Jurors took just five hours to find Rose Marks guilty of masterminding a $25 million fraud. Marks told clients of her psychic business that she could foresee the future, fix the past and even control the Internal Revenue Service.
The four-week trial in South Florida featured bizarre testimony from former clients, including best-selling romance novelist Jude Deveraux, who testified that Marks and her family exploited their vulnerabilities, and their religious and spiritual beliefs, to fleece them.
The jury found 62-year old Marks guilty on 14 charges, including fraud, filing false tax returns and money-laundering conspiracies. Bond was refused and Marks was imprisoned, pending sentencing on December 09. Prosecutors told South Florida Sentinel that Marks can face up to 20 years in prison.
Deveraux, who was swindled as much as $20 million, said she went to Marks to help her get out of an abusive marriage and continued seeing her for 17 years through a series of crises, including failed relationships, several miscarriages and the accidental death of her eight-year old grandson. Following the trial Deveraux said to a reporter concerning anyone in a similar vulnerable position, “Reach out to your friends, get professional help... don’t go to a psychic.”
Upon hearing the verdict, Marks’ family members were shocked to witness the demise of the family matriarch. One family member threw a Bible in the courtroom, yelling, “I hate this Bible...I don’t want this Bible anymore.”
That behavior would seem to suggest that the Bible played a role in the family’s psychic practices. I would really like to see where in the Bible the family found endorsement for their fraudulent practices. Unfortunately, the Marks’ family will not be the last group to use the Bible to fleece others.
Nostradamus (16th century French psychic), along with clairvoyants like Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce, mediums, spiritists, and others, often make remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy. Such levels of accuracy could not satisfy the standards set for biblical prophecy.
Some scholars believe approximately 2,500 predictive prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible. Each of these prophecies must satisfy a 100% standard of accuracy set in the Old Testament: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22).
Biblical predictive prophecy can be defined as “a declaration of future events, such as no human wisdom or forecast is sufficient to make - depending on a knowledge of the innumerable contingencies of human affairs, which belongs exclusively to the omniscience of God; so that from its very nature, prophecy must be divine revelation.”
Biblical prophecy must possess sufficient precision so as to be capable of verification by means of the fulfillment. Some Christian researchers believe some 75 to 80% of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, meeting the 100% standard of verification. People are named before birth, kingdoms are outlined before their historical existence and the outcome of battles have been announced before the wars began.
In interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Daniel predicted three kingdoms that would succeed Babylon over a period of hundreds of years. Today we can confirm from non-biblical history, that Daniel was accurate in describing the kingdoms of Medo-Persia, the Greeks and the Romans.
In the New Testament, Jesus predicted that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:2). Based on the date of the writing of Mark’s gospel, we know that Jesus’ prediction was documented before the Temple was actually destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. In other words, within 40 years His prediction was fulfilled to 100% accuracy.
Furthermore, unlike the Marks’ family, biblical prophecy was never intended for the benefit of the prophet. The actual meaning of a prophet is “one who speaks on God’s behalf.” In other words, the prophet never spoke on his own behalf and for his own benefit. Peter, a disciple of Jesus understood this when he wrote, “...that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).
For this reason, it is safe to conclude, even when the Bible is used, much of what is predicted today, does not meet the standard of 100% accuracy, and should not be considered to be biblical prophecy.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
“Bow...or Burn”
This headline, “Bow...or Burn,” smacks with arrogance. Actually, the words came from the lips of a Babylonian king, more than 2,500 years ago. The words were a part of an ultimatum given to three Jewish colleagues who refused to comply with the king’s order to give allegiance to a god, other than the God they worshiped.
The event, as recorded in Daniel 3, is a classic case study in civil disobedience. The appropriateness of the event for such a study is supported in the historical accuracy of what was recorded in the text.
Specific details like location, civil officers, musical instruments and names of people in royalty can be verified in non-biblical historical documents and archaeological discoveries in recent years. In addition, structures like huge idols and the use of furnaces for capital punishment can also be verified in other historical events.
