Religion and The Fiscal Cliff

Modern secularism has succeeded in deleting religion from public discourse. The state has replaced religion and has become the greatest source of collective human power on earth. And so to that power we run, and ask of it, or take from it, all we long for and all we can get. 

For this reason, religious opinion has been silent in this critical national debate. From my perspective, the debate is as much an issue of morality as it is of economics. Our crisis is a reflection of a godless philosophy, devoid of virtue. Simply put, it is the result of "the love of money [which] is a root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10).

This is our story - the U.S. federal budget revenue for 2012 is about 2.5 trillion dollars, a bit over $8,000 of revenue/income per person. And our current U.S. debt is 16.5 trillion dollars, about $52,000 of debt per person. How come? Well, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, disability and so on make up about 62% of the U.S. budget.

The problem is not, as such, the state providing a safety net for its most unfortunate citizens. The problem is that the various entitlement programs go well beyond a safety net and provide ever more lavish benefits to more and more people so that now middle-income people are dipping into the federal entitlement pie.

In addition, we are spending much more money than we are earning. That is tantamount to living outside of our means. That is unsustainable so we are now attempting to adjust the problem.

Each year, the government spends more than it takes in, and this gap must be funded with debt. Hence the need for debt or credit limits. The debt limit is simply the maximum amount that the U.S. government can borrow at any given time. Currently, the limit is set at $16.4 trillion.

Because we (post-modernists) have removed any idea of the metaphysical (religion) from our discourse, we do not apply a religious understanding of ethics to our doing business. Consequently, we have become more crass. Some even argue that vice and greed are good, because the desire for wealth - especially if it is inordinate and all-consuming - will produce more wealth for oneself and others and spread technological, medicinal and practical benefits that enhance everyone’s life.

So what happens when some people realize that they can get a lot richer, a lot more quickly and with a lot less work, if they milk the system for whatever its worth? They make super-risky investments with other people’s money, sell rotten bundled loan packages to unwitting investors, strike secret deals with members of Congress, crush competitors by gaining control of regulatory agencies, set up exorbitant compensation packages in companies that then get government bail-outs, and rig and manipulate stock market trading.

According to author Dr. Benjamin Wiker, "Government covers the risky investments, rewards rather than punishes the chicanery and, even more, becomes the place where the money-makers increasingly go to control the market. And why not? Government will pick up the tab by bailing out banks, bailing out industries and subsidizing gross mismanagement and predatory monopolies" (North Carolina Register).

And, to whom is the state accountable? Well, since there is no one greater than the state, I suppose one should just eat, drink and be merry (Ecclesiastes 8:15). In the process, post-modernists are creating a society in which the human spirit is suffocated by a materialistic worldview.

Honestly, Congress’ understanding of debt is incompatible with our biblical worldview of debt. The Bible neither expressly forbids nor condones the borrowing of money. The wisdom of the Bible teaches us that it is usually not a good idea to go into debt. Debt essentially makes us a slave to the one who provides the loan. At the same time, in some situations going into debt is a "necessary evil." As long as money is being handled wisely and the debt payments are manageable, a Christian should be able to take on the burden of financial debt, if it is absolutely necessary.

Let us join with Senate Chaplain Barry Black and pray for our lawmakers. Pray that God would guide them with His wisdom. "Lord, show them the right thing to do and give them the courage to do it. When they feel exhausted, remind them of the great sufficiency of your grace, look with favor on our nation and save us from self-inflicted wounds."

Chaplain Black’s prayer before the Senate should truly express the desire of every Christian. God’s wisdom is needed when it is obvious that the wisdom of our lawmakers is not working.

GOOD NEWS!

Something incredibly rare happened in New York City on Monday, November 24. Not one single person reported a shooting, stabbing or some other violent crime. New York Police Department chief spokesman, Paul Browne, told Reuters that it was the "first time in memory" the city's police force had experienced such a peaceful day.

With a population of almost eight million people, New York City knows violent crime. From 2,245 murders in 1990; this year, the city's murder rate is on target to hit its lowest point since 1960. The Police Department is hoping for less than 400 murders in 2012. Now, that is good news.

Good News is always good, especially when one is surrounded with bad news. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.

In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.

Near Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”

One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.

The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.

Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.

Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society. These values are consistent with the message of transformation, integral to the coming of Jesus.  

Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world. 

Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists. 

Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines. 

However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news. 

However, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.

EXACTLY WHEN Was Jesus Born?

History provides no precise information about the birth of Jesus. It would seem, Jews had very little interest in celebrating births and non-Jewish historians wrote with little precision. Our interest in details like month, day and even time of day, were not characteristic of ancient historians.

In reporting the story of Jesus’ birth, both Matthew and Luke clearly demonstrated that His birth was a fact of history. Whereas Matthew aligned the birth with Herod the Great, Luke focused on Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus. Historians would concur with Matthew and Luke that Herod ruled in Judea while Augustus was emperor from Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire.

In order to satisfy today’s desire for precise information, one would need to reconstruct the information currently available. For instance, Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus seemed quite certain that Herod died on or before April 4, 04 BCE. From Matthew we learn that Jesus was born at least two years before Herod died (Matthew 2:13-16).

Deductions from Luke 3:23 and John 2:20 would also place the birth of Jesus sometime around 06-04 BC/BCE. This conclusion would require some knowledge of Herod’s rebuilding of the Temple in 20 BCE.  

In his presentation of the birth, Luke also adds, that the events took place “while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Historians are now confirming that the Quirinius to whom Luke referred, served as governor on two occasions. One census took place during his first term in office and another in 06 CE, during his second term. These procedures took place every 14 years.

Jesus could not have been born during this second term – Herod was already dead. However, based on the 14 year cycle, Jesus should have been born in 08 BCE. However, because of political conflicts with Herod and Rome, it is believed that the census was delayed by about two years. Here again, that would place the birth of Jesus sometime between 06-04 BCE.

Whereas much of this information may seem to have little value to Christians, it is critical for dialog with skeptics who question the historical Jesus. Some of this questioning is based on the choice of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus.

For more than 200 years, no one seemed to care about celebrating the birth of Jesus. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”

The idea to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8).

Scholars argue that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring. 

The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date was a popular pagan festival to honor the birthday of Mithras, the “Invincible Sun God.” So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas. 

Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.

In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras. Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas.

Through the centuries Christmas has become an amalgam of traditions. The sacredness has been lost and today, many see it as anything but a sacred event. As Christians, we would be doing ourselves and the Lord Jesus a disservice, if we were to celebrate this season as anything but a season of sacred reflection. The date should only provide an opportunity to celebrate His historic birth and to recall His purpose for coming into this world. 

For additional study, I would strongly recommend James Veitch’s article on Scythian monk, Dionysius Exiguus.

Why Jerusalem?

“No city is more important to the peace of the world than Jerusalem” – I believe New York Times bestseller Dore Gold is correct. Since Jerusalem was declared the capital of Israel in 1,000 BCE by King David, more countries have fought over it than any other city in the world. During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.

Today, Jerusalem is less than 50 square miles. However, much of the trouble is about an area, just half a square mile in size. It is often referred to as the Old City and is divided into Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters. In this area one would find some of the holiest sites of the world’s three major religions.

Within this half a square mile area is a hilltop platform complex, the 35-acre Temple Mount. Formerly known as Mount Moriah, this is the area Solomon used to build the Temple in 950 BCE (2 Chronicles 3:1). It is the same area where the destroyed Temple was rebuilt, following the Jewish exile in Babylon (516 BCE). As a favor to the Jews, Herod the Great demolished and built a new Temple on that same site in 20 BCE.

It was Herod’s Temple with which Jesus was familiar. That Temple was destroyed by the Romans (70 CE), just as Jesus predicted. In 135, under Emperor Hadrian, the Romans further crushed the Jews. Dio Cassius estimated that more than half a million Jews died during the rebellion. The Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem and the city was renamed. Judea was also renamed Palestine, in order to eradicate permanently the memory of Jewish independence.

For centuries the Romans banned the Jews from Jerusalem. Annually, they were allowed to observe the destruction of the Temple by mourning at the Western Wall, which became known as the Wailing Wall. The Wall was the only symbol left to remind the Jews of the Temple. 

Because of their love for Jerusalem, Jews in other countries built synagogues facing Jerusalem. A similar passion for Jerusalem and what it represented can be seen in Psalm 137, as the writer described life in Babylon, after the first Temple was destroyed. 

