The Affordable Care Act is usually called Obamacare because it is the signature piece of legislation for President Obama. But there is another reason it deserves that designation. President Obama has been rewriting Obamacare every few months.

The latest change was announced last week. The president and his administration have decided to delay the law’s employer mandate for another year for mid-size businesses. But there is a catch. These employers cannot lay off workers or cut worker’s hours.

Many businesses have already cut workers’ hours and stopped hiring because of the Obamacare mandates and regulations. Last year, the Obama administration delayed employer mandates by a year. Now mid-size businesses get another year reprieve as long as they meet certain requirements. One of the most important is the promise not cut or layoff workers due to the Obamacare mandates. In other words, don’t blame Obamacare for any changes you make due to these mandates.

The delay arrived just days after the Congressional Budget Office report explained that the health care law would drive more than 2 million people out of the workforce. The ongoing debate about that report and the constant drumbeat of stories about people losing their health insurance doesn’t play well in an election year.

It is possible that the employer mandate might be indefinitely suspended for some jobs. The new rule relaxes the mandates for certain occupations like volunteer firefighters, teachers, adjunct faculty members and seasonal employees. The Obama administration says it “will consider whether it is necessary to further extend” the rule. Stay tuned. The president and his administration may suspend the law indefinitely if they feel it is necessary.

This latest rewrite of the health care law reminds us that the president and his administration are changing requirements and postponing implementation. All of this is being done without statutory authorization. Changing and rewriting the law is supposed to be a function of Congress. Instead, Obamacare means whatever President Obama says is does on any given day.

We are about halfway through the Winter Olympics in Sochi, and some are wondering how these Russian Olympics will end. I’m not talking about the medal count. I’m talking about the closing ceremonies.

The opening ceremonies were certainly a whitewash of Russian history. The people in Fisht Olympic Stadium, and all of us watching on television, were treated to revisionist history concerning the era of Joseph Stalin. The lavish sets and stunning choreography obscured the tragic history of Russia. It culminated when the young girl chosen to soar above the crowd let go of a red balloon.

The real story involved mass forced migrations, mass starvation, and the brutal occupation of Eastern Europe. The Russian citizens suffered under the invasive tactics of the KGB and the dictatorial reign of one Soviet leader after another.

I recognize that those putting on the opening ceremonies were not allowed to depict any of this, especially with Vladimir Putin sitting in the stands. But was it too much to ask that the NBC commentators might put some of the dark chapters in Russian history in some context?

A clip by Peter Dinklage characterized the Soviet Union as an “empire that ascended to affirm a colossal footprint, the revolution that birthed one of the modern history’s pivotal experiments.”

When the little girl let go of the red balloon that symbolized the end of the Soviet Union, Meredith Viera called it a “bittersweet moment.” The end of a brutal communist era in Russian history was a bittersweet moment?

I understand that American broadcasters are the invited guests to these Olympic events in Russia. But the broadcasters missed an opportunity to educate. It would be good to remind older viewers of what Russia was not so long ago. And it is crucial they educate younger viewers who might not even know about the horrors of the Soviet Union.

The NBC anchors missed a teachable moment in the opening ceremonies. One can only hope they don’t miss another when these Olympics come to an end.

Yesterday I talked about a book produced by Barna Research entitled, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity. This book helps us understand why non-Christians seem so cold to the claims of Christianity.

The book lists six common perceptions that non-Christians have about Christians and Christianity. Yesterday we talked about the first three: that Christians are hypocritical, that they are too focused on converts, and that they were anti-homosexual. Let’s now look at the next three.

4. Sheltered – outsiders feel that Christians often offer simplistic answers to the complex and troubling aspects of modern life. They perceive us an old-fashioned, boring, and generally out of touch with reality.

5. Political – often outsiders perceive Christianity as merely an extension of right-wing politics. They feel Christians are too political or are motivated by political interests. That doesn’t mean Christians shouldn’t be salt and light, but they should be aware that this is a connection that non-Christians often make.

