A few days ago comedian Steve Harvey and President Obama had a non-political interview at the White House. It was refreshing to see the President in a non-combative mood.
In discussing his family, the President said he trusts his daughters to have good judgment when it comes to men. “What I’ve told them before is, as long as that young man is showing you respect, and is kind to you, then I’m not going to be hovering over every second. But, I’m counting on you to have the self-respect to make sure that anybody who you’re going out with comes correct. And hopefully they’ve seen how I treat Michelle.”
Mr. President, I strongly agree with you. Actually, I am so much more sensitive to the President’s desire for his daughters as I write this commentary from the home of my daughter in Nashville, hundreds of miles away from my home. My wife and I feel so honored to be hosted by a young woman who we love, very much like the President loves his own daughters, Malia (15 years old) and Sasha (12).
The President’s desire to want the very best for his daughters is most evident. He is concerned about their security. In the interview with Harvey, he quipped that he ran for a second term partly to keep his teenage daughters under constant supervision. “I’ve got men with guns following them around all the time. Hey, this is the main reason I ran for re-election - you know I’m gonna have ‘em covered for most of high school.”
In addition, the President would hope that any suitors would have “seen how I treat Michelle.” The President believes he models a loving relationship before his daughters. Actually, one of the best gifts we as parents can give to our children is the display of a loving relationship.
When parents spend time with each other, nurturing their relationship, resolving conflicts, investing in one another in practical ways, and enjoying one another, children see that they truly love and value one another. This security will increase the peace and joy in the home.
In this and in previous interviews, President Obama naturally refers to potential suitors for his daughters as “young men who show respect and kindness.” Here again, the President must be congratulated on his desire to see his daughters engage in relationships that are natural and are best for their development.
In expressing his desire for what’s best for his daughters, the President was expressing a sensitivity to issues of gender. One’s gender identity is the sense of one’s self as male or female. Gender role refers to the behaviors and desires to act in certain ways that are viewed as masculine and feminine in a particular culture. His position is consistent with history, with nature and science.
The President’s desire for what is best for his daughters is not readily accepted by some social scientists in today’s culture. Such scholars believe our culture labels behaviors as masculine and feminine, “but these behaviors are not necessarily a direct component of gender or gender identity.”
For me, gender and the accompanying behaviors are not determined by society. Gender is a biological, not a sociological construct. The President spoke with logical clarity, so unlike the ambiguity that’s apparent in gender experiments. Under the guise of accommodating bisexualism, some in our culture are confused and vacillate in affirming their own masculinity or femininity. I believe Malia and Sasha are in good hands if their parents continue to expect behaviors that are consistent with their femininity.
The President is correct to want heterosexual relationships for his daughters. Such relationships have always been about bringing men and women together in permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationships.
In their volume, Marriage on Trial, Stanton and Maier make the point: “No human society-not one-has ever embraced homosexual marriage. It is not a part of the tradition of any human culture” (page 22). Such unions have never been regarded as a normal, morally equal part of any society. Non heterosexual unions have been tolerated in some cultures, however, it is historically accurate to say that they have never been taken to be morally equivalent to natural marriage.
So, the President is on the right side of history to want natural relationships for his daughters. The President’s desire for his daughters is seeking to regulate sexuality, bringing gender balance to their relationships and offspring. This arrangement is consistent with the biblical position on family. Different genders allow for complementarity, a critical and historically proven component of healthy families.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
VIRGIN BIRTH: No Big Thing?
Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. A Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to “big-up” the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
When one chooses to speculate on the immaculate conception of Mary, one loses sight of the depth and uniqueness of the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, to merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. And worse yet, to conclude that this remarkable story is a biblical attempt to glorify single-motherhood is tantamount to blasphemy.
Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
It is a joy to be back following another long but necessary hiatus. Thanks for your interest and concerns. Have a Blessed Christmas!
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to “big-up” the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
When one chooses to speculate on the immaculate conception of Mary, one loses sight of the depth and uniqueness of the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, to merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. And worse yet, to conclude that this remarkable story is a biblical attempt to glorify single-motherhood is tantamount to blasphemy.
Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
It is a joy to be back following another long but necessary hiatus. Thanks for your interest and concerns. Have a Blessed Christmas!
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Who Shut Down The Government?
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for shutting down the government. Both parties are intending to get political mileage from the partial closure. How disgusting!
Originally, I was preparing to use this commentary to discuss the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I believe the Act is a noble attempt to provide health care across America. However, the nobility of the move has been overshadowed by vigorous arguments about the role of government.
Similar arguments prevailed in 1995, when the government was shut down under the leadership of President Bill Clinton. The vitriolic language was no different. However, President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich negotiated vigorously and struck several compromises. That tone of compromise is sadly lacking in Washington today.
For a moment, let us examine the response of government to shut downs under Presidents Clinton and Obama. War Memorials were kept open during the 1995 government shutdowns. However, under President Obama, the decision to barricade the Lincoln Memorial marks the first time in its history the memorial has been totally off limits to visitors during a shutdown.
Also, during the Clinton-era shutdown, World War II veterans kept the Pearl Harbor memorial open. The Associated Press on January 01, 1996, commented that “despite the federal government shutdown, tourists are still getting expert commentary about the World War II memorial at Pearl Harbor.” Administrators felt that it was their way of helping to preserve the history of the place.