Following the destruction of the Temple and the banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem in 135, the memories of the city were preserved in Jewish culture and prayers. These practices placed Jerusalem at the core of Jewish belief and consciousness. Because the Jews were driven from their homeland by force, they always looked forward to returning home. Their bond with the land had never been severed. 

When the Muslims invaded Jerusalem in 637, they headed straight for Jerusalem. Muslims believe the prophet Muhammad had his night vision from Jerusalem - and not just Jerusalem, but from the hilltop complex 35-acre Temple Mount. Muslims believe that in that vision Muhammad was taken to heaven by the Angel Gabriel and saw Abraham, Moses and Jesus, before being ushered into the very presence of God.

As a memorial, Muslims decided to erect the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in 688. In 705, the al-Aqsa mosque was also built on the Temple Mount. Both structures are still at this location, thus making it impossible for the Jews to rebuild the Temple on the same spot where the former temples were built.


The presence of the Muslims in the region launched a reign of terror that lasted for hundreds of years, partially culminating in the Crusades. In 1099 Jerusalem was seized from the Muslims. In 1187, the Muslims recaptured the city. However, the fight for Jerusalem continued for centuries.

When the British defeated the Muslims during World War I, signs of a Jewish homeland appeared more likely. The Holocaust of 1933-45 and the murder of some six million Jews by Germany made it very clear that the Jews needed their own homeland to be able to protect themselves. 

With the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948 and the resurrection of Jerusalem as the capital of the nation, the Arab-Israeli War began in 1948. Subsequent wars and skirmishes, including the recent Gaza battle, all have religious undertones for control of Jerusalem.  

In essence, the historical quest for Jerusalem is religious. The Psalmist was correct in asking that we “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6). In addition, when Jesus was asked by His disciples about His return, He said in Luke 21 – watch for developments in Jerusalem, just like you would watch the fig tree sprouting its leaves. 

Interestingly, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe that it is only the Prince of Peace who would bring peace to Jerusalem. The big question though, who is this Prince of Peace? In upcoming commentaries we will talk about Him as we approach the Christmas season.

Say Thank You AND LIVE LONGER

In his 1998 American Psychological Association presidential address, Martin P. Seligman, an eminent psychology professor, announced that he was founding a new science of "positive psychology." According to Seligman, “psychology had too long focused on the negative side of human nature and it was time to rigorously study the positive.” Seligman was calling for a rigorous, empirical approach. He was able to jump start the field with a $100,000 prize from the John Templeton Foundation for the best research project in this new area.

Further to Seligman’s initiative, major universities are now offering courses in The Science of Happiness, Forgiveness and Gratitude. With the 2012 Thanksgiving Day just a few days away, it would seem appropriate to look at gratitude through the eyes of behavioral scientists.

What is Gratitude?
Gratitude is a basic human emotion. It is expressed in some way by all ancient and modern cultures. According to Dr. Robert Emmons, a leading gratitude researcher and author of the book, Thanks! How Practicing Gratitude Can Make You Happier, the idea of receiving a gift is central to the concept of gratitude.

While merely appreciating something for its positive qualities does have a positive impact on our lives and emotions, gratitude takes the next step beyond. Gratitude happens when we go beyond just appreciating something to acknowledging that we have received something that we did nothing to earn or deserve. On some level, the warm emotional rush we feel when we really feel gratitude is very much like the glow we feel from realizing we are unconditionally loved.

The Power of Gratitude
New research shows that practicing gratitude may be the fastest single pathway to happiness, health, long life, and prosperity. In a remarkable study performed by Dr. Emmons, people who kept a gratitude journal for just three weeks measured 25% higher on a life satisfaction scale. They exercised more, drank alcohol less, and their families and friends noticed that they were nicer to be around. And the effects lasted for several months beyond the initial three week study.

Other studies on gratitude are confirming these results. People who take the time to notice and appreciate the good things that come their way through grace, or luck, or the goodness of others are happier and more peaceful. They do better on cognitive tests and tests of problem solving skills. They practice healthier habits, have better relationships, are more optimistic and live longer. Gratitude is one powerful emotion.

New Testament Gratitude
The power of gratitude is illustrated in the story of the ten lepers, recorded in Luke’s gospel. Of the ten lepers that were healed, one returned to say thanks. There are at least three lessons we can learn from that thankful leper:

1. Giving thanks is an intentional act of looking back. Giving thanks requires reflection. Furthermore, it assumes appreciation for the thing received. As an intentional act, giving thanks demands that we rearrange our priorities and make space for this expression of appreciation.

2. Giving thanks is an expression of thoughtfulness. Giving thanks provides opportunities to affirm others. It esteems and validates others. The person giving thanks chooses to shine the floodlight on the giver and the gift received.

3. Giving thanks is a display of humility. In giving thanks, one is acknowledging that a desire has been met. In expressing thanks, one is becoming vulnerable, in that one is affirming that there was a need and that need was met. Actually, giving thanks undermines pride and focuses on others. In essence, giving thanks tenderizes one’s attitudes.

Behavioral scientists are now confirming that people with a greater level of gratitude tend to have stronger relationships in that they appreciate their loved ones more. Studies confirm that thankful people are happier, display improved mental alertness, sleep better and tend to be healthier. Thankful people are also better equipped to offer emotional support to others.

Research is also confirming that thankful people take better care of themselves and engage in more protective health behaviors. They tend to be more optimistic, a characteristic that researchers say boosts the immune system. Did you know that optimistic patients are better prepared to undergo surgery and experience better health outcomes?

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul contended that thankfulness is a product of the control of the Holy Spirit in Christians (Ephesians 5:18-21). Paul argues that when a Christian is “filled/controlled with the Spirit”, the Christian acquires an appreciative disposition. I pray that that disposition would be very visible in you and me during this Thanksgiving season. Happy Thanksgiving!

2012 ELECTIONS LOSSES Bigger Than White House

The results of the recent elections were very disappointing for evangelicals. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, some 80% of evangelicals voted for Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. According to pre-election polls, Romney received a larger slice of the evangelical vote than any previous Republican presidential candidate. However, Romney and the Republicans lost.

At the state level, evangelicals also lost on a number of social issues. Voters in more than one state passed referenda supporting gay marriage. This marks the first time for any state to legalize same-sex marriage by the expressed will of the people, rather than through court rulings or legislation. Other social issues included abortion funding and legalization of marijuana.

In light of these losses, Ed Stetzer, President of Life Way Research believes “we should begin thinking about what it looks like to be the church in a ‘post-culture war’ era.” Simply put, evangelicals seemed to have lost a worldview battle, often referred to as “the culture war”.

According to Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “evangelical Christians must see the 2012 election as a catastrophe for crucial moral concerns.” Mohler believes “we face a worldview challenge that is far greater than any political challenge.” The question facing us is clear – how can we winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions about marriage, sex, the sanctity of life and a range of other moral issues?

It was with that question in mind I shared in a recent post-election sermon – when it seems okay to ridicule a priest because his prayer to God was unacceptable, you know we are in trouble. Or, when it seems okay for a political party to remove the need for God and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from its platform, you know we are in trouble. Actually, before our eyes we are witnessing the reshaping of a culture that is against the idea of Christian values in the marketplace.

 The results of the November elections made it clear that politics is not the answer we need to confront the moral decline in America. In the words of Richard Stearns, president of World Vision, “we need to go back to the basics of living as disciples of Christ, living missionally for Christ and demonstrating the Gospel in tangible ways within our schools, workplaces and communities.” In other words, Christians need to get back to what we know best – serving others with the support of our faith communities, rather than to the beat of political drums.

The admonition of the Apostle Paul is appropriate at this time. In Romans 12:2, he urges the Christians in Rome to discontinue the practice of allowing the world to squeeze them into a mold. This is how The Message describes the verse: “Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking.” Or, “don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world” (NLT).

The New Testament writers are saying to us that we should not allow non-Christian ways of thinking to influence our thoughts or actions. For instance, the political practice of demonizing your opponent in order to dissuade others from voting for the challenger is a non-Christian practice. It must be opposed vehemently, regardless of the party responsible for the demonizing. Our commitment to civil discourse must not be defined in political terms. Whenever we allow such practices to guide our thinking, we are allowing a non-Christian worldview to squeeze us into its mold.

Rather than give-in to conformity, we should be “transformed by the renewing of [our] minds” (Romans 12:2). In essence, we ought to arrange our thinking to reason ‘Christianly’. Our values should not be defined by politicians. Our values must be in line with our primary allegiance – and that is not to ‘Ceasar’, but to God.

