A Challenge to Conservative Christians

Bad theology has produced a severe idolatry of the state within the church in both conservative and liberal circles. The state has become a false religion for many Christians.

In liberal theological circles, no one questions or criticizes the state, unless the state is allegedly not doing enough to help others.  But no liberal Christian questions that the state is an inherently moral good.  They’ve fallen prey to the modern democratic passion for equality that is completely non-existent in Scripture.   They see the state as reducing inequality and making sure that the rich do their part to take care of the poor.  Misinterpretations of the Beatitudes and Christ’s ministry abound.

But all of this is to be expected.  Liberal theological misinterpretations of Scripture lead to perilous realities in almost all aspects of life, not just politics.  There’s not much more I can say on this point.

My biggest concern is with Christians who are theologically conservative–who accept the Bible as God’s supreme and inerrant word, and who truly understand the gospel and what it means for our salvation and sanctification.  However, many of these conservatives won’t bring themselves to become wholehearted critics of the state because they’re too blinded by a misguided interpretation of Romans 13.  They falsely equate any manifestation of human civil government with government that is established by rightful and just authority, assuming that we consequently have a moral obligation from God to more respect a wicked government than we do to stand for those who are poor and downtrodden by said government. Conservative Christians often forgot that human government is not only marred by sin, as is the rest of human existence, but is also the centralization of sin given the power of the sword.  If one accepts the biblical doctrine of human depravity, how can one not be frightened and vigilant against the accumulation of power by these depraved humans whose hearts we know are “deceitful above all else?”

I don’t read in Scripture that humans are excused from the reality of their depraved nature if they are a conservative Republican who talks about economic freedom and a constitutional marriage amendment.  Yet, ignoring this truth is why many conservative Christians can be easily duped by Republican politicians.  Because we ignore the incentive structure and reality of the state as a coercive centralization of human sin, we forget that Republicans can just as easily fall prey to their human nature as Democrats.

Bottom line: if we can morally decry homosexuals for deviance in the privacy of their own bedroom (an accusation that Scripture tells us is true), we can also morally decry the state for stealing from its citizens, repressing our freedom of speech, and encouraging a dangerous idolatry of democracy, government, and the political process.

So this is my challenge to conservative Christians: be more willing to speak truth to power and decry the state for its wickedness much more than we currently do (for fear of being “too political”). Moses confronted Pharaoh, David confronted Saul, and Nathan confronted David. When do we ever confront and challenge political leaders and call them out for their wickedness?

Many conservative Christians are today lamenting the state of our country and wondering how we got here, presumably because they are upset about the results of the election.  Unfortunately, many Christians were going to be overjoyed if Mitt Romney won.  I was going to be disappointed either way.

Unless the Christian church moves out of its comfort zone and takes a definitive stand against the evils of the state, regardless of who is in power, we will potentially be frustrated and disappointed again in 2016.   In the meantime, the state will continue to fund abortions, provide free birth control, redistribute wealth, remove political and religious freedom, drone strike innocent civilians overseas, and oppress the poor in the inner cities with its corrupt and evil war on drugs (I realize this last point may be controversial for conservative Christians, but I have completely turned around on this issue because of my conservative Christian leanings, not in spite of it.  I trust that more Christians would do the same if they understood how the drug war hurts the poor.).

If the church doesn’t act as the conscience to the state, the state will continue to take advantage of all liberties, and actively promote evils with public funds.  In the past, standing on the sideline under the false protection of a misguided interpretation of Romans 13 has led the church to ineffectiveness when government has grown to be a lethal enemy of its citizens.

The church does not need more apologists for the state.  It needs men like Nathan who will confront the king and demand from him, “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight?”

“And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him,

“There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.”

Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.  Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.  Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’

Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.  For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’”

David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.”

Then Nathan went to his house.

– 2 Samual 12:1-15


You Will Cry Out Because of Your King

I have been rather quiet about my views on presidential candidates.  I’ve probably discussed my positions on the presidential election with maybe a couple dozen people (including close friends and family) and I’ve only made a few posts/comments in the social media world for most of the campaign season.

