the release of convicted sex offenders.” Jackson criticized sex-offender registries, which allow people to know where any convicted sex offenders are living in their community; she argued that such registries unfairly continue to punish such people. Jumping ahead to 2012: when Jackson was on the Sentencing Commission, she supported eliminating the child porn mandatory-minimum sentence. Thus, it should come as no surprise that Judge Jackson has consistently given child porn offenders sentences well below the congressionally endorsed Sentencing Guidelines recommendations, as well as below what the prosecutors were requesting. In the most egregious example, U.S. vs. Hawkins in 2013, Sentencing Guidelines recommended an 8-to-10-year sentence; Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to a mere three months.

One thing I want to make clear: this is not about politics, race, or gender; if Jackson were a Republican white male, I would still be writing this. Unfortunately, many on the left are criticizing those who dare to question Jackson’s remarkably consistent sentencing pattern of child porn offenders. Another thing I want to make clear: I am not accusing Jackson of being a pedophile or a child porn offender. I am saying that her comparatively light sentencing of child porn offenders reflects misplaced priorities; I think she should be more concerned about the victims and less about the offenders.

Here’s what Proverbs 31:8-9 in the Bible says: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” I realize that the context is about those who are poor; however, our children are also “those who cannot speak for themselves.”

In summary, academics like Allyn Walker and Stephen Kershnar reflect a disturbing trend to attempt to normalize the evil of pedophilia. Regarding Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will almost certainly be confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice: her lenient sentencing of child porn offenders does not bode well for the safety of our children going forward. Frankly, prisons were made for people like pedophiles, in order to protect the most vulnerable in society: our children.

Are You Ready to Go Home?

Depending on your age, you may have grown up during the Cold War, which was a state of political hostility between Soviet-bloc countries and the U.S.-led Western powers, roughly between 1945 and 1990. The threat of nuclear warfare hung over the world during those decades. Maybe you had to participate in the silly “duck and cover” drills, which in some schools basically involved crouching under your desk, grabbing a leg of the desk, and putting your head down. This was designed to protect us from a nuclear blast. But I digress!

The goals of the U.S. during the Cold War were to undermine communism in the Soviet bloc and to prevent its expansion to other countries. The list of communist countries is now down to just five: Cuba, China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Of the five, Laos is the country that I know by far the least about, so I am drawn to stories about it. One such story is in the February issue of the Voice of the Martyrs magazine. Bounsaen came to faith in Christ at the age of 20 and is now 101. He used to be the pastor of a church that met in secret in the jungle during the 1980s, and he was imprisoned three times, which means in terms of his age, he spent much of his 60s in prison. While Laos is still communist, its persecution of Christians is much less severe than it was 40 years ago. That same congregation now meets openly in a church building; while Bounsaen is no longer the pastor, he continues to visit and pray for those who are sick.

It is not only Bounsaen’s story that is very inspiring to me, but his words as well. Here are a few of them: “Now I am tired physically, but my heart is not tired for the Lord’s work.” I can identify a good amount with this, as my energy level is not what it used to be. However, I’m retired, so I have more time to devote to the Lord’s work in a more direct way than I used to. For example, I have the responsibility of sharing God’s Word and facilitating discussion in a Sunday-school class at my church as we read through the Bible on a 3-year plan.

Here are some more words from Bounsaen: “I am really looking forward to the day that I am going to be with the Lord.  All my sufferings in this world will be gone… I am looking forward to the reward He has for me, too.  I wonder what kind of retirement I will get.  I am getting impatient, to be honest.  He has prepared a home for me.” I am “only” 62, but these words resonate with me. I laugh at his wondering about “what kind of retirement” he will get! He knows that the Lord has prepared a home for him because Jesus in John 14:2-3 tells us, “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” I also love Bounsaen’s honesty about being impatient; at the age of 101, I would think so!

As I write this, I’m also reminded of the man who until recently was our plumber. He was persecuted under the Romanian government (another Communist one at that time) but managed to make his way to the U.S. He will probably be going home to be with the Lord soon, and thankfully, his son has taken over the business. We recently had him replace our garbage disposal, and we had a very rich conversation while he was working. Among other things, he said, “You know, I’m not suicidal or anything ’cause that would be irresponsible, but some days I just want to go home to be with the Lord.” This was largely in reference to the way the U.S., along with the world as a whole, is becoming more decadent.

There’s an old song by Wayne Watson that I thought of as I was reading Bounsaen’s story; it’s called “There Goes Sundown.” While the context is a little bit different in that it refers to the Lord’s second coming, it still speaks to going home to be with Him; Watson was only 43 when he wrote it. Here are a few lines:

“Some days I pray this prayer more than others
For my Lord to come
When I’m weary of fightin’
Yeah, when I’m tired of runnin’
Other days I wanna stay around
And grow old with that girl of mine”

Amen to that. Like 101-year-old Bounsaen, my plumber, and Wayne Watson, I am ready to go home any time; in the meantime, I want to joyfully continue to serve our Lord and stand firm. Are you ready?