We must call on our politicians to pursue the common good – to care for the most vulnerable among us, including the unborn, the poor and the immigrant. We must continue to stand in defense of life, marriage and religious freedom. Like Cardinal Timothy Dolan, we must pray for the President and everyone in leadership – “that they help restore a sense of civility to the public order, so our public conversations may be imbued with respect and charity toward everyone.”

The cultural war is not an imaginary battle. It is real and must be fought in the spirit of Philippians 4:8 – “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things” (allow such things to shape your thinking).

Nature or Acts of God?

Superstorm Sandy is gone. As one of the fifth worst hurricanes in US history, she left behind more than 100 deaths and billions of dollars worth of damage. The blame game has begun – some believe the hurricane was a result of global warming. Others believe it was “an act of God” – a statement that could suggest God was responsible or it was merely an act of nature.

Scientists tell us that the winds in a hurricane are caused by air near the ocean rushing inward to replace air that's rising in the storm. The earth's rotation gives the incoming air a counterclockwise spin. A hurricane grows weaker when it moves over cool water or over land, which cuts off the supply of warm, humid air, which is the storm's energy source.

Just like wind, rain and even earthquakes, hurricanes are necessary acts of nature. If nature is not allowed to do its thing, various ecological imbalances would occur. So, just as we protect ourselves from rainfall, we must protect ourselves from other acts of nature. Thankfully, science has advanced to the point where we know when to expect some acts of nature.

At times, science is unable to accurately predict natural disasters. For instance, in Italy, two scientists resigned their posts with the government's disaster preparedness agency last week after a court in L'Aquila sentenced six scientists and a government official to six years in prison. The court ruled that the scientists failed to accurately communicate the risk of the 2009 quake, which killed more than 300 people.

Thankfully, we got adequate warnings about Hurricane Sandy. Some American economists were even predicting the financial cost of the damage before the storm hit. Because we cannot influence the course of nature, the very best we can do is to prepare ourselves adequately to cope with nature.

However, if we build our houses near the mouth of a volcano, we should not complain when it erupts. The same thing is true when we drain wetlands or redirect the course of rivers in order to build our palatial homes.

When God placed human beings on earth He commanded us to take care of the earth – to dress it and keep it (Genesis 2:15). In this way we can be at peace with our environment. However, because of greed and selfishness we often ignore God’s warning and suffer the consequences.

Because of advances in science we are not only able to predict the course of nature, we are able to cooperate with the course of nature. In order to avoid flooding, we implement adequate drainage and erect lakes to compensate for intruding into natural habitat. On the other hand we see the consequences of reckless deforestation. This is what results in uncontrolled flooding and soil erosion.

The truth is – the practice of blaming God for the reckless choices we make is unfair. It is not logical to expect God to interfere with things that would violate the purposes of His creation. It is also illogical to expect God to thwart the consequences of our actions. The Bible clearly states, “we reap what we sow” (Galatians 6:2).

Thankfully, God is merciful and He often allows greater good to arise from our disasters. Apart from the opportunities for nature to replenish itself, God provides opportunities for us to care for victims of nature. For instance, within twenty-four hours of the hurricane, there was an overwhelming display of generosity across America.

Stories of compassion are flooding the media, despite the dominance of political rhetoric. The presidential candidates recognized the value of showing care and severely curtailed their campaigns. When Americans go to the polls tomorrow, they will be looking for compassionate leaders. The candidates know this and used the crisis to demonstrate care.

Just the size and force of Hurricane Sandy serve to remind us all that there are some things in life that are bigger than we are. Every wise person within the path of the hurricane took heed. Affluence, influence or status did not matter, we all submitted to something bigger than ourselves. Activities and priorities were rearranged.

In his book, An Act of God?, Dr. Erwin Lutzer reminds us that “historically, the church has always responded to tragedies with sacrifice and courage.” During the third century, Tertullian recorded that when pagans deserted their nearest relatives in the plague, it was Christians who stayed and ministered to the sick.

As nature rejuvenates itself we need to ensure that we prepare ourselves to avoid human tragedies. However, when tragedies occur, others need to rise to the occasion as philanthropic Americans do.

Every Vote Counts

On January 18, 1961, in Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania), the Afro-Shirazi Party won the general elections by a single vote/seat. The seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island had been gained by a single vote. According to the Guinness World Book of Records, this is the closest general elections ever occurred in the world.

Here in the United States, on August 7, 1979 in Mississippi, Robert E. Joiner was declared the winner over W.H. Pyron with 133,587 votes to 133,582. That's the narrowest recorded percentage win in an election. The loser got more than 49.999% of the votes for the office of Southern District Highway Commissioner.

The above are mere samples of the value of every single vote. The 2000 Presidential elections is another example of the value of every vote. Then, President George W. Bush won the election by a margin of just half of a percentage point of the 110 million votes cast.

With this kind of information, one can understand why I was outraged when I heard the report of a group of black pastors who were encouraging their congregations not to vote. Thankfully, the report from the New York Times was proven to be inaccurate. The truth is that some pastors will be voting on the other matters on their respective ballots. However, they will not be voting for the Office of President.

Some pastors believe to vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections will advance the same-sex marriage agenda and also affirm the Democratic Party Platform which endorses that lifestyle. To vote for Governor Mitt Romney would be to release him from the racist teachings in the Mormon Bible that “black-skinned” people are “cursed…loathsome..unattractive...despised and filthy.”

It is in light of the above positions; some pastors believe that any vote would be to endorse an evil. In other words, our only choice would be to choose the lesser of the evils. And, to endorse any form of evil would be to undermine the cause of righteousness, to which we are first committed.  

If we were to apply this line of reasoning to all the decisions we make in life, we would be suggesting that every decision we make promotes the cause of righteousness. However, because there is no clear biblical prescription on how to vote, issues of this nature are treated as issues of ethical thought.

Ethical views are usually divided into two broad types – ethics of ought (deontological) and ethics of consequence (teleological). Deontological ethics are derived from a previously-determined view of reality or of the nature of God – sometimes referred to as natural law.

The crucial thing with teleological ethics is not whether the act comes out of divine command or natural law, but whether it produces good results. There are times when Christians are confronted with issues for which there is not biblical clarity. At such times, as guided by the Holy Spirit and by consensus within the wider Christian community, it becomes necessary to apply teleological ethics.

Some argue that because God is sovereign, He already knows the outcome of the elections and therefore a single vote would not make a difference. Agreed, God is sovereign, but throughout the Scriptures He is seen inviting people to be in partnership with Him to accomplish His purposes. In other words, God’s sovereignty does not absolve me of my responsibility.

Many traditionalists contend that because we are pilgrims in this world, we must not become engrossed in “the things of this world”. Jeremiah the prophet responds to this attitude of non-involvement. 

Jeremiah was fully aware that the Jews were going to be in exile in Babylon for a specified period of time. However, rather than suggest a program of non-involvement in a foreign land, among hostile captors, he encouraged full participation and involvement. Here is an excerpt of his letter to those who were already in Babylon:
“…seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).

In a democracy, voting is one of the most cherished rights of citizens. That right enables citizens to elect representatives who are obligated to comply with laws and the wishes of their constituents. Opportunities to vote provide opportunities for constituents to contribute to the welfare of their country. In addition, voting opportunities enable constituents to appraise the work of their representatives.

This system has contributed significantly to America’s position of greatness in the world. Isn't it interesting, while many are anxious to migrate to America, others in America are not as anxious to migrate to other countries?

Dr. Billy Graham WAS WRONG

Following a private 30-minute meeting with the Republican presidential candidate Mr. Mitt Romney, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed from its website the reference to Mormonism as a cult. I disagree with the timing of this decision by the Association.

According to CNN News, in the section of the website, My Answer by Billy Graham, there was the question, What is a cult? The answer was clear – “a cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith.” Some of the groups listed as examples were Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Scientologists and others. Since Romney’s visit with Dr. Billy Graham, those examples have been removed from the site.

When asked about the change, Ken Barun, Chief of Staff for the Association, stated, “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during the campaign.” Interestingly, a search of the word MORMONS on the website provides six results related to cults, including a discussion about how to recognize a religious cult. However, specific examples of cultic groups have been removed.

The present wording on the website is much more palatable in a culture of tolerance. However, the BGEA does not in any way compromise its understanding of what is a religious cult. My problem is the timing of its decision to remove the examples, including Mormonism.