6. Judgmental – nearly 90 percent of outsiders say the term “judgmental” accurately describes Christians today. Only 20 percent of outsiders view the church as a place where people are accepted and loved unconditionally. Christians sadly are known more for their criticism than for their love. And we may be so fixated with sin that we cannot really love broken people.

As we look at the six perceptions, we should admit that some of these criticisms would surface no matter how well Christians try to be loving and gracious. After all, many of these same people would probably call Jesus judgmental. So some of these perceptions will be with us no matter what we say or do.

But I think it is important for us to be real and authentic rather than hypocritical. And we should be relevant rather than sheltered. So there is some work for us to do if we are to effectively reach the next generation.

Why do non-Christians reject the gospel and turn down your invitation to attend your church? A few years ago, Barna Research produced a book entitled, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity. This book helps us understand why non-Christians seem so cold to the claims of Christianity.

The researchers found that a small minority of young people believe that labels like “respect, love, hope, and trust” describe Christianity. But the rest have lost respect for Christianity. David Kennaman, President of the Barna Research Group and one of the authors of the book, says we need to resolve this perception problem if we are to connect with the youngest generation.

He lists six common perceptions that non-Christians have about Christians and Christianity. Today we will look at the first three.

1. Hypocritical – outsiders to Christianity believe that Christians say one thing and do another. They found that 84 percent knew a Christian, but only 15 percent believed that the Christian they knew acted consistently with his or her beliefs.

Hypocrisy is not just a 21st century phenomenon. In the past, I have preached on the subject of hypocrisy and have been reminded how Jesus spoke so strongly against hypocrisy in the 1st century. But this survey shows that Christians must be authentic and acting consistently with Christian beliefs.

2. Focused on converts – outsiders often feel more like targets. Christians want to get them saved, but they don’t listen to them and these outsiders don’t feel truly loved.

3. Anti-homosexual – the younger generation is less likely to see homosexuality as sin so they equate Christians with being anti-homosexual. There is a real need for us to show biblical compassion as we also address this issue with our biblical convictions.

There are three other perceptions that we will address tomorrow. These six are key issues that Christians need to address if we are to effectively reach the next generation.

When Congress passed the farm bill recently, there were some who were complaining about its cost and impact. You might have wondered what the fuss was about since most of us believe that farmers deserve support from the government. That’s why I thought I might take a moment to explain why a farm bill was controversial to some people.

Let’s start with the cost: $1 trillion. Yes, that is one trillion with a capital T. Supporters are quick to point out the bill will also cuts $8 billion from the food stamp program over the next 10 years. The bill also makes changes in agricultural subsidies while building subsidies for crop insurance.

The comment about food stamps brings me to the next point. About 80 percent of the bill is funding for food stamps. Heritage expert Daren Bakst reports that, “food stamp spending has quadrupled since 2000 and doubled since 2008.” We are all willing to help those truly in need, but you do have to wonder about so many getting food stamps today.

I have found that most Americans are unaware of the fact that a typical farm bill is really a food stamp bill. I call it institutional log rolling.

You might remember from your civics class how politicians get someone to vote for their bill if they promise to vote for another bill. This is called “log rolling.” You could also call it quid pro quo. In the farm bill, it has been institutionalized. Legislators from farm communities vote for food stamps because it is in the farm bill. Legislators from urban areas vote for the farm bill because it funds food stamps. No one wants to vote against the bill, so it usually passes easily.

Once you understand how this bill is structured, you can see that often the problem isn’t with the member of Congress. The problem is with the way funding is structured. How many politicians are going to vote against a farm bill that also funds food stamps? Unless this procedure is changed, we will most likely see Congress pass many more bills like the farm bill

In many of his books, Dr. Tim Elmore argues that this emerging generation is different in many ways from previous generations due to a range of factors. He was on my radio program recently to talk about his book Artificial Maturity and explained why this generation is different.

Education is one reason. As students have been pressed into age-graded groups, they now interact mostly with peers. “The church followed suit with its programming. Social silos were the result. The downward spiral of emotional intelligence began.”