Quite frankly, I’m tired of politics.  But instead of giving you my reasons why in my words, I kept thinking today of a number of passages from old books written by men who were much wiser than I am.  They encapsulate, in various ways, my growing frustration with the elevation of the political process as a means of change.   I am saddened that so many people have placed their trust in princes, mortal men, who will not save.  I wish more people would see political endeavors as generally coercive and viscious attacks against human dignity, social cooperation, and individual rights.  I wish more Christians would be as excited about spreading the gospel as they are about campaigning for the candidates of their choice.

But honestly, enough of my thoughts.

Instead of bemoaning the fact that the United States is headed in a sorry direction regardless of tonight’s outcome, I decided to compile some thoughts from both Scripture and some of history’s greatest thinkers and post them here.  Their ideas have generally been forgotten, overlooked, or ignored, but the world would be a much better place if people took the time to think about them more.  Plus, the wisdom in the following words is spoken much more effectively and coherently than I could write in the brief time I have before the poll results start to come back.

The last source that I quote is Alexis de Tocqueville.  The reason why I quote him last is because I conclude with a lengthy section from his work, “Democracy in America,” in which Tocqueville describes our contemporary political system in exact and startling terms.  I’ve never been able to look at modern politics the same way again after reading through Tocqueville’s prophecy of a soft and mild democratic form of despotism…one that we live through in this day and age.

Scripture

Psalm 146:3 – “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”

Psalm 2:1-4 – “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.’  He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.”

John 18:36 – “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'”

1 Samuel 8:10-18 – “So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him.  He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

1 Corinthians 13:12 – “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

St. Augustine

City of God, Book I, Chap. 1 – “we must speak also of the earthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its lust of rule.”

City of God, Book III, Chap. 14 – “This lust of sovereignty disturbs and consumes the human race with frightful ills.  By this lust Rome was overcome when she triumphed over Alba, and praising her own crime, called it glory.  For, as our Scriptures say, ‘the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.’  Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized.  Let no man tell me that this and the other was a ‘great’ man, because he fought and conquered so and so.”

City of God, Book XIX, Chap. 15 – “[God] did not intend that His rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation–not man over man, but man over the beasts.”

City of God, Book IV, Chap. 4 – “Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?  For what are robberies themselves but little kingdoms?  The band itself is made up of men it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on.  If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity.”

City of God, Book IV, Chap. 4 – “Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized.  For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, ‘What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.'”

Frederic Bastiat

The Law, “What is Law?” – “Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

The Law, “A Fatal Tendency of Mankind” – “But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.”

The Law, “Perverted Law Causes Conflict” – “As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious.”

The Law, “How to Identify Legal Plunder” – “But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.  Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.”

Economic Sophisms, “Physiology of Spoilation” – “Woe, then, to those nations who are unable to set bounds to the action of the government!  Liberty, private enterprise, wealth, thrift, independence, all will be wanting in such circumstances.”

Economic Sophisms, “Conclusion to the First Series,” – “To rob the public, we must first decieve it.  The trick consists in persuading the public that the theft is for its advantage; and by this means inducing it to accept, in exchange for its property, services which are fictitious, and often worse. 

Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy in America, Introduction – “Nearby I see others who, in the name of progress, striving to make men into matter, want to find the useful without occupying themselves with the just, to find science far from beliefs, and well-being separated from virtue: these persons are said to be the champions of modern civilization, and they insolently put themselves at its head, usurping a place that has been abandoned to them, but from which they are held off by their unworthiness.”

Democracy in America, Volume I, Part I, Chapter 3 – “one also encounters a depraved taste for equality in the human heart that brings the weak to want to draw the strong to their level and that reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.”

Democracy in America, Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 7 – “There are people who have not feared to say that a people, in the objects that interested only itself, could not go entirely outside the limits of justice and reason, and thus one must not fear giving all power to the majority that represents it.  But that is the language of a slave.”

Democracy in America, Volume II, Part 2, Chapter 6

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.


The Top 5 Reasons Why the NFL Needs the Old Refs

Last night was an embarrassment to the game of football. No, it was worse than embarrassing.

Ed Hochuli

Bring back Ed Hochuli’s guns!

It was chaotic. It was appalling. It was dishonest. It was disgusting.