Was the removal intended to create a more cordial relationship with Mitt Romney, a lifelong member of the Mormon Church? Or, could the removal be considered an attempt to have evangelicals respond more favorably to Mr. Romney’s candidacy? As mentioned earlier, the timing of the decision creates much discomfort.

The decision is symptomatic of a bigger problem among evangelicals. Many want to endorse Mr. Romney as president, but fear that doing so might tacitly endorse Mormonism. Something is wrong with this line of reasoning. For instance, when evangelicals voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960, were they tacitly endorsing the Roman Catholic Church of which Kennedy was a member? Similarly, was a vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976, an endorsement of the Southern Baptists? Then, how could a vote for Mitt Romney be an endorsement of Mormonism?   

In an earlier commentary, I shared the view that if elected, I believe Romney’s faith will inform his decisions. However, that is not the same as saying that his religious views as a Mormon will be imposed on the nation. What I would expect is a commitment to high ethical standards, an awareness of having to give account to an authority higher than that of the office of president, a regard for the sacredness of life and a commitment to traditional marriage. I would also expect him to treat people of faith with respect and to reflect much compassion in his leadership. I would expect nothing less if President Obama were to be returned to office.

At the same time, I hasten to add that a vote for President Obama would in no way be an endorsement of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where the President was last registered as a member of a Christian church.

On November 06, 2012, Americans will not be electing a Pastor-in-Chief. Political leaders will not give account to God as pastors, but as servants who were entrusted with power and responsibility to govern, ensuring justice for all. Like the Minor Prophets, Christian leaders must continue to demand righteousness in public administration. The Book of Proverbs was correct when it said, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:23).

In this context I applaud Dr. Billy Graham and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. They just published a series of full-page newspaper advertisements calling on voters to cast a ballot for their faith. Dr. Graham, who is approaching his 94th birthday, urged readers “to cast their ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”

Such prophetic positions are good for a nation that has had a rich Judeo-Christian history. The church does not need to demand a theocratic government. However, the church needs to speak prophetically, condemning sin and promoting righteousness.

In order to obey the injunction to pray for those in authority, Christians need to use every legitimate opportunity to influence the systems of this world. Voting provides one such opportunity – to abrogate that opportunity would be irresponsible and would delegitimize one’s right to speak with integrity.

Marriage & Politics

Both the Bible and science confirm that traditional marriage is good for society. Overall, men and women who are married live longer. Science finds that being married tends to motivate people to increase healthy behaviors, habits and attitudes.

In her book, The Case for Marriage, Professor Linda Waite states, “The evidence from four decades of research is surprisingly clear – a good marriage is both men’s and women’s best bet for living a long and healthy life.”

Dr. Robert Coombs of the University of California reviewed more than 130 studies published over the past 100 years on how marriage affects well-being. He found “an intimate link between marital status and personal well-being.” His findings which were disclosed in the journal, Family Relations (40 [1991]: 97-102), went on to say: “Virtually every study of mortality and marital status shows the unmarried of both sexes have higher death rates, whether by accident, disease, or self-inflicted wounds, and this is found in every country that maintains accurate health statistics.”

In essence, science has come around to confirm what the Bible has always contended, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). For Christians therefore, traditional marriage matters because it is biblically and scientifically valid. It is for this reason Christians seek to advance this view within society – traditional marriage is different from other relationships and is beneficial to families and the society at large.

Because politics is interested in the management of social structures, it would seem reasonable to ask where our politicians stand on this vital subject of marriage and family. In an attempt to obtain credible responses, I resorted to the platforms/manifestos of both major political parties – a party platform is a list of the actions which a political party supports with the view of making policies.

For instance, on the subject of same-sex marriage, The Republican Platform states: “The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage.

The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”

On the same subject, the Democratic Platform states: “We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference…We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

It's time we stop just talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families. The President and Democrats have cut taxes for every working American family, and expanded the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit… We support passing the Healthy Families Act, broadening the Family and Medical Leave Act, and partnering with states to move toward paid leave.

We have invested in expanding and reforming Head Start and grants to states to raise standards and improve instruction in their early learning programs, and we support expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. We must protect our most vulnerable children by supporting our foster care system, adoption programs for all caring parents, grandparents, and caregivers, and protecting children from violence and neglect. We recognize that caring for family members and managing a household is real and valuable work.”

Both political parties recognize the value of the traditional family. However, one party believes other forms of the family should be afforded the same respect and legal privileges extended to the traditional family. Christians need to recognize the differences and support the party that best represents your worldview.

Atheism & Politics

One in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion. The number of these Americans has grown by 25% just in the past five years, according to a survey released last Thursday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

When said differently, 33 million Americans now have no religious affiliation, with 13 million in that group identifying as either atheist or agnostic, according to the Pew survey.

The religious divide is clearly seen between political party lines. Of the 13 million people who call themselves atheist or agnostic, 73 % are Democrats or lean toward Democratic policies, compared to only 16 % who favor Republicans and conservative ideology. For those who are considered "unaffiliated," 63 % side with Democrats and only 26 % lean toward Republicans. 

Greg Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and a co-author of the study, points out that in each of the past three presidential elections, big majorities of the religiously unaffiliated voted for the Democratic candidate. In 2008, as many of the unaffiliated went for Obama as evangelical Christians went for John McCain. 

"The 'nones' (the 63% that lean toward the Democratic Party) seldom or never attend worship services or pray, are more likely to have at least some college, and are roughly split between those who call themselves "spiritual but not religious" (37 %) and those who say they are "neither spiritual nor religious" (42 %).

Smith says, "One of the ways that the religiously unaffiliated are most distinctive is with their views on things such as same-sex marriage and abortion - the religiously unaffiliated tend to be quite liberal in their views on those kinds of issues." According to Smith, "about 75% of them say that abortion should be legal in all cases. A similar number favor same-sex couples to marry." 

The Pew survey suggested that the Democratic Party would do well to recognize the growth of the unaffiliated, since 63% of them identify with or lean toward that political group. John Green, a senior research adviser at Pew, predicted that "in the near future, if not this year, the unaffiliated voters will be as important as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party collation.” 

Green points to the 2008 exit polls as evidence for that prediction. That year, Republican presidential nominee John McCain beat President Barack Obama by 47 points among white evangelical voters, while Obama had a 52-point margin of victory over McCain among the religiously unaffiliated. According to exit polls, the proportion of religiously unaffiliated Americans who supported the Democratic presidential candidate grew 14 points from 2000 to 2008.

In announcing the survey’s findings at the Religion Newswriters Association conference in Bethesda, Maryland, Green said the growing political power of the unaffiliated within the Democratic Party could become similar to the power the Religious Right acquired in the GOP in the 1980s. 

The Pew study doesn't say what were the causes of atheism in politics, however, David Campbell, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame, thinks he knows. "There is considerable evidence suggesting that the 'nones' have actually been caused by politics," says Campbell, co-author of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. "Many people have pulled away from the religious label due to the mingling of religion and conservative politics."

Others believe that younger voters in particular are frustrated with the failure or refusal of traditional denominations to change with the times and embrace broader ideas on marriage and the environment. For instance, some Democrats are more amenable to social and environmental issues that do not appear to require religious endorsement. 

However, because of the tacit relationship between Christians and the Republican Party, it is more difficult to align the party with issues that are inimical to the Christian worldview. 

In light of the current voting trends, it would seem easy to conclude that one political party is more religious than the other. One has to be careful in coming to such conclusions. In November, America will not be electing a Pastor-in-Chief. Neither will America be deciding on a theocratic form of government.

However, we must still ask the question – should Christians participate in non-religious or even antagonistic political systems? Certainly!
- we must maintain righteousness within the system
- we must not be defiled by the system
- we must seek to improve the system
- we must pray for others who lead the system
- we must ensure that the system reflects balance in the issues covered.

REMOVE THE WORDS Mother and Father

Very soon France may ban the use of the words MOTHER and FATHER from all government documents. The idea is to remove all gender-specific language from the nation’s civil code. In the case of MOTHER and FATHER, the words will be replaced with PARENTS.

The language change is an inevitable move for countries that approve homosexual unions. Homosexuals feel excluded because the words MOTHER and FATHER refer to the irrevocable biological origins of every human being. A more all-inclusive word like PARENT is preferred.

Following its approval of same-sex marriage in 2005, Spain had to deal with the gender-neutral language. The Spanish government announced a ministerial order that new births would have to be registered at the State Civil Registries under the headings of Parent (progenitor) A, and Parent (progenitor) B. In other words, the terms FATHER and MOTHER were no longer to be used.