That was not what prevailed last week. Barricades went up in national parks across Washington, D.C., including the Lincoln Memorial. Popular Washington spots such as the World War II memorial are now guarded by more security personnel than they are during normal operations, while federal employees have been dispatched to put up barricades on capital bike paths and other public grounds that are not usually patrolled.
During this government shutdown, the Obama administration has forced the closure of privately owned parks, stoking calls from lawyers for park owners to take legal action against the federal government.
According to Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “as a lawyer who once worked for the government, I assume there is no legal authority for this because these private tourist attractions were not shut down in prior ‘government shutdowns,’ even under Bill Clinton, who understood how to play political hardball.”
Here is a classic example of government shutdown:
Virginia’s historic Claude Moore Colonial Farm was closed by the National Park Service, despite not being financially supported by the Service or using any agency personnel; and despite the fact that the park remained open during the Clinton era government shutdown in 1995.
According to Managing Director Anna Eberly, “for the first time in forty years, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally succeeded in closing the Farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the Farm had always been exempted since the government provided no staff or resources to operate the Farm.”
Eberly went on to say that “the government sent the Park Police over to remove her staff and volunteers from the property while they were trying to set up for an event.”
In this government shutdown, the government is obviously shutting down public and privately-run facilities that have never been shut down in any previous government shut-down. Privately-run tourist operations that cost the government nothing should remain open. According to one analyst, “this is grotesque political theater.”
Although not as overt as President Obama’s administration, Republicans are equally responsible for contributing to this government shutdown and charade of compassion. However, as the governing party, the Obama administration must take primary responsibility.
The Bible teaches that governmental authority is to protect the poor in particular. Prophets were consistent and adamant in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and frequently followed their statements by requiring governments to act justly. Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well." The same cannot be said of today’s America.
In discussing the role of government, the New Testament refers to restraining evil, punishing evil doers and rewarding good behavior (Romans 13:4). The text contends, civil authority is designed to be "God's servant for your good.” Or, what we call "the common good" – that’s good governance.
Originally, I was preparing to use this commentary to discuss the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I believe the Act is a noble attempt to provide health care across America. However, the nobility of the move has been overshadowed by vigorous arguments about the role of government.
Similar arguments prevailed in 1995, when the government was shut down under the leadership of President Bill Clinton. The vitriolic language was no different. However, President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich negotiated vigorously and struck several compromises. That tone of compromise is sadly lacking in Washington today.
For a moment, let us examine the response of government to shut downs under Presidents Clinton and Obama. War Memorials were kept open during the 1995 government shutdowns. However, under President Obama, the decision to barricade the Lincoln Memorial marks the first time in its history the memorial has been totally off limits to visitors during a shutdown.
Also, during the Clinton-era shutdown, World War II veterans kept the Pearl Harbor memorial open. The Associated Press on January 01, 1996, commented that “despite the federal government shutdown, tourists are still getting expert commentary about the World War II memorial at Pearl Harbor.” Administrators felt that it was their way of helping to preserve the history of the place.
That was not what prevailed last week. Barricades went up in national parks across Washington, D.C., including the Lincoln Memorial. Popular Washington spots such as the World War II memorial are now guarded by more security personnel than they are during normal operations, while federal employees have been dispatched to put up barricades on capital bike paths and other public grounds that are not usually patrolled.
During this government shutdown, the Obama administration has forced the closure of privately owned parks, stoking calls from lawyers for park owners to take legal action against the federal government.
According to Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “as a lawyer who once worked for the government, I assume there is no legal authority for this because these private tourist attractions were not shut down in prior ‘government shutdowns,’ even under Bill Clinton, who understood how to play political hardball.”
Here is a classic example of government shutdown:
Virginia’s historic Claude Moore Colonial Farm was closed by the National Park Service, despite not being financially supported by the Service or using any agency personnel; and despite the fact that the park remained open during the Clinton era government shutdown in 1995.
According to Managing Director Anna Eberly, “for the first time in forty years, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally succeeded in closing the Farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the Farm had always been exempted since the government provided no staff or resources to operate the Farm.”
Eberly went on to say that “the government sent the Park Police over to remove her staff and volunteers from the property while they were trying to set up for an event.”
In this government shutdown, the government is obviously shutting down public and privately-run facilities that have never been shut down in any previous government shut-down. Privately-run tourist operations that cost the government nothing should remain open. According to one analyst, “this is grotesque political theater.”
Although not as overt as President Obama’s administration, Republicans are equally responsible for contributing to this government shutdown and charade of compassion. However, as the governing party, the Obama administration must take primary responsibility.
The Bible teaches that governmental authority is to protect the poor in particular. Prophets were consistent and adamant in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and frequently followed their statements by requiring governments to act justly. Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well." The same cannot be said of today’s America.
In discussing the role of government, the New Testament refers to restraining evil, punishing evil doers and rewarding good behavior (Romans 13:4). The text contends, civil authority is designed to be "God's servant for your good.” Or, what we call "the common good" – that’s good governance.
Monday, September 30, 2013
“PSYCHIC GUILTY!”
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.
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 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.).
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.