Clarity and Compassion for the Transgendered

In 2018, Ryan T. Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally was published. Because Anderson’s views did not align with those of America’s cultural elites, his book was eventually banned by Amazon; thankfully, there are other places where you can still purchase it, including Barnes and Noble.

There’s a lot that I could write about Anderson’s book, but I’ll focus on three groups of people that Anderson wrote about: women, children, and detransitioners (those who have transitioned back to their original, biological sex). For women, there are at least two primary concerns: safety and fairness. Safety should be obvious: what woman wants to enter a locker room or a public restroom, having to worry about whether a man who “identifies” as a woman will enter? The obvious solution to this in regard to restrooms is single-stall facilities, which are available in some places. In terms of fairness: perhaps you’ve heard of Lia Thomas (University of Pennsylvania) and Iszac Henig (Yale University), who recently dominated in various swimming events at the Ivy League Championships, setting records in the process. Why were they able to do this? You guessed it: they are both trans women, allowed to compete against biological women. There are other examples as well.

Regarding children: let’s start with safety. What I wrote about women in locker rooms and restrooms obviously applies to girls as well. I think most Americans are familiar with the horror of the skirt-wearing boy who entered a girls’ restroom in a Loudoun County school in May of last year and did unthinkable things to her. What I wrote about fairness in sports for women obviously applies to girls as well. Beyond fairness and safety, however, is the oft-quoted statistic that 80-95% of kids who at some point “identify” with the opposite gender never (thankfully) make the transition because they eventually become comfortable in/with their bodies. There are four stages of transitioning for kids:

  • Social: giving the child a new name and wardrobe, for example;
  • Puberty blockers: these prevent the normal process of maturation and development;
  • Cross-sex hormones: estrogen for boys, testosterone for girls (age 16);
  • Sex reassignment surgery: completing the transition to the opposite sex (age 18).

Transgender activists have claimed that if kids change their mind at Stage 2, for example, the process can easily be stopped. However, as Anderson points out, it’s not so easy. Once puberty blockers have been started, the physical effects on the body are significant and at best result in a delay of the normal process of maturation. It’s obviously difficult for a girl, for example, to feel more at home in her body when her peers have matured while she has not because of puberty blockers; will she ever “catch up?”

In spite of what Anderson’s critics have said, his compassion is evident throughout the book. Nowhere is this more obvious than in his chapter about detransitioners, meaning those who had previously transitioned to the opposite sex but then transitioned back to their original biological sex. He tells the stories of four women and two men who thought that transitioning to the opposite sex would finally make them feel at home in their bodies. However, that was not the case, and they eventually transitioned back. They now regret ever transitioning in the first place; some expressed regret, for example, about never being able to have children. Most also expressed anger against doctors and other medical professionals who encouraged them to transition, rather than seeking to counsel them about the roots of their gender dysphoria (meaning distress or impairment related to a strong desire to become the opposite sex) as well as giving other options. While their stories are heart-wrenching, in most cases they are more at peace now than they had been before transitioning in the first place; this is at least in part because they have come to understand the roots of their dysphoria.

On a fundamental level, it seems the main reason that our cultural elites hate Anderson’s book is because he reasonably asks that before we push those with gender dysphoria to transition, let’s try to figure out why they are so distressed about their biological sex. I use the word “push” because in some states, there have been bills introduced that would ban so-called “conversion therapy.” As this relates to the transgendered, it would mean that counseling people who have already transitioned to detransition back to their original, biological sex would be illegal; it could even include that counseling those considering transitioning to the opposite gender in the first place to reconsider would be illegal. Thankfully, for example, even though California’s AB 2943 bill was passed by the Senate on August 16, 2018, it was withdrawn for further consideration 15 days later. So far, however, 20 states have banned “conversion therapy.” Canada banned it on January 7 of this year. Note this: Canada’s law makes it a crime to have anyone undergo conversion therapy, regardless of whether they consent. You can read more about it here: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/09/1062720266/canada-bans-conversion-therapy So much for choice.

Anderson is a Christian, but he decided not to give an explicitly Biblical view of transgenderism in his book. Since this blog is devoted to Biblical answers to questions and issues, let’s look at what the Bible says. You don’t have to look very far because Genesis 1:27 says this: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” God is the Creator, and He is the One Who makes people as well. Psalm 139:13 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” In effect, when people transition to the opposite sex, whether they realize it or not, they are saying, “God, I don’t like the way you made me at this fundamental level, so I’m going to change it.” I would also be remiss if I didn’t add Deuteronomy 22:5, which says, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” OK, so I don’t think Christian women are bound by the first part of that verse (although some would disagree with me on that), but the second part is very different. One of the reasons I mention this, besides its being in God’s Word, is that researchers have found there are a significant number of trans women who have said that as a young boy, they dressed as a girl, even being encouraged (?!) to do so in a couple of cases.

I admit that I don’t feel compassion for transgender activists; the transgendered, however, are usually not the same as the activists. I will close with these words from Ryan T. Anderson: “We should be tolerant–indeed, loving–toward those who struggle with their gender identity, but also be aware of the harm done to the common good, particularly to children, when transgender identity is normalized.” While I would stress the second part of his statement more than the first, Anderson’s book has engendered much more clarity and compassion in me for the transgendered community.