The timing of these changes in France coincides with that nation’s desire to redefine marriage – a law goes before the French cabinet on October 31. President Francois Hollande has vowed to approve the law.

France is following decisions taken in Canada since 2005 when the Ontario government approved gender neutral language. No longer can a married couple be referred to as “husband and wife” or “man and woman”. The terms “widow” and “widower” have also been struck from government statutes. Gender neutral terms like spouses and partners are preferred when referring to married couples.

With the legalization of same-sex marriage here in the United States, gender neutral language will also become necessary. In some circles, terms like fathering and mothering have been replaced with fostering and nurturing. The general idea is to make gender distinctions indistinguishable.

Apart from facilitating gender-neutral language, some in our society are eager to neutralize gender roles and sexual distinctions. Some would want us to believe that gender distinctions are preferential choices rather than some innate disposition.

In response to such thinking, Christians would need to formulate a biblical understanding of maleness and femaleness. For instance, what does the Bible mean when it says of the Creator – “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27)?

The statement appears on the sixth day of creation and was used only in reference to human beings. The uniqueness of the term would seem to suggest that the mention of gender distinctions within our species should not be taken lightly.

Interestingly, the expression “male and female” appears in the context of “being made in the image of God.” Scholars are still grappling with what it really means to be made in the image of God. Among the views advanced, some scholars believe the plurality in gender may be related to the plurality in the term “let US make man…” Whatever the outcome of the discussion among scholars, it is obvious that a biblical understanding of gender distinctions should not be trivialized.

Throughout Scripture the concept of one flesh in marriage is very strong. Separate and apart from the procreative and pleasure derived from sex within marriage, there is the fusion of two genders that bring about “one flesh”. In other words, sex between the genders was intended for pleasure, procreation and permanence (one flesh). Hence, any sexual union that is unable to realize these outcomes is inimical to a biblical understanding of sex.

Logically, the strength of “one flesh” can only be stressed in the context of two different genders - the more noticeable the distinction of the genders, the richer the understanding of the “one flesh”. Using the same principle of noticeable distinction, Paul explains the richness of becoming one in Christ.

In his letter to the Galatians Paul uses contrasting terms to make his point – unity in Christ transcends ethnic, social and sexual distinctions - “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28).

I find it rather interesting that many of the contexts in which gender-neutral language is preferred and promoted, sexuality is the subject being discussed. France is at the verge of legalizing same-sex marriage. Whereas Spain and Canada have already legalized same-sex marriage, a few States in the United States have joined them. 

In Romans 1:18-32, Paul outlines the consequences of disregarding the natural and divine order intended between the genders. I would strongly recommend that you read this passage at your earliest convenience.

Jesus Was Married?

Jesus is in the news again. This time the controversy concerns His alleged marriage. According to the New York Times, Harvard Professor Karen King has a scrap of papyrus with the words, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife…’”

On September 18, 2012, Professor King announced the discovery of the Coptic papyrus fragment. If the fragment is authentic, it simply means that an early Christian population believed that Jesus was married. Professor King has made it clear that the fourth-century artifact is not implying that Jesus had a wife.

King believes the text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived. The fact that all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question would suggest that the idea of Jesus’ marriage was never a major matter of concern in the early centuries.

Like Professor King, I believe the fragment is authentic. However, that does not mean that Jesus was married. Authenticity of the fragment has to do with the genuineness of the source, not the accuracy of the thing stated. From my research, the necessary checks and balances that have been done to date, give us sufficient reason to believe that the fragment is not fraudulent.

The fragment may have been written sometime between 175 to 200 years after the death of Jesus. We should therefore attempt to find out what were the opinions at that time concerning the subject of Jesus and marriage. Historians tell us the fragment could have been written at a time when there was an intense debate over marriage and Christians.

Actually, around the year 200, Clement of Alexandria declared that believers should emulate Jesus by not marrying. Some twenty years later, Tertullian of Carthage said that Jesus was “entirely unmarried.”

Citing the Gospel of Peter, Dan Brown in his volume The Da Vinci Code, suggests that Jesus was married to Mary of Magdalene. Both the source cited and the writings of Dan Brown are not historically credible. In the first place, The Gospel of Peter is not one of the New Testament gospels. Secondly, it was not written by Peter, the disciple of Jesus. As a matter of fact, it may have been written some 200 years after Peter died. In essence, it is not a reliable source of information about Jesus. Hence, Dan Brown’s work is discredited since it was built on such a foundation. 

In the accounts of Jesus’ life in the Bible, there is no mention of His marital status. The four Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, tell the story of Jesus’ birth and early childhood. Following some 18 years of silence, the New Testament then accounts for His three-year ministry before detailing His death, resurrection and ascension. 

According to Professor Darrel Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, “One could say the text (New Testament) is silent on Jesus’ marital status because there is nothing to say.” Professor Bock believes the fragment is quite similar to Gnostic Gospels – writings of an early sect of Christians. He believes the fragment could be referring to a “Gnostic rite of marriage that is a picture of the church and Jesus, not a real wife of Jesus.”

Using marriage as an analogy, Paul refers to the church as the bride of Christ in the book of Ephesians. Paul contends that husbands should treat their wives as Christ loves and cares for the church.

Like Paul, John uses the bridal imagery to illustrate the meeting of Christ and His church in heaven. In his apocalypse he states “For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready” (Revelation 19:7).

Christians after the New Testament era would have had access to this teaching of the church as the bride of Christ. Is it possible that with the practice of interpreting the Scriptures allegorically, some could have concluded that Jesus was married? Considering that the essential feature of allegory is that of double meaning, where a detail in the story also stands for something else, I believe it is very likely that Christians in later periods of history may have concluded that Jesus was married.

However, persons who lived and worked with Jesus never hinted at or mentioned anything about His married life. Interestingly, John who wrote the book of Revelation, was one of the closest disciples to Jesus. It was this John who used the imagery of the church as the bride of Christ more than any other New Testament writer. The imagery was intended to highlight the familial bond between Christ and His church. This picture is consummated in the wedding of Christ and His bride in heaven.

That imagery would have been blurred had Jesus been married. The media hype is another case of media sensationalism. Interestingly, such sensationalism would not have been possible, had it not been for the impact Jesus has had on the world for more than 2,000 years.

Islamic Bullyism

Enough is enough! We’ve already lost Ambassador Chris Stevens, distinguished servicemen and suffered millions of dollars in destruction of property in several countries. Why? Some Muslims do not know how to handle dissent.

This time, we are blaming the making of an amateur film analysis of the Prophet Muhammad. On another occasion it was the alleged burning of the Qur’an at an American prison. Around the world Muslims were outraged and expressed their disgust by destroying lives and property.

In 2007, Muslims were again incensed when Salman Rushdie was being knighted by Queen Elizabeth II – Why? Rushdie wrote a book in which he criticized the Qur’an. After writing that book, Satanic Verses, a death warrant was placed on him by the Ayatollah of Iran. Soon after Rushdie’s knighthood was released, protests against the honor were expressed worldwide. The Organization to Commemorate Martyrs of the Muslim World offered $150,000 to anyone who would kill Rushdie. In addition, the General Secretary of the Islamabad Traders Association said, “we will give ten million rupees ($165,000) to anyone who beheads Rushdie.”

In each of the above cases, the problem is the same – the absence of a civil response to dissent or opposition. Rather than address this matter, many politicians and journalists have been focusing erroneously on the issues responsible for the provocation. Some analysts even believe that the irrational response to dissent is the unfortunate choice of a few opportunists or Islamic militants.

I beg to disagree. My studies clearly confirm that a militant response to opposition is rooted in Islam’s history. Much of that history can be found in the Qur’an, The Sunnah and the Hadith, original Islamic sources. Whereas the Qur’an is believed to be of divine origin, the Sunnah describes how Prophet Muhammad lived his life. Both sources are indispensable – one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them. Hadith literature means literature which consists of the narrations of the life of the Prophet and the things approved by him.

Islamic scholars would agree that from this literary base, Islamic life is shaped. I will therefore go to these sources to establish that radicalism is rooted in Islamic history and not in a few isolated cases in the twenty-first century.

Muhammad was born in 570 in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. His parents died when he was still a child, leaving early parenting to his grandfather who was very religious and a leader in one of the more dominant tribes of Mecca.

As an adult, Muhammad got married to his former boss who left him quite an inheritance when she died. It was during their 25 years of marriage his religious interests peaked. During his times of meditation he felt he had received revelations from God. He gained a following in Mecca as he attempted to practice what was revealed to him.