For example, Herodotus [1.183] mentioned a similar image, forty feet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not the same image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura. In addition, Julius Oppert (1825-1905), the French-German Assyriologist/ Archaeologist believed the site he located in Dura, Babylon, with “a large brick square, forty-five feet on a side and twenty feet high” may have been the foundation for the ninety-foot high image referred to in Daniel 3.
It was at that site, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the Jewish exiles to “bow...or burn.” Despite the views held by some liberal scholars, the story is no “fairy tale” like Cinderella or Goldilocks and the Three Bears. We must deal with both the history and mystery of the story.
The history is simple. The Jews were captive to the Babylonians. Thousands of Jews were forced to leave their land and go into exile some 1,000 miles away. While in exile, the king of Babylon gave instructions that everyone must bow to the golden image he built. The effort may have been intended to unite the massive empire of nations Babylon inherited and conquered.
The Jewish colleagues refused to bow. Their response was clear, “we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (Daniel 3:18). These guys were convinced that the God they served was able to deliver them from any punishment imposed. Even if they were not delivered, their resolve was the same – we will not bow.
As promised, the king ordered that they be thrown in the furnace to burn. The king was even heard to say, let me see “what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands.” At that point, recapitulating was not an option.
Historians have a problem in recording what happened next. The men who would not bow could not burn. According to the biblical text, “...the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them” (Daniel 3:27). Although tempted to comment on this amazing miracle, as promised, I must instead address the defiance of the Jewish men to civil authorities.
Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down to the golden image is one of those rare instances when godliness is expressed by civil disobedience. There was no chance, as in Daniel 1, for the three Hebrews to please God and the king at the same time. What the king commanded was clearly condemned by the Old Testament Scriptures.
When placed in a position where one must either obey God or men, then one must obey God and disobey men. If obedience to one of man’s laws would result in our disobedience to one of God’s laws, we must obey God by disobeying men.
They quietly obeyed God by not bowing down; and then, without resistance, they accepted the king’s punishment. They left the rest to God. That kind of godly disobedience is far from inflammatory. It is the only kind of disobedience one finds in the Bible.
To date, the civil disobedience of our time is not primary, but secondary. In America, I am still to find a biblical precedent for disobeying legitimate laws because another law is unbiblical. Even when our obedience to God requires us to disobey a human law, there are proper ways to disobey. Daniel’s three friends disobeyed the command of Nebuchadnezzar, but they did so in a manner that did not undermine the bigger messages of godly order and civility.
Civil disobedience in apartheid South Africa and in America during the Civil Rights era leave us with some positive examples of civil disobedience. Interestingly, both situations were heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Slavery was somewhat different, in that the changes did not come about solely because of civil disobedience. However, despite the various interpretations by historians, it was the influence of Christian leaders that brought about changes.
Like in Babylon, whenever a government calls on its people to defy godly values and submit to godless values, it is time for civil disobedience.
The event, as recorded in Daniel 3, is a classic case study in civil disobedience. The appropriateness of the event for such a study is supported in the historical accuracy of what was recorded in the text.
Specific details like location, civil officers, musical instruments and names of people in royalty can be verified in non-biblical historical documents and archaeological discoveries in recent years. In addition, structures like huge idols and the use of furnaces for capital punishment can also be verified in other historical events.
For example, Herodotus [1.183] mentioned a similar image, forty feet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not the same image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura. In addition, Julius Oppert (1825-1905), the French-German Assyriologist/ Archaeologist believed the site he located in Dura, Babylon, with “a large brick square, forty-five feet on a side and twenty feet high” may have been the foundation for the ninety-foot high image referred to in Daniel 3.
It was at that site, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the Jewish exiles to “bow...or burn.” Despite the views held by some liberal scholars, the story is no “fairy tale” like Cinderella or Goldilocks and the Three Bears. We must deal with both the history and mystery of the story.
The history is simple. The Jews were captive to the Babylonians. Thousands of Jews were forced to leave their land and go into exile some 1,000 miles away. While in exile, the king of Babylon gave instructions that everyone must bow to the golden image he built. The effort may have been intended to unite the massive empire of nations Babylon inherited and conquered.