I had just completed another lecture in the course, Religion in America. That day we viewed the film, “We Shall Not Be Moved.” The film chronicled the non-violent civil rights struggle of the fifties and sixties. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was portrayed as a pastor and civil rights leader.
The church hired Dr. King in 1954. After a time of internal tensions, church leaders said they were looking for a noncontroversial pastor who could help restore morale. Rather than accept an invitation to be with his Dad at a larger congregation in Georgia, Dr. King accepted the smaller and quieter church in Alabama. Such a setting afforded him the opportunity to complete his doctoral dissertation.
As King was establishing his pastorate, racial tensions were rising in Montgomery. About a year after his arrival, Montgomery seamstress Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to yield her seat on a bus to a white passenger. King began speaking out and leading peaceful protests. From the church, he helped ignite the Montgomery bus boycott.
King saw this as a natural extension of pastoring his people. Being a pastor for him included being a civil rights leader. It would therefore be correct to say that it was the African-American church that nurtured him and gave him the sense that God was a God of justice and mercy.
As Dr. King was pulled more and more into the national limelight, he became concerned that he was neglecting his responsibilities at the church. Often he did not have sufficient time to engage in counseling, to do funerals and weddings, to do the kind of administrative work that comes naturally with the pastoral role.
King resigned from the Dexter Avenue church in 1960 to devote more time to the civil rights cause. Even though he was now a leader at the national level, he wanted to maintain a pastoral role, so he became an associate pastor at his father’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of his “I Have a Dream” speech, we need to be reminded that the heart of Dr. King was not seen so much in that speech as much as in his writings – and more specifically his volume, Strength to Love. According to his late wife, Coretta Scott King, "If there is one book Martin has written that people consistently tell me has changed their lives, it is Strength to Love." This book best explains the central element of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence.
The book is a compilation of his sermons reflecting a biblical and passionate denunciation of racial prejudice and of the tangible injustice that springs from that phenomenon.
He was also critical of those sectors of the Christian world that have historically used the Bible and Christian theology as tools for promoting slavery and racial segregation. His criticism extended to Black churches that have “reduced Christianity to either a frenzied form of entertainment or a snobbish social club.”
At the end of the class I was approached by an African American student. He was stunned to learn that Dr. King was a real pastor. Although he had done a course in African American history in high school, Dr. King was always presented as a civil rights advocate.
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King also make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor.”
“The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”
Dr. King was twenty-five years of age and finishing his doctoral dissertation at Boston University when he was appointed to his first job as a local pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In a sense he was carrying on a family tradition. His father was a pastor. His grandfather had been a pastor. His great-grandfather had been a pastor.
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King also make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor.”
“The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”
Dr. King was twenty-five years of age and finishing his doctoral dissertation at Boston University when he was appointed to his first job as a local pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In a sense he was carrying on a family tradition. His father was a pastor. His grandfather had been a pastor. His great-grandfather had been a pastor.
The church hired Dr. King in 1954. After a time of internal tensions, church leaders said they were looking for a noncontroversial pastor who could help restore morale. Rather than accept an invitation to be with his Dad at a larger congregation in Georgia, Dr. King accepted the smaller and quieter church in Alabama. Such a setting afforded him the opportunity to complete his doctoral dissertation.
As King was establishing his pastorate, racial tensions were rising in Montgomery. About a year after his arrival, Montgomery seamstress Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to yield her seat on a bus to a white passenger. King began speaking out and leading peaceful protests. From the church, he helped ignite the Montgomery bus boycott.
King saw this as a natural extension of pastoring his people. Being a pastor for him included being a civil rights leader. It would therefore be correct to say that it was the African-American church that nurtured him and gave him the sense that God was a God of justice and mercy.
As Dr. King was pulled more and more into the national limelight, he became concerned that he was neglecting his responsibilities at the church. Often he did not have sufficient time to engage in counseling, to do funerals and weddings, to do the kind of administrative work that comes naturally with the pastoral role.
King resigned from the Dexter Avenue church in 1960 to devote more time to the civil rights cause. Even though he was now a leader at the national level, he wanted to maintain a pastoral role, so he became an associate pastor at his father’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of his “I Have a Dream” speech, we need to be reminded that the heart of Dr. King was not seen so much in that speech as much as in his writings – and more specifically his volume, Strength to Love. According to his late wife, Coretta Scott King, "If there is one book Martin has written that people consistently tell me has changed their lives, it is Strength to Love." This book best explains the central element of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence.
The book is a compilation of his sermons reflecting a biblical and passionate denunciation of racial prejudice and of the tangible injustice that springs from that phenomenon.
He was also critical of those sectors of the Christian world that have historically used the Bible and Christian theology as tools for promoting slavery and racial segregation. His criticism extended to Black churches that have “reduced Christianity to either a frenzied form of entertainment or a snobbish social club.”
Why aren’t we told about the heart of this pastor during this season of remembrance? Interestingly, it was during the extemporaneous moments of his “I Have a Dream” speech, his pastoral passion became most visible as he cited references from the Minor Prophets to justify his theses of justice and mercy.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Fellow-Christians in Egypt are in Trouble
Across Egypt, at least sixty churches have been targeted by Muslim extremists, along with Christian schools, homes, businesses and even an orphanage. Some Christian homes and businesses have received leaflets warning them to leave or face reprisals.