The response from some leaders in Mecca was not cordial. Muhammad’s life was even threatened, resulting in his migration to Yathrib (Medina), some 200 miles north of Mecca. Some of those who believed his teaching migrated with him to Medina. That was where the first Mosque was established.

While in Medina, Muhammad had more revelations and sought to share these with the residents. Jews and Christians were among those who rejected his message. They questioned his legitimacy as a prophet. As Muhammad strengthened his power base in Medina he ordered or suggested the assassination of various critics.

Asma Bint Marwan was one of his critics. As a poetess she produced poems ridiculing Muhammad. His response – “will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” She was stabbed while she nursed her youngest child. Abu Afak, more than 100 years old, was murdered on the advice of Muhammad for opposing the prophet. The Hadith records the names of at least twenty-seven individuals who were murdered on Muhammad’s orders.

The Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir was ordered to leave Medina within ten days. When they refused, Muhammad’s men besieged them and starved them into submission. After several weeks they surrendered and were expelled. All their belongings and land were confiscated and distributed amongst Muhammad’s supporters. The Jews of Banu Nadir were slaughtered by the Muslims two years later in their new homes.

Time does not allow me list the wars and mass murders ordered by Muhammad. These are the references to which many militants go to justify their intolerance to any opposing views.

I would strongly encourage you to examine some of these original sources online. In addition, view the film, The Third Jihad – it’s available in a You Tube version. The issue before us is not Islam’s response to an amateur film from California; rather, it is Islam’s historic response to opposing views.

How Should I Vote?

In the upcoming elections, Christians will form a large and influential voting block. However, within that voting block, there is polarity – hence the question, how should one vote?

The recently concluded party conventions may have provided little help in answering the question. The half-truths, exaggerations and priorities of our politicians have left us with another challenge – integrity. To whom should Christians go when trust is so scarce?

There are several passages in the Bible which confirm that God is interested in the process of governing. He is concerned with the form, organization and administration of people. In essence, God cares about our politics.

In Jeremiah’s letter to the Jews that were taken to Babylon, the Lord said, “Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).  

The Apostle Paul took a similar line in his letter to Timothy: “I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:1-3).

God’s interest is further evident in references to ungodly regimes as “servants of God.” In exercising His sovereignty, God demands that politicians put systems in place that would ensure care for the poor, justice and protection for the less fortunate. Romans 13:1 strongly suggests that the system of government is ordained by God with the view of reflecting the will of God.

Psalm 72 is a prayer. It expresses the desire of the nation of Israel that their king’s reign will be characterized by justice and righteousness. These were viewed as supreme virtues of national leadership. The matters raised in the prayer clearly identify items that should exemplify our own political leaders.

PROVIDE JUSTICE (vv. 1-2) “… endow the king with your justice…so that he will judge Your people in righteousness, Your afflicted ones with justice.” This is a clear appeal for fair dealing and honesty in every area of leadership.”

PRACTICE FAITH (vv. 7, 15) “In his days the righteous will flourish…may people ever pray for him and bless him all day long.” Leaders should participate in corporate worship, recognizing its benefit for both individuals and the spirit of community.

ENSURE PROSPERITY (V.7, 16) “In his days…prosperity will abound till the moon is no more…Let grain abound throughout the land; on the tops of the hills may it sway. Let its fruit flourish like Lebanon; let it thrive like the grass of the field.” There is nothing wrong with prosperity that is gained honorably. It ought to be encouraged.

CARE FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE (v.4) “He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy…” No one should be allowed to assume national leadership if he/she is insensitive to the needs of the less fortunate.

PROVIDE SECURITY (vv. 4, 9) “He will crush the oppressor…his enemies will lick the dust.” Crime deterrence and national security should also be prominent in every political policy.

RESPECT IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS (vv. 8-11) “All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him.” A leader’s reputation should earn global respect.

GOVERN WITH HONOR (v.17) “May his name endure forever; may it continue as long as the sun. All nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed” Be a model of honorable governance. People will talk, but when they do, they ought to be able to say honorable things of anyone in leadership.

Without referring to Psalm 72, I believe all politicians would want to believe that they uphold all of the above. However, because of our system of government, we have the privilege of holding our leaders accountable. We can do this honorably by encouraging civil debate among opposing candidates. In addition, we must use every legitimate means to demand the items listed in Psalm 72.

In November we will have another opportunity to speak with the ballot box. One’s freedom to vote is a liberty rooted in our Christian heritage. In many countries, citizens are deprived from voting and when allowed, are subjected to rigged systems.

Despite the few attempts to undermine fair voting practices in America, we can be thankful that generally, we can vote fairly and without fear. Edmund Burke, the 18th century British statesman was correct when he said, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” PLEASE VOTE!

Bible Bread on Sale AT LOCAL SUPERMARKETS

Food For Life Baking Company, Inc. has placed a registered trade mark on its Ezekiel 4:9 sprouted grain bread. Such a trade mark would suggest that the idea is original and belongs to the company. To some extent, that claim is not accurate.

Ezekiel 4:9 Bread is made from freshly sprouted organically grown grains. The bread is naturally flavored and rich in protein, vitamins, minerals and natural fiber with no added fat. The idea of this flourless bread comes from the Hebrew Bible, to be more specific, from Ezekiel chapter four and verse nine: “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a container and make them into bread for yourself…”

In the context of the verse, the prophet Ezekiel was limited to a restricted diet for 390 days in order to communicate the reality of a famine among the Jews during a siege of the city of Jerusalem. The prophet was to eat bread made from a mixture of six different grains. It is based on this restricted diet that Ezekiel 4:9 Bread is produced today.

Food For Life Baking Company has discovered that when Ezekiel’s six grains and legumes are sprouted and combined, a complete protein is created that closely parallels the protein found in milk and eggs. In fact, the protein quality is so high, that it is 84.3% as efficient as the highest recognized source of protein, containing all nine essential amino acids. There are 18 amino acids present in Ezekiel 4:9 Bread, all naturally balanced.

Food For Life Baking Company appears to be best positioned to pioneer this product. The company was the first wholesale bakery in the United States specializing in natural foods. For some 40 years the family-owned and operated company has been serving sprouted grain and all natural bakery products. Today, after more than three generations and more than sixty different bread products, the family maintains the original baking techniques used to make truly authentic flavorful sprouted grain breads.

The flourless bread is made from freshly sprouted grains and contains absolutely no flour. The company believes in sprouting the grains they use in their breads because sprouting is the best way to release all of the vital nutrients stored in whole grains.

In order to unlock this dormant food energy, maximize nutrition and flavor, the company adds just the right amount of water to healthy whole organically grown grains which are already bursting with nutrients. Beneficial enzymes are activated which cause the grains to sprout and become a living food. The sprouting process not only increases vitamins and minerals, such as vitamin A, vitamin C, B-vitamins, calcium, iron, magnesium and potassium, but also causes a natural change that allows the protein and carbohydrates to be assimilated by the body more efficiently. The company’s baking process preserves these nutrients and retains the important natural fiber and bran.

Although Ezekiel 4:9 Bread is slow baked, at temperatures much lower than typical commercial bakeries, the product is not considered to be raw. Foods are typically considered to be raw if they are cooked at temperatures below 110 degrees. However, Ezekiel Bread must be baked above 250 degrees Fahrenheit or it would spoil during baking, unless it is dehydrated.

In addition, because the ingredients are “certified organically grown,” one is assured that the grains have been grown and processed without the use of fertilizers, chemicals or pesticides and the lands, where the grains are grown, have not been sprayed for at least three years. Certified organically grown grains are third party verified by certifying agencies to be processed according to the standards and statutes set forth by the Organic Foods Act of 1990.

Among other benefits, Ezekiel Bread can help to lower cholesterol in bread users. When we eat, our bodies secrete bile acids into the gastrointestinal tract to help absorb fats. Cholesterol is a principal component of bile acids. Researchers believe that soluble fibers bind cholesterol rich bile acids and cause them to be excreted from the body when they would otherwise be reabsorbed.

Ezekiel Bread can also facilitate weight loss. Fibrous foods provide bulk to help keep one feeling comfortably full and satisfied longer, decreasing swings in blood sugar that make dieters weak, tired and irritable. Fiber can help one consume less without the desire to continuously snack and stack up needless calories.

Although considered irrelevant by some, it is obvious that dietary guidelines from the Hebrew Bible have returned and provide healthy competition with twenty-first century nutritionally conscious enthusiasts.