The Jewish colleagues refused to bow. Their response was clear, “we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (Daniel 3:18). These guys were convinced that the God they served was able to deliver them from any punishment imposed. Even if they were not delivered, their resolve was the same – we will not bow.
As promised, the king ordered that they be thrown in the furnace to burn. The king was even heard to say, let me see “what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands.” At that point, recapitulating was not an option.
Historians have a problem in recording what happened next. The men who would not bow could not burn. According to the biblical text, “...the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them” (Daniel 3:27). Although tempted to comment on this amazing miracle, as promised, I must instead address the defiance of the Jewish men to civil authorities.
Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down to the golden image is one of those rare instances when godliness is expressed by civil disobedience. There was no chance, as in Daniel 1, for the three Hebrews to please God and the king at the same time. What the king commanded was clearly condemned by the Old Testament Scriptures.
When placed in a position where one must either obey God or men, then one must obey God and disobey men. If obedience to one of man’s laws would result in our disobedience to one of God’s laws, we must obey God by disobeying men.
They quietly obeyed God by not bowing down; and then, without resistance, they accepted the king’s punishment. They left the rest to God. That kind of godly disobedience is far from inflammatory. It is the only kind of disobedience one finds in the Bible.
To date, the civil disobedience of our time is not primary, but secondary. In America, I am still to find a biblical precedent for disobeying legitimate laws because another law is unbiblical. Even when our obedience to God requires us to disobey a human law, there are proper ways to disobey. Daniel’s three friends disobeyed the command of Nebuchadnezzar, but they did so in a manner that did not undermine the bigger messages of godly order and civility.
Civil disobedience in apartheid South Africa and in America during the Civil Rights era leave us with some positive examples of civil disobedience. Interestingly, both situations were heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Slavery was somewhat different, in that the changes did not come about solely because of civil disobedience. However, despite the various interpretations by historians, it was the influence of Christian leaders that brought about changes.
Like in Babylon, whenever a government calls on its people to defy godly values and submit to godless values, it is time for civil disobedience.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Who Is Intolerant?
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a Christian family-owned bakery was forced to go out of business a few days ago. The Oregan bakery chose to shut its doors following months of harassment by militant homosexual activists.
Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. The Kleins contend, because of their religious faith, the family could not take part in gay wedding events. Succinctly put, Aaron said, “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
Well, the lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television stations. Within days, militant homosexual groups launched protests and boycotts.
The protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the Kleins.
“That tipped the scales,” Klein said to a reporter. “The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists inundated us with phone calls and threats to kill the family. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
Sad to say, the Kleins are among the more recent to suffer this blatant display of intolerance. Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
Jack Phillips, a Denver baker, is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop.
In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.
A T-shirt company in Lexington, Kentucky, found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.
Whereas Christians are being targeted by intolerant gay bullies, other institutions are allowed to take principled and professional positions against the LGBT without reprisals. For instance, for more than thirty years there has been a federal ban on gays donating blood.
The plan was to stem the spread of HIV. Research confirms that gay men are disproportionately affected by AIDS and hepatitis B, both blood-borne diseases. While gays make up about 4% of the U.S. population, they account for some 50% of all patients living with HIV. The Centers for Disease Control estimate six out of ten new HIV patients are men who have had sex with men.
Despite these glaring statistics, there have been recent moves to lift the 30-year ban on gays donating blood. Interestingly, these recent moves to change federal policies have been civil and have been in process for about the last two years.
Why can’t similar civility be applied to Christians who are entitled to live in accordance with their faith and conscience? Let us revisit the Kleins in Oregon. How could they be accused of discrimination by the authorities when death threats from LGBT activists are being ignored by the same authorities?
Imagine, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced a few days ago that they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Kleins. Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbian customers.
According to the Commissioner, “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”
As Christians, we find ourselves in a culture that is hostile to our worldviews. As with slavery, we are expected to obey laws that are blatantly immoral. Although very difficult to swallow, we should not be surprised with such hostility. It is in times like these we need to remember that “the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds” (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. The Kleins contend, because of their religious faith, the family could not take part in gay wedding events. Succinctly put, Aaron said, “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
Well, the lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television stations. Within days, militant homosexual groups launched protests and boycotts.
The protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the Kleins.
“That tipped the scales,” Klein said to a reporter. “The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists inundated us with phone calls and threats to kill the family. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
Sad to say, the Kleins are among the more recent to suffer this blatant display of intolerance. Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
Jack Phillips, a Denver baker, is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop.
In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.
A T-shirt company in Lexington, Kentucky, found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.
Whereas Christians are being targeted by intolerant gay bullies, other institutions are allowed to take principled and professional positions against the LGBT without reprisals. For instance, for more than thirty years there has been a federal ban on gays donating blood.
The plan was to stem the spread of HIV. Research confirms that gay men are disproportionately affected by AIDS and hepatitis B, both blood-borne diseases. While gays make up about 4% of the U.S. population, they account for some 50% of all patients living with HIV. The Centers for Disease Control estimate six out of ten new HIV patients are men who have had sex with men.
Despite these glaring statistics, there have been recent moves to lift the 30-year ban on gays donating blood. Interestingly, these recent moves to change federal policies have been civil and have been in process for about the last two years.
Why can’t similar civility be applied to Christians who are entitled to live in accordance with their faith and conscience? Let us revisit the Kleins in Oregon. How could they be accused of discrimination by the authorities when death threats from LGBT activists are being ignored by the same authorities?
Imagine, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced a few days ago that they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Kleins. Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbian customers.
According to the Commissioner, “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”
As Christians, we find ourselves in a culture that is hostile to our worldviews. As with slavery, we are expected to obey laws that are blatantly immoral. Although very difficult to swallow, we should not be surprised with such hostility. It is in times like these we need to remember that “the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds” (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Monday, September 2, 2013
50 years
My daughter Candace and her husband Louis have four young children. As a former professional, mother and homeschooler she has a vested interest in the future that is laid for her children. I have asked her to be my guest for this week’s commentary.
To think back fifty years in this country is to think back to a time before I was born. Since then, I have lived outside of and within different parts of this great nation, each time gleaning racial experiences – good and bad.
I want to say we have come so far – desegregation of schools and places of employment, integrated neighborhoods and families, a black President in office, the list could go on and on.
But as far a step as we have made, I fear we have taken many steps backwards – and not for the popular reasons being floated out there in the blogosphere, in newsrooms or even at last week’s 50-year Memorial of 'The March on Washington' that took place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
In the past fifty years, we have stepped away from some of the fundamentals that Dr. King held dearly, choosing to excuse or embrace the demise of the black family; the 70% of black babies born out of wedlock; the 1,800 black babies killed daily through abortion; the almost 50% unemployment among black youth and a bloody summer that highlighted the continuing problem of black on black homicides.
I am not willing to sit back and play along with those claiming that Rev. Martin Luther King would be proud of our accomplishments today. Unlike those who flash the ‘Reverend’ title for political and monetary gain, Rev. Martin Luther King actually tried to live a life that sought to center around hard work, faith and family.
Dr. King’s mission taxed his marriage and family life, but of his wife he said “I am indebted to my wife Coretta, without whose love, sacrifices, and loyalty neither life nor work would bring fulfillment."
In addition to being the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church of Montgomery, Alabama, Dr. King completed his Ph.D. and was awarded his degree in 1955. King was only 25 years old.
At the age of 35, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to have receive the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over the prize money of $54,123 to the furtherance of the civil rights movement.
The ideals of faith, family and diligent work used to be encouraged in the black community at large. For all the accomplishments we have acquired as a community, I think Dr. King would ask – Is this really what we suffered for fifty years ago?
Jaime Foxx graced the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last Wednesday, naming our present civil rights leaders as Jay Z, Will Smith, Kanye West and others.
The list of invited speakers at the fifty-year Memorial Celebration of Dr. King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech did not include pioneers in some of the highest offices or areas of accomplishments by African Americans. The nation’s first black and first black female Secretaries of State were not invited to speak. The nation’s only black Senator was not invited to speak. The nation’s first and (at the time) youngest black neurosurgeon was not invited to speak. While entertainers of all sorts were well represented and tickled our ears with words of grandeur, I guess the former were all associated with the wrong side of the aisle (and by that I don’t mean the church aisle).