According to Catholic World Report, Muslim extremists torched a Franciscan school and then paraded three nuns on the street like “prisoners of war”. Also, a Bible Society of Egypt statement posted online Wednesday reported the "complete burning and destruction" of its bookshops in southern Egypt.
Egypt's Christian minority has been the target of a number of attacks in recent years. The bombing of a major church in Alexandria in January 2011 killed 21 persons and sparked worldwide condemnation.
The situation has only become worse since Egypt's popular revolution overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
In the past two-and-a-half years, Christians in Egypt have witnessed more deaths than in the last twenty years. Interestingly, Christians have been in Egypt since the first century and were, for centuries, the majority. Some 90% of Coptic (Egyptian) Christians still live in the country, making up the largest Christian community in the Middle East.
These Egyptian Christians were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood because they were widely seen as being supportive of the military that kicked the Muslim Brotherhood administration out of power. Actually, Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, the leader of Egypt’s largest Christian denomination, publically supported the move.
Paul Sedra, an associate professor of history at Simon Fraser University, believes that the violence is an extension of an ongoing demonization campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians.
According to Professor Sedra, “since the Muslim Brotherhood has been deposed from power, they have engaged in explicitly sectarian appeals that have aimed to vilify Copts as their chief antagonists in Egypt.” When Islamists are loathed to attack the state directly, they often settle for attacking Copts, because they are an easy target.”
One would expect that Muslims, who are not extreme in their worldview, would display outrage against the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, there is a deafening silence:
The REAL Muslim Brotherhood (8.14.13)
When I heard that the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) was planning to hold a Million Muslim March in Washington D.C., I honestly thought the objective was to take a stand against what was happening in Egypt. I thought, since they did not march when Muslim extremists showed their anti-American position after 911, AMPAC was now covering lost ground.
I was wrong. The Million Muslim March has nothing to do with protesting about what is happening in Egypt, or what happened by Muslim extremists in Benghazi last year. Instead, they are using the 911 anniversary date to demand that the free speech rights of American Muslims be protected.
This is how the event is described on AMPAC’s website – “we are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our first amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign... Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 911 commission report to the American people.”
AMPAC distances itself from the events of 911. As a matter of fact, the current leader of AMPAC believes the events of 911 were conspiracies involving Israel. Hence, according to AMPAC, there is no need to condemn something for which Islam is not even tacitly responsible.
Thankfully, Egyptian Christians are choosing to react differently from others in history who were provoked and attacked by Muslims. Rather than resort to “crusader tactics,” today’s Egyptians are choosing instead “to pray for those who hate you.”
Some have returned to the charred house of worship, with their pastor vowing the violence suffered by his flock will make them better Christians. This will teach us to be better Christians," said Pastor Sameh Ibrahim. In that community, some fourteen churches were reportedly attacked in recent days.
For Christians, revenge is not an option. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul said we must “hate what is evil.” In addition he says, “do not repay anyone evil for evil...do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).
As our brothers and sisters in Egypt seek to live out true Christianity, let us pray that God would grant to them courage and hope, so that their faith would not crumble under pressure.
According to Catholic World Report, Muslim extremists torched a Franciscan school and then paraded three nuns on the street like “prisoners of war”. Also, a Bible Society of Egypt statement posted online Wednesday reported the "complete burning and destruction" of its bookshops in southern Egypt.
Egypt's Christian minority has been the target of a number of attacks in recent years. The bombing of a major church in Alexandria in January 2011 killed 21 persons and sparked worldwide condemnation.
The situation has only become worse since Egypt's popular revolution overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
In the past two-and-a-half years, Christians in Egypt have witnessed more deaths than in the last twenty years. Interestingly, Christians have been in Egypt since the first century and were, for centuries, the majority. Some 90% of Coptic (Egyptian) Christians still live in the country, making up the largest Christian community in the Middle East.
These Egyptian Christians were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood because they were widely seen as being supportive of the military that kicked the Muslim Brotherhood administration out of power. Actually, Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, the leader of Egypt’s largest Christian denomination, publically supported the move.
Paul Sedra, an associate professor of history at Simon Fraser University, believes that the violence is an extension of an ongoing demonization campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians.
According to Professor Sedra, “since the Muslim Brotherhood has been deposed from power, they have engaged in explicitly sectarian appeals that have aimed to vilify Copts as their chief antagonists in Egypt.” When Islamists are loathed to attack the state directly, they often settle for attacking Copts, because they are an easy target.”
One would expect that Muslims, who are not extreme in their worldview, would display outrage against the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, there is a deafening silence:
The REAL Muslim Brotherhood (8.14.13)
When I heard that the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) was planning to hold a Million Muslim March in Washington D.C., I honestly thought the objective was to take a stand against what was happening in Egypt. I thought, since they did not march when Muslim extremists showed their anti-American position after 911, AMPAC was now covering lost ground.
I was wrong. The Million Muslim March has nothing to do with protesting about what is happening in Egypt, or what happened by Muslim extremists in Benghazi last year. Instead, they are using the 911 anniversary date to demand that the free speech rights of American Muslims be protected.