Like my wife and I do, you may want to check out this bread in the frozen bread section, the next time you visit your local supermarket.

Why the Jews?

Why the Jews? – that was the title of the book I saw the gentleman reading. My interest was aroused and I was determined to get closer to him. My wife reminded me that we were on vacation. Neither her reminder nor the fact that we were on a cruise at the time, impeded my interest. I wanted more answers to the question my World Religion college students ask each semester – why have Jews been persecuted more than any other people group in history?

My quest for answers prompted me to befriend the reader. After some two hours of conversation, I knew I had to get my own volume – I have never regretted that investment I made some years ago.

In almost every instance, whenever the reason for anti-Semitism is raised, one hears answers like, “look at what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians.” Persons who answer like that do not know Jewish history. Even before the Jews were known as a nation, an attempt was made to annihilate them. Then, it was the Egyptians, as recorded in the first chapter of Exodus.

Throughout history, other attempts were made by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Seleucids, and the Romans. On at least three occasions during the last 350 years, annihilation campaigns have been waged against the Jews: the Chmelnitzky massacres in Eastern Europe (1648-49), the Nazi German destruction between 1939 and 1945 and the current attempts by Iran and radical Islam. 

In their volume, Why the Jews? – authors Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin believe they have identified why Jews have been hated so much for thousands of years. They advance four reasons worthy of reflection.

1. Judaism was birthed in polytheistic cultures. 
It was in those cultures Jews affirmed what they considered to be the one and only God of all humankind. In affirming this monotheistic position, Jews were implying illegitimacy to everyone else’s gods. This sense of religious identity is a threat to any culture that is rooted in polytheism. The result – feelings of resentment.

2. Judaism has also held from the earliest times that the Jews were chosen by God to achieve the mission of bringing the world to God and His moral law. In other words, their monotheistic God chose them as a people to accomplish His purposes. That concept of being chosen by God is fodder for hate by those who were not chosen.

3. Jews have always believed that by choosing them God intended to use them to make the world a better place. As stated in one ancient Jewish prayer, “to repair the world under the rule of God.” This is a clear appeal to make religious demands on non-Jewish societies. 

4. As a result of the Jews’ commitment to Judaism, they have led higher-quality lives than non-Jewish neighbors in almost every society where they have lived. With minimal natural resources, Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. Twenty-four percent of Israel’s workforce holds university degrees, ranking third in the industrialized world. Interestingly, Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce. 

Authors Prager and Telushkin believe that the higher quality of life among Jews, directly results from Judaism. This they believe has provoked profound envy and hostility among non-Jews. Hence their conclusion, a belief in Judaism is the root cause of anti-Semitism. 

Interestingly, Jews who abandoned their Jewish identity and assumed the religious and national identities of others were no longer persecuted. This view was clearly illustrated during the Inquisition, when Jews, who chose to convert to Christianity, were spared from persecution. A similar picture was painted some 1,000 years earlier when Jews were executed or kicked out of the city of Yathrib (Medina) if they did not accept the message of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. 

History confirms that Judaism represents a threat to the core values, allegiances and beliefs of other people groups. In addition, all the super powers that overthrew the Jews are relics of history. In 1948, the tiny nation of Israel was resurrected. It was resurrected with many of the beliefs and practices they adopted thousands of years earlier. 

Despite her many successes, I do not believe that modern Israel is being rewarded by God for her faithfulness to Him. Many Jews today will affirm their heritage, but not the God of their forefathers. In Israel today, many practice godless values. Many reflect a spirit of pride and intolerance. 

Today, Israel is surrounded by many enemies. Anti-Semitism is alive around the world. Meaningful peace in the land of Israel seems impossible. At this time, the words of the Lord to King Solomon are so appropriate: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Post-Olympic Syndrome

Of the 10,820 athletes participating in the London 2012 Olympics, only about 820 received medals. For years, many will remember the accomplishments of American Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt of Jamaica. Phelps became the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time, winning 22 medals. Bolt became the first sprinter to retain all three sprinting gold medals at consecutive Olympics. However, amidst the celebrations, what about the 10,000 athletes and their coaches who did not win medals?

The Trinidad and Tobago government found itself having to apologize for failing to recognize athletes who did not receive medals. Four athletes returned with Keshorn Walcott who won a gold medal for his record-breaking javelin throw. Walcott received a full college scholarship, a new stadium at the college he’ll be attending will be named in his honor, a $400,000.00 townhouse in a community designated for use by government officials and diplomats, a national aircraft will be named in his honor, and a major road in his home district will be named in his honor. He was lavished with honor while the names of other athletes were not even mentioned at a home-coming ceremony.

Team Nigeria failed to win a single medal. The Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan ordered a comprehensive re-organization of the nation’s sports sector. Appeals have also been made for the Director-General of Nigeria’s Sports Commission to resign. 

Other Olympic casualities among the 204 nations participating included government officials, coaches, their support staff and many athletes. 

From the 302 sporting events, we knew from up front that only 962 medals could be won. The 30 world records broken were a bonus that lifted the standard of London 2012. The Brits were terrific hosts. All eyes will now be focused on Brazil for the 2016 Olympics. 

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED
Did you know that Olympic gold medals were not really made of gold? Actually, each gold medal was made up of 92.5% silver and 1.34% gold. The remainder of the gold medal was made of copper. The value of the materials used in the gold medal is about $644.00. Whereas the silver medal was made up of about 92.5% silver, the bronze medal, was 97% copper. 

Obviously, that was much more expensive than the awards that were given at the Isthmian Games. Paul referred to these Games in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). 

The Isthmian Games were celebrated every two years on the isthmus of Corinth. The prizes in these games were perishable wreaths. However, like our own Olympics, the games were events of patriotic pride. Athletes contested in track and field, horse and chariot racing, jumping, boxing, wrestling and throwing the discus and javelin. Compare that with our 10,820 Olympic athletes who participated in 26 different sporting events. 

Paul’s reference to the Isthmian Games was not intended to promote the games. He was using the games as a metaphor to teach about the discipline necessary to become winners. Paul was contending that the Corinthians were disciplining themselves in order to receive an award that would perish in a few days. In addition, winning was accompanied by a great sense of devotion to the state and to whichever god was being honored as patron of the games. 

Following the London Olympics, many countries felt a similar sense of honor and pride. As hosts, England achieved her highest tally of gold medals since 1908, finishing third in the medal table. American legislators are considering lifting the taxes imposed on the monetary value of awards. It is this sense of discipline and reward Paul captures. 

He sees the Christian life as a race. As participants we must discipline ourselves in the race of life. As athletes do, we must identify and eliminate all distractions. Distractions would include activities and behaviors that will affect victorious living. Just like athletes, Christians must be focused on the goal. Sometimes we forget that the goal is not the other athletes, who are also in the race. 

It is at the end of the race winners are determined. Medals are awarded to winners. Winners are determined not only by those who crossed the finish line, but also by those who ran according to the rules. 

According to Paul, “…run in such a way as to get the prize”. In addition, the prize is not like the first century Isthmian wreath or the gold-plated Olympian goal medal. For the Christian, the prize is “a crown that will last forever”. Because of this Paul concludes, “I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Corinthians 9:27).  

Truth and Bigotry

I am no bigot! A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

To be prejudiced is to form an opinion without taking time and care to judge fairly - in other words, to form an opinion before considering the facts. A prejudiced person is not particularly interested in what is the truth of a situation. To express an opinion that is not based on fact is tantamount to bigotry.

A bigot is a poor listener in that he or she fails to pay attention to what is being said. Actually, listening is an active process that requires one to be interested in both the content and the person conveying the information.

Listening is quite different from allowing someone time to speak. Allowing someone time to speak is extending a courtesy to another – it is complying with the rules of fair play. However, it does not mean that one was actively paying attention to what was being said. That attitude is fodder for bigotry.

To avoid being accused of bigotry, one must interact with facts or the truth of what is informing one’s opinions. Truth in its simplest form is an honest description of reality. Any statement is true if and only if it corresponds to or agrees with factual reality. If I tell you my car is white, then it cannot be anything else but similar to snow or salt in color.

Upon that foundation we seek to determine truthful statements, our sense of integrity, and all avenues of justice. For instance, without an appreciation for truth, our society is in trouble in that we cannot even establish a basis for trust. 

Without trust, credibility and civility are lost. In some cases, many consciously distort the meaning of words in order to silence disagreement. For instance, some use the term bigot to describe anyone who shares an opinion that does not affirm homosexuality. 