For the first (and I hope last) time in NFL history, the offense won a game by throwing an interception in the endzone. Unfortunately, that’s not something that’s going to show up in the stat sheet, but it should. The only thing that Russell Wilson should be proud of regarding his Hail Mary pass attempt is that he is the only NFL quarterback to toss a game-winning interception that results in his team scoring a touchdown. Not even John Elway, Steve Young, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning can compare notes with young Mr. Wilson on that prestigious accomplishment.

But why did it happen at all? Why did the NFL world go to bed enraged and wake up still enraged?

Because of the poor officiating by the replacement officials. Yes, it’s time to be honest and come clean…the officiating decided last night’s winner just as we feared it would when we found out that the replacement referees were here to stay until the NFL could work out a new deal with the regular refs. At the end of last night’s game, the Packers were 12-7 victors, but the officials gave the Seahawks a bountiful 7-point gift, despite the actual results of the play on the field.

An interception by the defense was ruled an offensive touchdown.

As a result of last night’s abhorrent officiating, the Seattle Seahawks and their most blindly loyal fans have spent Tuesday celebrating their misbegotten victory over the Green Bay Packers. The Seahawks head coach, Pete Carroll, even went so far today as to say that “it was cool” that the refs awarded the touchdown to Golden Tate even though every angle of replay shows Packers’ defensive back, M.D. Jennings, clearly gaining possession of the ball for an interception. And Golden Tate blatantly lied when he was asked by a report if he pushed off of Green Bay defensive back, Sam Shields, when he jumped for the ball.

Meanwhile, the rest of the NFL world erupted at the injustice of what took place. It didn’t matter if you were a Packers fan or a Seahawks fan (indeed, many level-headed Seahawk fans have expressed remorse over the call as well). As a football fan, what happened was blatantly and unquestionably wrong.

Adding insult to injury, today, all the NFL could do was muster a pathetic tow-the-line statement that confirmed the ruling on the field, despite the ruling’s blatant inaccuracy. Roger Goodell could (would) not even issue a formal apology to Green Bay and the entire NFL.

So where do we go from here? How does the NFL move on after this mess?

I’ve got a quick and easy solution. It’s imperfect, but it needs to happen–and it needs to happen very soon.

Bring the real referees back.

That’s it. No ifs ands or buts about it. Just get it done. And if there are any doubters who want to start talking about poor officiating by the regular officials as a justification for being ok with their prolonged absence, then I have five reasons why you’re dead wrong.

1. Replacement refs have cost the NFL its integrity.

Let’s admit one thing up front: no officiating crew will ever be 100% perfect. It’s just impossible.

However, there is no question that the last three weeks (culminating in Monday night’s debacle) has dramatically hobbled the image of the NFL compared to what it was when we had the regular referees. When you get to the point that games are decided incorrectly on the very last play by officials, as we did last night, what concept of “integrity” is left in the sport?

Quite frankly, there isn’t any from my vantage point today. The integrity of the game had come under question during the first three weeks of the season, but it was completely blown away by last night’s call. There’s not much respect to be had for the NFL today outside of Seattle. The unified uproar by NFL fans everywhere should be a telling sign.

Were there problems with “integrity” when the old refs would make dumb calls or have weird interpretations of the rules? Yes, there were, but none so severe nor systemic. Take the infamous Ed Hochuli call from the 2008 Broncos-Chargers matchup as an example. In that game, Ed Hochuli immediately admitted that he made a mistake and quickly explained the rules for why the ball had to stay in Denver’s possession–despite his initially poor decision to blow the ball dead when it was fumbled. Was it a terrible call? Absolutely. Should the Chargers have been given the ball? Most definitely. But Hochuli’s immediate and subsequent admissions of error showed that he understood the rules, and that according the rules, he was fully aware of the fact that he made a major mistake. We have absolutely no assurance that these refs will learn their lesson, and thus, we cannot have respect for the integrity of the NFL product in the coming weeks so long as the replacement officials are on the field.

2. Players are getting hurt.

This is both serious and damning to the legacy of Roger Goodell, a self-proclaimed champion of “player safety.” Defenseless receivers are getting jacked up on a weekly basis and the replacement refs are not cracking down by consistently enforcing personal foul penalties. As a result, defenders are getting away with the kind of head-hunting that is liable to result in a receiver lying on the ground with a snapped spine.