This is how the event is described on AMPAC’s website – “we are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our first amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign... Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 911 commission report to the American people.”
AMPAC distances itself from the events of 911. As a matter of fact, the current leader of AMPAC believes the events of 911 were conspiracies involving Israel. Hence, according to AMPAC, there is no need to condemn something for which Islam is not even tacitly responsible.
Thankfully, Egyptian Christians are choosing to react differently from others in history who were provoked and attacked by Muslims. Rather than resort to “crusader tactics,” today’s Egyptians are choosing instead “to pray for those who hate you.”
Some have returned to the charred house of worship, with their pastor vowing the violence suffered by his flock will make them better Christians. This will teach us to be better Christians," said Pastor Sameh Ibrahim. In that community, some fourteen churches were reportedly attacked in recent days.
For Christians, revenge is not an option. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul said we must “hate what is evil.” In addition he says, “do not repay anyone evil for evil...do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).
As our brothers and sisters in Egypt seek to live out true Christianity, let us pray that God would grant to them courage and hope, so that their faith would not crumble under pressure.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Should Dads Get Paternity Leave?
As a helicopter pilot in the Royal Air Force, Prince William was the first senior member of the royal family to take paternity leave. Following the recent birth of his son, Prince George, he took two weeks leave with pay, a benefit to which he was entitled.
According to Ken Matos, director of research at the Families and Work Institute, a New York City-based nonprofit organization, the decision of Prince William sends a powerful message to the public. “Not only does it seem like William genuinely wants to be a present father, the royal couple knows that everything they do is aspirational.” It is possible that Prince William may be trying to set an example for fathers to take advantage of any paternity leave their company offers.
While the U.S. does not federally mandate paid paternity leave - as is practiced in England, increasingly companies are moving to offer men more time off with pay. For instance, earlier this year Yahoo extended its parental-leave policy to provide up to eight weeks of fully paid leave for both mothers and fathers.
In the United States, the only mandate for parental leave is the Family Medical Leave Act, which ensures that men and women receive twelve weeks of job-protected unpaid leave. Paternity leave isn't even an option for most American workers. According to a story published in Forbes recently, only 13% of American employers offer paternity leave.
I am an advocate for fathers getting paternity leave, when responsibly administered. Just by perusing David Popenoe’s classic on Life Without Father, one cannot help but be convinced that fathers need to spend more time with their children.
Popenoe contends that “even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections with peers.”
In addition, these children also are less likely to get in trouble at home, school, or in the neighborhood. Infants who receive high levels of affection from their fathers (e.g., babies whose fathers respond quickly to their cries and who play together) are more securely attached; that is, they can explore their environment comfortably when a parent is nearby and can readily accept comfort from their parent after a brief separation. A number of studies suggest they also are more sociable and popular with other children throughout early childhood.
One would expect that with such positive outcomes, many would welcome the idea of dads spending structured time with their children. Countries around the world, such as Sweden and Portugal, have mandated leave for fathers, but leave in America remains stubbornly short—if it is taken at all.
One study published in the Journal of Social Issues found that caregiving men get treated more disrespectfully at work than men who adhere to traditional gender roles. Maybe that's why, following the birth of a child, less than 5% of American dads took one month off, and 16% took no time at all, according to data released by the Center for Work and Family at Boston College.
Many men who openly identify with their parental role at work face pressure or resentment from co-workers. Recent research from the University of Toronto's Rottman School of Management found that men who are active caregivers get teased and insulted at work more than so-called traditional fathers and men without children. Active fathers are seen as distracted and less dedicated to their work. According to Jennifer Berdhal, the author of this study, “active fathers are accused of being wimpy or henpecked by their wives.”
When one combines the impact of these findings with the declining role of fathers in the wider society – no wonder our children are so directionless. Today’s children are victims of decades of social experiments in free sex, women’s liberation and divorce.
Interestingly, with the growth of biblical illiteracy, we are witnessing the decline and demise of social institutions. Frequently, the Psalms introduced God as the Father of the fatherless. The inference is clear – the absence of a father’s influence required divine intervention.
The problems posed by absent fathers in the days of the psalmists, are no different from today. Our social experiments to remove fathers from family life are doomed to fail. The apostle Paul was correct, “let God be true and everyman a liar” (Romans 3:4).
As far as I am concerned, paternity leave ensures that fathers can be clearly identified and be given opportunities to function responsibly in the interest of the child and the wider community.
According to Ken Matos, director of research at the Families and Work Institute, a New York City-based nonprofit organization, the decision of Prince William sends a powerful message to the public. “Not only does it seem like William genuinely wants to be a present father, the royal couple knows that everything they do is aspirational.” It is possible that Prince William may be trying to set an example for fathers to take advantage of any paternity leave their company offers.
While the U.S. does not federally mandate paid paternity leave - as is practiced in England, increasingly companies are moving to offer men more time off with pay. For instance, earlier this year Yahoo extended its parental-leave policy to provide up to eight weeks of fully paid leave for both mothers and fathers.
In the United States, the only mandate for parental leave is the Family Medical Leave Act, which ensures that men and women receive twelve weeks of job-protected unpaid leave. Paternity leave isn't even an option for most American workers. According to a story published in Forbes recently, only 13% of American employers offer paternity leave.