Sometimes I can only wonder – what kind of vision have we cast for our youth for the next fifty years?
We have strayed so far from the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that we no longer know what it means to judge a man by the caliber or content of his character, his labor or his legacy. Instead, we have bought into the culture that says the opposite: embrace racial and social lines above character, above goals, above ambition.
Fifty years ago The March on Washington was filled with people of all sorts: black, white; male, female; rich, poor; Republican, Democrat – they were willing and able to work together because above their comfort or agendas they found it important to be unified, not as one group above another, but as Americans under God.
The messages of today towards our children seem to shout of entitlements. But is that what the Bible encourages for us? As parents, my husband and I have been teaching our children the word diligent – a word that fueled the civil rights movement. Colossians 3:23 says “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” Such commitments lead to discipline, perseverance and character.
I have four children, and like Dr. King I still dream. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).
To think back fifty years in this country is to think back to a time before I was born. Since then, I have lived outside of and within different parts of this great nation, each time gleaning racial experiences – good and bad.
I want to say we have come so far – desegregation of schools and places of employment, integrated neighborhoods and families, a black President in office, the list could go on and on.
But as far a step as we have made, I fear we have taken many steps backwards – and not for the popular reasons being floated out there in the blogosphere, in newsrooms or even at last week’s 50-year Memorial of 'The March on Washington' that took place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
In the past fifty years, we have stepped away from some of the fundamentals that Dr. King held dearly, choosing to excuse or embrace the demise of the black family; the 70% of black babies born out of wedlock; the 1,800 black babies killed daily through abortion; the almost 50% unemployment among black youth and a bloody summer that highlighted the continuing problem of black on black homicides.
I am not willing to sit back and play along with those claiming that Rev. Martin Luther King would be proud of our accomplishments today. Unlike those who flash the ‘Reverend’ title for political and monetary gain, Rev. Martin Luther King actually tried to live a life that sought to center around hard work, faith and family.
Dr. King’s mission taxed his marriage and family life, but of his wife he said “I am indebted to my wife Coretta, without whose love, sacrifices, and loyalty neither life nor work would bring fulfillment."
In addition to being the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church of Montgomery, Alabama, Dr. King completed his Ph.D. and was awarded his degree in 1955. King was only 25 years old.
At the age of 35, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to have receive the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over the prize money of $54,123 to the furtherance of the civil rights movement.
The ideals of faith, family and diligent work used to be encouraged in the black community at large. For all the accomplishments we have acquired as a community, I think Dr. King would ask – Is this really what we suffered for fifty years ago?
Jaime Foxx graced the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last Wednesday, naming our present civil rights leaders as Jay Z, Will Smith, Kanye West and others.
The list of invited speakers at the fifty-year Memorial Celebration of Dr. King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech did not include pioneers in some of the highest offices or areas of accomplishments by African Americans. The nation’s first black and first black female Secretaries of State were not invited to speak. The nation’s only black Senator was not invited to speak. The nation’s first and (at the time) youngest black neurosurgeon was not invited to speak. While entertainers of all sorts were well represented and tickled our ears with words of grandeur, I guess the former were all associated with the wrong side of the aisle (and by that I don’t mean the church aisle).
Sometimes I can only wonder – what kind of vision have we cast for our youth for the next fifty years?
We have strayed so far from the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that we no longer know what it means to judge a man by the caliber or content of his character, his labor or his legacy. Instead, we have bought into the culture that says the opposite: embrace racial and social lines above character, above goals, above ambition.
Fifty years ago The March on Washington was filled with people of all sorts: black, white; male, female; rich, poor; Republican, Democrat – they were willing and able to work together because above their comfort or agendas they found it important to be unified, not as one group above another, but as Americans under God.
The messages of today towards our children seem to shout of entitlements. But is that what the Bible encourages for us? As parents, my husband and I have been teaching our children the word diligent – a word that fueled the civil rights movement. Colossians 3:23 says “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” Such commitments lead to discipline, perseverance and character.
I have four children, and like Dr. King I still dream. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)