The most egregious example of this (so far) happened on Sunday during the Raiders-Steelers game when a Pittsburgh defender launched himself at a defenseless Darius Heyward-Bey as Heyward-Bey tried to reel in a pass in the endzone. Heyward-Bey’s body flopped to the ground where he lay motionless as trainers immediately rushed onto the field. Yet, no flag was thrown, despite a blatant helmet-to-helmet hit on a defenseless receiver and the horrifying aftermath.

You can be sure that these kinds of hits would not be flourishing under the authority of the real refs. Admittedly, sometimes they may be too overprotective, resulting in penalties on perfectly clean hits, but the trade-off is that the hits don’t happen as much and the field of play is relatively safer for players.

The NFL, despite its alleged devotion to player safety, is setting up more and more players to follow Darius Heyward-Bey’s unconscious flop in the coming weeks as long as the replacement officials are on the field. Of all the concerns with the replacement refs (who we understand are trying to do their best), this has to be one of the worst for the NFL.

3. Replacement refs have lost control of the game.

Games are taking much longer. Fights break out after every other play. Every time a flag is thrown, the replacement officials have to huddle together to discuss what toppings they like on their pizza. Their horrible calls don’t help garner respect from the players and coaches that are supposed to heed their rulings.

As a result, the game has gotten out of hand. The ending to last night’s game was sheer chaos as Green Bay’s players and staff angrily stormed into the locker room as the Seahawks gloated in their gift-wrapped victory. Nobody knew what was happening, not even the referees. After the touchdown ruling was made, the refs ran into the tunnel themselves, probably eager to escape attention, despite the fact that NFL rules dictate that after a touchdown at the end of regulation, a field goal is required. Players from both teams literally had to be corralled by their coaching staffs in order to run a meaningless and embarrassing extra-point attempt.

And then, Twitter erupted with players from all across the league tweeting their frustration, including Drew Brees, Reggie Bush, Robert Griffin III, and a host of angry Packers players. Nobody in the league respects these referees. If they are still on the field on Week 4, that level of disrespect will continue to show and games will get even further out of hand than we’ve already seen.

4. Fans are rightfully irritated, if not enraged.

The inadequacy of the replacement officials has been common knowledge since the preseason among fans (except for Roger Goodell apparently). However, I think I speak for most fans when we say that we tried to give the NFL the benefit of the doubt. We hoped that the product on the field would continue to be high-quality and equitable.

However, it just hasn’t been so. Yes, we have seen fans get upset over blown calls by the regular refs before. We watched as Walt Coleman came up with the “Tuck rule.” We remember the Hochuli call against San Diego. We’ve seen really messed up stuff from the regulars.

But those crazy and wacky calls have been the exception, not the rule, especially when compared to the sheer ugliness of the calls we’ve seen from the replacement officials over the past three weeks.

The NFL will probably continue to attract high ratings in Week 4 even if the replacement refs are still on the field unfortunately. But how long can this last if the NFL continues to see such horrible officiating and potentially, more game-deciding calls? For our sake’s, I hope it is not long.

5. The old refs are just better than the replacement refs.

The regular referees understand the rules. They can count off yards on a penalty correctly. They are able to manage the flow of the game. They enforce rules that are designed to protect player safety. They don’t huddle up for five minutes after every penalty. They don’t constantly run to a full-time official on the sideline to ask for help. When highly controversial, game-ending calls have to be made, they don’t immediately rush to contradictory rulings. They have a deep and profound knowledge of the game that far surpasses what most fans can ever hope to attain.

They are certainly not perfect, but they are far better than the motley officiating crews that we’ve been subjected to for three weeks. On that point, there can be absolutely no debate.

Just Bring the Real Refs Back Already

My faith in the NFL has been lost for now. My respect for commissioner Goodell hovers between 0 and negative infinity. Someday, I hope it can be restored for myself and die-hard NFL fans all over the country. To me, that day will come when I see Ed Hochuli’s biceps bulging as he declares a holding penalty. It will come when I hear Jeff Triplette’s thick southern accent announcing pass interference. It will come when I see Mike Carey’s arm slashing through the air to signal a first down.

It will come when the real refs are back.