I am an advocate for fathers getting paternity leave, when responsibly administered. Just by perusing David Popenoe’s classic on Life Without Father, one cannot help but be convinced that fathers need to spend more time with their children.
Popenoe contends that “even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections with peers.”
In addition, these children also are less likely to get in trouble at home, school, or in the neighborhood. Infants who receive high levels of affection from their fathers (e.g., babies whose fathers respond quickly to their cries and who play together) are more securely attached; that is, they can explore their environment comfortably when a parent is nearby and can readily accept comfort from their parent after a brief separation. A number of studies suggest they also are more sociable and popular with other children throughout early childhood.
One would expect that with such positive outcomes, many would welcome the idea of dads spending structured time with their children. Countries around the world, such as Sweden and Portugal, have mandated leave for fathers, but leave in America remains stubbornly short—if it is taken at all.
One study published in the Journal of Social Issues found that caregiving men get treated more disrespectfully at work than men who adhere to traditional gender roles. Maybe that's why, following the birth of a child, less than 5% of American dads took one month off, and 16% took no time at all, according to data released by the Center for Work and Family at Boston College.
Many men who openly identify with their parental role at work face pressure or resentment from co-workers. Recent research from the University of Toronto's Rottman School of Management found that men who are active caregivers get teased and insulted at work more than so-called traditional fathers and men without children. Active fathers are seen as distracted and less dedicated to their work. According to Jennifer Berdhal, the author of this study, “active fathers are accused of being wimpy or henpecked by their wives.”
When one combines the impact of these findings with the declining role of fathers in the wider society – no wonder our children are so directionless. Today’s children are victims of decades of social experiments in free sex, women’s liberation and divorce.
Interestingly, with the growth of biblical illiteracy, we are witnessing the decline and demise of social institutions. Frequently, the Psalms introduced God as the Father of the fatherless. The inference is clear – the absence of a father’s influence required divine intervention.
The problems posed by absent fathers in the days of the psalmists, are no different from today. Our social experiments to remove fathers from family life are doomed to fail. The apostle Paul was correct, “let God be true and everyman a liar” (Romans 3:4).
As far as I am concerned, paternity leave ensures that fathers can be clearly identified and be given opportunities to function responsibly in the interest of the child and the wider community.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Who Needs Daddy?
Shortly after giving birth, my daughter felt a hospital social worker was suggesting to her that it was better not to have the child’s father around. “If you do not have a husband with you, we will pay for the baby’s diapers and formula.” My daughter declined the offer. The social worker offered again, at which point our son-in-law walked into the room. “Do you want him in here?” was the daring question that came from the social worker.
I wish I could say that that interaction at a suburban hospital was exceptional – it was not. The interaction represented an attitude to the role of fathers in the lives of their children. He is merely viewed as a bank, both for sperms and financial support. If he is absent, the government will provide the funding. There are situations where it would seem more economically profitable for mothers, if fathers would simply be absent.
However, the economic cost of absent fathers is staggering. In his book, Life Without Father, sociologist David Popenoe contends that “the decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague us.” He further contends that "child-rearing encourages men to develop those habits of character - including prudence, cooperativeness, honesty, trust and self-sacrifice - that can lead to achievement as an economic provider." Poor women and their children are more likely to escape poverty in a stable relationship with a man who is an active father of the children.
Edward Kruk, writing about father absence, father deficit and father hunger in “Psychology Today” produced a list of woes: children without fathers actively in their lives have diminished self-concept, and compromised physical and emotional security. These children consistently report feeling abandoned when their fathers are not involved in their lives, struggling with their emotions and bouts of self-loathing.
Kruk also underlines the behavioral problems - fatherless children have more difficulties with social adjustment, and are more likely to report problems with friendships. Many develop a swaggering, intimidating persona in an attempt to disguise their underlying fears, resentments, anxieties and unhappiness. Gangs and violence and the adoration of the gun as power spring out of this condition.
Fatherless children show greater truancy from school and poorer academic performance. Kruk points out that some 71% of high-school dropouts are fatherless. Fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills.
Fatherlessness is a driver for delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime, Kruk notes, with 85% of youth in prison having an absent father.
The above statistics explain why I become so incensed with social workers like the one my daughter met in the hospital. She, like many in our society, would be willing to affirm the worth of mothers. But fathers? that is another matter. With such persons, fatherhood is viewed merely as a social role. And if merely a social role, then perhaps anyone is capable of playing that role. Players could include mothers, partners, stepfathers, uncles, aunts or grandparents. In essence, biological fathers are dispensable.
Miami Heat basketball superstar Dwayne Wade would disagree with that view. In a recent article, the single father said, “being a father is the most important and rewarding thing I will ever do, and I strongly encourage all fathers to love and take responsibility for their children.”
Last year, Wade wrote a book about his experience and the importance of all fathers being present in their children's lives. Addressing the fatherlessness issue across the country, he also teamed up with President Obama to support his Fatherhood & Mentoring Initiative.
One of the better books I’ve come across on the subject of fatherhood is Kyle Pruett’s, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. According to Publishers Weekly, Pruett’s book is “thoughtful, inspiring, and eminently practical, [it] belongs at the top of the ‘must have’ list for every father.”