Parenting styles also have their influence. “We’ve made our kids our trophies—we hover over, emulate, serve, and congratulate them.” In previous commentaries I have talked about helicopter parents (who hover) and snowplow parents (who plow the way for their kids).

Tim Elmore also talks about chemical reasons for the difference in this generation. For example, BPA and other chemicals in plastics entered our bodies. “It wreaks havoc on kids’ bodies” since it mimics estrogen, the female hormone. Nearly 90 percent of kids today have BPA in them.

And let’s not forget the overuse of prescription drugs. Some kids may indeed need drugs for hyperactivity and depression. But consider this fact: the United States represents 5 percent of the world’s population but consumes 90 percent of prescription drugs.

Finally, we need to mention the impact of media on this generation. “Male teens spend an average of thirteen and a half hours a week” playing video games. They spend countless house watching TV, updating their Facebook pages, uploading and watching YouTube videos.

Tim Elmore believes that these and other factors create artificial maturity rather than authentic maturity. This emerging generation may look more mature than they really are because they are surrounded by technology, but they are in need of real life experiences to match with their knowledge and virtual experiences.

How should we approach the issue of income inequality? That is a question that Joe Carter addresses in his commentary, “What Every Christian Should Know About Income Inequality.”

He argues, for example, that the existence of income inequality “is generally a sign of a fair distribution of incomes.” If everyone earned the same, we would assume that someone was fiddling with the system and ignoring such factors as experience, productivity, and work ethic.

He also shows that both low and high rates of income inequality can be signs of unfairness. Economists use a measure of income inequality known as the Gini coefficient. Both Bangladesh and the Netherlands have the same Gini index, even though there is a vast difference between the two countries. Per capita income is $1,693 in Bangladesh and $42,183 in the Netherlands.

Carter believes that “measures of income inequality are meaningless because incomes are not zero-sum.” In a free market that is open and provides opportunities, the economic pie is not fixed but usually expanding. Consider the difference in income between Bill Gates and you. The success of Bill Gates came not from taking money away from other people but from creating wealth both for himself and millions of other people.

As Christians we should also check our attitudes about income inequality and government’s redistribution of income. Is our concern about these economic issues motivated by justice and fairness or by greed and envy? Some academic studies have shown (using thought experiments) that even if you could “reduce the level of income inequality, it would not reduce the level of envy for our neighbor’s wealth.” If people think they deserve more, they will still be envious

Carter concludes that Christians should be concerned about the well-being of the poor and be for the creation of conditions that lead to greater human flourishing for all our neighbors. Focusing on income inequality does neither

You probably know people who always seem to be complaining about rising prices. The next time you hear them complain, you might mention a few things that will probably cost less this year.

The Kiplinger Washington Editors put together a list of items they believe will cost less in 2014. At the top of that list would be technology. Prices for new technology usually drop after the early adopters give way to the rest of society. They predict that ultra-high-definition computer monitors will be much more affordable this year. These monitors have been dubbed 4K because they pack four times the resolution of standard HG screens. They are still fairly expensive, but the price is dropping.

The editors also predict that the price of gasoline will drop. They argue that calmer energy markets and increased domestic production will lower gas prices. I am not so sure about this prediction, but am hopeful that it is true.

The price of used cars is dropping. Sales of used cars are softening as sales of new cars ramp up and more leased cars hit used-car lots. At the moment there seems to be an oversupply of compact SUVs, low-end luxury cars, and hybrids.

College tuition at some schools is dropping according to the editors. Each fall, college prices rise, and parents of college-bound kids face incredible sticker shock. Some schools are therefore cutting undergraduate tuition by 10 percent to nearly 50 percent. These reductions more closely match what parents and students might receive in aid. A middle class family would most likely be the greatest beneficiary of this change.

The editors also say that gold will be cheaper in 2014. After a 12-year run of rising prices for precious metals, gold dropped almost 30 percent last year. Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecast an additional drop in prices this year. This is another one of the predictions I am not sure about. Uncertainly about the economy could quickly reverse this trend.

The next time someone complains about prices always going up. You can point to some items that experts tell us will be cheaper this year.