That should not be - we are constantly debating and discussing topics of interest – we actually applaud such dialog. Then why can’t we applaud similar dialog when examining topics like homosexuality? At the moment our discourse on homosexuality is often more hostile than holy. Emotionally charged terms like fagot, homophobe, bigot and intolerant are inflammatory terms and are inimical to civil discourse. Civility demands that we listen before forming and expressing opinions. In addition, a Christian understanding of civility demands that violence and dehumanizing rhetoric be avoided. Jesus invites us to pray for and love persons with whom we disagree.

Disagreement must be expressed in a spirit of love. We should never forget that opponents will be attracted more to our attitude than to our debating skills. With wisdom, we must be able to distinguish assertiveness from aggressiveness; meekness from weakness and knowledge from discernment. So often we win the battle (the debate) and lose the war (ongoing opportunities for dialog).   

My point was beautifully illustrated a few days ago when a hostile customer verbally abused a Chick-Fill-A cashier. In her response to the unprovoked abuse, the cashier chose to keep her composure throughout the exchange. The customer was fired by his firm for the disgusting display but eventually apologized to the woman he abused.

In his apology he admitted: “…You handled my frustrating rant with such dignity and composure. Every time I watch the video I am blown away by really the beauty in what you did, and your kindness, and your patience with me.”

In a television interview, the cashier admitted she had no intention to pursue legal action. She felt her decision to forgive the customer was consistent with her Christian worldview. It was not her arrogance that won the hearts of millions of viewers; it was her composure, her kindness and her patience.

Those are the graces that will empower us in the current culture war. This battle is nowhere near finished. We have actually lost some ground in the ideological gay-lifestyle battle. Public opinion is reflecting greater acceptance and tolerance. We have been branded negatively in the marketplace of ideas. In addition, increasing numbers of persons are relegating our biblical lifestyle to antiquity. 

Paul’s words to the Corinthians are so appropriate in times like these: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, (our weapons) have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3-6).
Always remember, the way we fight is often more important than the fight itself.

CHICK-FIL-A’s ATTACKS Backfire!

“Chick-Fil-A’s values are not Chicago values” – says Chicago Mayor Rham Emanuel. He was one of the first mayors to support Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, when he said the chicken sandwich firm “doesn’t belong in Boston.”

Their rhetoric created a national firestorm as gay rights activists accused Chick-Fil-A of homophobia and bigotry. Since their “tolerant” behavior was having little effect on Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A’s president, the vitriol was shifted to the WinShape Foundation – the philanthropic arm of Chick-Fil-A.

To be honest, I believe the overwhelming support shown by thousands of Americans on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was a knockout punch. The fact that the effort was not promoted by Chick-Fil-A gave it so much more credibility. It was the best day of business for the 60 year-old company.

The opponents’ anger against the company became more intense when Dan Cathy announced that much of the profit earned on the Day of Appreciation would be channeled through WinShape to support more activities that reflect the interests of the shareholders. 

The focus shifted to WinShape. Who benefits from their philanthropic efforts? In answer to this and many more questions, much credit must go to Dan Gilfgoff, CNN’s Religion Editor. I relied very much on his superb investigative journalism to prepare this commentary. 

WinShape’s goal is simple – to help shape winners. The Foundation funds foster homes, camps for children, college scholarships and activities that are aimed at youth and families.

In response to questions from CNN, Chick-Fil-A’s executive vice president for marketing, Steve Robinson said, “our corporate giving is focused on supporting youth, family and educational programs.”

In addition, “WinShape provides camping programs for more than 13,000 girls and boys annually and 14 foster homes caring for more than 100 children. In addition, Chick-Fil-A has awarded more than $30 million in Restaurant Team Member college scholarships to hourly-paid employees.”

In 2010, the most recent year for which tax records are available, the Foundation received about $8 million. The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, believes the company funnels millions only to evangelical groups that demonize lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people on a daily basis. 

At the same time, the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center has classified some WinShape recipients as anti-gay hate groups. The Foundation spends the vast majority of its money on internal programs like its camps, which cost five million dollars to run in 2010. The same year some $3 million was spent on foster homes. 

By comparison, in that same year, the Foundation gave $1,000 to Family Research Council and $1,000 to Exodus International – a group that promotes conversion therapy for gays. These are the groups and the amounts being referred to as substantive support to anti-gay hate groups. 

Interestingly, nowhere would one find any statement that would implicate these groups as hate groups. These are conservative organizations that see homosexual activities as sinful. Exodus International offers therapy to homosexuals who seek help. It is obvious that the help provided debunks the idea that homosexuality is an irreversible condition.

Honestly, what was intended to crush Chick-Fil-A has heightened interest and support for the company’s commitment to Christian values. Other companies with similar values are beginning to surface.

For example, IN-N-OUT Burgers prints Bible references on their paper containers. Don and Jin Chang, owners of Forever 21 are committed Christians. The company prints on the bottom of the iconic yellow shopping bags the words – John 3:16. 

Since this Chick-Fil-A fracas, Jack Phillips, the owner of a bakery in Colorado refused to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. The couple made a public issue of what happened – the result? The bakery got publicity and business increased by 100% in a few days. 

It is obvious that we are in a culture war. Christians are the victims of institutional bullying because of their faith. Our Lord never suggested that we would be exempt from these situations. However, He promised to be with us even “in the valley of the shadow of death.” Remember, silence is not an option.

Chick-Fil-A UNDER FIRE!

The president of Chick-Fil-A did not condemn gay marriage as alleged by the media. Dan Cathy was expressing his personal support for traditional family values and marital fidelity. Cathy was never asked specifically about gay marriage nor did he say anything about it.

In his answer to a question from the Biblical Recorder, Dan Cathy said “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unity. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

In reporting the above conviction, CNN said, “…But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage…have ignited a social media wildfire.” A Time magazine headline read: “Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-Fil-A Franchise from City Over Homophobic Attitude.” Both quotations ably describe the vicious media scurrilous attack in reporting Dan Cathy’s personal convictions about traditional family values.

Time was reporting on Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s statement, “Chick-Fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston.” The Mayor went on to say “…we’re not going to have a company, Chick-Fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in supporting his Boston colleague said, “Chick-Fil-A values are not Chicago values.” These mayors along with Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno have vowed to use their offices to block any permits for Chick-Fil-A restaurants. It was Boston Mayor who specifically said, “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult – unless they open up their policies.”

In other words, unless you share my worldview, I will use my government office to punish you.

To suggest that from the interview with Baptist Recorder, Dan Cathy was condemning gay marriage, is downright dishonest. In the interview, Cathy condemned infidelity in marriage. He was affirming a biblical understanding of marriage and family life.

Cathy’s convictions reignited activists who have been waging campaigns against Chick-Fil-A for the past year. Carlos Maza of Equality Matters, believes Chick-Fil-A is aligned with “some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country.” I imagine Maza is referring to the many conservative organizations, like Family Research Council, that benefit from the generosity of Chick-Fil-A.

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center in Mount Berry, Georgia.

Chick-Fil-A employs some 50,000 workers in 1,600 outlets in 40 states across America. The company generates more than four billion dollars in annual revenues and serves millions of customers looking for affordable food in a family friendly setting.

This is the company against which gay rights groups have called for a boycott. Jim Henson Company has pulled its Muppet toys from kids’ meals at Chick-Fil-A. Henson’s company has since directed its revenue to GLADD, a leading gay rights organization.

In response to this acrimonious behavior, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, is leading a campaign and declared Wednesday, August 1, 2012, “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day”. A number of prominent evangelical leaders have endorsed the campaign. Like Dr. Billy Graham, I plan to join in the celebration, if I can find space in the Chick-Fil-A restaurants in my area. I just checked and business seems to booming for the company around the country.

For me, this anti Chick-Fil-A campaign by elected government officials is tantamount to institutional bullying. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, although a supporter of gay marriage, said “a fast food chain’s opposition to gay marriage is none of the government’s business. That is what I call bigotry and intolerance. According to columnist Michelle Malkin, “this is ugly repressive civility enforced with government brass knuckles.”

The US Constitution gives me a right to exercise my free speech and exercise the power of my wallet to support something honorable. Never forget the words of former President Alexander Hamilton, “if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.”

Amidst this furor, Don Perry, a public relations executive at Chick-Fil-A, an African-American and a well-respected member of the business community in Atlanta passed away. I have every reason to believe that the faith and strong family underpinnings at the company and Don Perry’s home will assist in bringing comfort to everyone who is grieving.