Interestingly, after relegating the Bible to the archives of ancient literature, many are now finding themselves going back to its teachings. Even a casual reading of the book of Proverbs will highlight the importance of fatherhood. In the New Testament book of Ephesians, fathers are encouraged to nurture and encourage their children in Christian values. Fathers are charged not to abuse their influence and exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4).
Personally, I wish I had known this stuff when I became a father 36 years ago. I believe I would have been a much better father to our three children.
I wish I could say that that interaction at a suburban hospital was exceptional – it was not. The interaction represented an attitude to the role of fathers in the lives of their children. He is merely viewed as a bank, both for sperms and financial support. If he is absent, the government will provide the funding. There are situations where it would seem more economically profitable for mothers, if fathers would simply be absent.
However, the economic cost of absent fathers is staggering. In his book, Life Without Father, sociologist David Popenoe contends that “the decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague us.” He further contends that "child-rearing encourages men to develop those habits of character - including prudence, cooperativeness, honesty, trust and self-sacrifice - that can lead to achievement as an economic provider." Poor women and their children are more likely to escape poverty in a stable relationship with a man who is an active father of the children.
Edward Kruk, writing about father absence, father deficit and father hunger in “Psychology Today” produced a list of woes: children without fathers actively in their lives have diminished self-concept, and compromised physical and emotional security. These children consistently report feeling abandoned when their fathers are not involved in their lives, struggling with their emotions and bouts of self-loathing.
Kruk also underlines the behavioral problems - fatherless children have more difficulties with social adjustment, and are more likely to report problems with friendships. Many develop a swaggering, intimidating persona in an attempt to disguise their underlying fears, resentments, anxieties and unhappiness. Gangs and violence and the adoration of the gun as power spring out of this condition.
Fatherless children show greater truancy from school and poorer academic performance. Kruk points out that some 71% of high-school dropouts are fatherless. Fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills.
Fatherlessness is a driver for delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime, Kruk notes, with 85% of youth in prison having an absent father.
The above statistics explain why I become so incensed with social workers like the one my daughter met in the hospital. She, like many in our society, would be willing to affirm the worth of mothers. But fathers? that is another matter. With such persons, fatherhood is viewed merely as a social role. And if merely a social role, then perhaps anyone is capable of playing that role. Players could include mothers, partners, stepfathers, uncles, aunts or grandparents. In essence, biological fathers are dispensable.
Miami Heat basketball superstar Dwayne Wade would disagree with that view. In a recent article, the single father said, “being a father is the most important and rewarding thing I will ever do, and I strongly encourage all fathers to love and take responsibility for their children.”
Last year, Wade wrote a book about his experience and the importance of all fathers being present in their children's lives. Addressing the fatherlessness issue across the country, he also teamed up with President Obama to support his Fatherhood & Mentoring Initiative.
One of the better books I’ve come across on the subject of fatherhood is Kyle Pruett’s, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. According to Publishers Weekly, Pruett’s book is “thoughtful, inspiring, and eminently practical, [it] belongs at the top of the ‘must have’ list for every father.”
Interestingly, after relegating the Bible to the archives of ancient literature, many are now finding themselves going back to its teachings. Even a casual reading of the book of Proverbs will highlight the importance of fatherhood. In the New Testament book of Ephesians, fathers are encouraged to nurture and encourage their children in Christian values. Fathers are charged not to abuse their influence and exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4).
Personally, I wish I had known this stuff when I became a father 36 years ago. I believe I would have been a much better father to our three children.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Not Black Enough?
Shortly after arriving in the United States with my family, I had the opportunity to attend a national conference for black evangelicals in Detroit. I was eager to learn about what distinguished black from white evangelicals. The conference was well represented with black leaders from various communities across the United States.
During the evaluation session at the end of the three day event, participants were invited to be candid in their appraisals. I publicly expressed my delight to be in attendance and took the opportunity to suggest that if sessions were more punctual and presenters had used more contemporary tools for communicating their presentations, the conference could have been much more effective.
In response to my observations, one of the organizers thanked me for participating. He went on to inform me that the organizers did not define effectiveness in the same way as their white brethren did. I guess he was saying that punctuality and utilization of effective tools to communicate were not appropriate indicators for assessing success among blacks.
When that experience was put side by side with opinions shared by white evangelicals, I sensed that my Afro-Caribbean family was sandwiched between two cultures. For instance, it was not unusual to hear white evangelicals say to us, “we do not see you guys as being black.” Initially this was very confusing to us, but slowly we began to realize that in America, black is more than a color – it is also a culture.
It is a culture in that there are some experiences some blacks accept as being distinctly black. For instance, some would refer to the use of proper diction by blacks as pretending to be white. Such blacks would consider the occasional use of Ebonics to be culturally sensitive. However, that sensitivity may provide cultural acceptance, but it is totally inappropriate in the marketplace of ideas.
The Cosby Show provided a good illustration of this point. The show was well received by both white and black audiences. Earlier commentators felt that one of the show’s assets was its help in improving race relations by projecting universal values with which both whites and blacks could identify.
However, a few more recent commentators suggest that the Cosby Show’s popularity has set back race relations. These more recent commentators believe the Show failed to take into account the context outside of the walls of the home in which the main characters lived. The fact that the Show failed to confront race relations in America is often viewed as a sell-out to white audiences and advertisers. However, I concur with the view that the positive role of the black Huxtable family served to reduce the negative stereotypes of blacks in the wider society. Interestingly, since the final episode more than 20 years ago, reruns of the Cosby Show still bring healthy laughter across races and generations.
CNN host Don Lemon felt O’Reilly did not go far enough in analyzing the situation among blacks in America. As a black public figure, Lemon went on to list five critical areas that must be addressed in black communities today. Like O’Reilly he felt the most critical was the more than 72% of black children being born out of wedlock, often resulting in fatherless children.
One would think that Lemon’s opinions would earn the applause of the black community. Rather, it has inspired just as much hatred from the black community as O’Reilly’s comments did. MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor calls Lemon a “turncoat mofo,” while Toure also took to twitter to revile the common sense points Lemon made. Many others in the black community took to social media to excoriate Lemon’s remarks.
We need to take time to applaud Don Lemon, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Cosby, Ben Carson and every leader who risks ridicule and calls garbage trash and not treasure. As a Christian black man, I refuse to be defined by art forms that dehumanize others. My creative expressions are honed only by my Christian worldview. A proper understanding of that worldview enriches others, embraces healthy cultural expression and celebrates ethnic differences.
During the evaluation session at the end of the three day event, participants were invited to be candid in their appraisals. I publicly expressed my delight to be in attendance and took the opportunity to suggest that if sessions were more punctual and presenters had used more contemporary tools for communicating their presentations, the conference could have been much more effective.
In response to my observations, one of the organizers thanked me for participating. He went on to inform me that the organizers did not define effectiveness in the same way as their white brethren did. I guess he was saying that punctuality and utilization of effective tools to communicate were not appropriate indicators for assessing success among blacks.
When that experience was put side by side with opinions shared by white evangelicals, I sensed that my Afro-Caribbean family was sandwiched between two cultures. For instance, it was not unusual to hear white evangelicals say to us, “we do not see you guys as being black.” Initially this was very confusing to us, but slowly we began to realize that in America, black is more than a color – it is also a culture.
It is a culture in that there are some experiences some blacks accept as being distinctly black. For instance, some would refer to the use of proper diction by blacks as pretending to be white. Such blacks would consider the occasional use of Ebonics to be culturally sensitive. However, that sensitivity may provide cultural acceptance, but it is totally inappropriate in the marketplace of ideas.
The Cosby Show provided a good illustration of this point. The show was well received by both white and black audiences. Earlier commentators felt that one of the show’s assets was its help in improving race relations by projecting universal values with which both whites and blacks could identify.
However, a few more recent commentators suggest that the Cosby Show’s popularity has set back race relations. These more recent commentators believe the Show failed to take into account the context outside of the walls of the home in which the main characters lived. The fact that the Show failed to confront race relations in America is often viewed as a sell-out to white audiences and advertisers. However, I concur with the view that the positive role of the black Huxtable family served to reduce the negative stereotypes of blacks in the wider society. Interestingly, since the final episode more than 20 years ago, reruns of the Cosby Show still bring healthy laughter across races and generations.
The same healthy laughter cannot be used to describe much of what is called black entertainment today. Bill O’Reilly has been ridiculed by many black leaders because he dared challenge the negative impact of some black entertainment.
According to O’Reilly, the black entertainment industry needs to stop peddling garbage. “Hey listen up you greed heads, if a kid can't speak proper English, uses the "f" word in every sentence, it's disgraceful, it's disrespectful -- it's disrespectful in his or her manner. That child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America... never. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You're the ones hurting these vulnerable children.”
According to O’Reilly, the black entertainment industry needs to stop peddling garbage. “Hey listen up you greed heads, if a kid can't speak proper English, uses the "f" word in every sentence, it's disgraceful, it's disrespectful -- it's disrespectful in his or her manner. That child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America... never. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You're the ones hurting these vulnerable children.”
CNN host Don Lemon felt O’Reilly did not go far enough in analyzing the situation among blacks in America. As a black public figure, Lemon went on to list five critical areas that must be addressed in black communities today. Like O’Reilly he felt the most critical was the more than 72% of black children being born out of wedlock, often resulting in fatherless children.
One would think that Lemon’s opinions would earn the applause of the black community. Rather, it has inspired just as much hatred from the black community as O’Reilly’s comments did. MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor calls Lemon a “turncoat mofo,” while Toure also took to twitter to revile the common sense points Lemon made. Many others in the black community took to social media to excoriate Lemon’s remarks.
We need to take time to applaud Don Lemon, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Cosby, Ben Carson and every leader who risks ridicule and calls garbage trash and not treasure. As a Christian black man, I refuse to be defined by art forms that dehumanize others. My creative expressions are honed only by my Christian worldview. A proper understanding of that worldview enriches others, embraces healthy cultural expression and celebrates ethnic differences.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Let's Talk Race
What was intended to be a simple hospital visit, turned out to be anything but simple. I was visiting a member of my congregation who was seriously ill. I was not very familiar with the surrounding area in Minneapolis, so two friends accompanied me. The patient, her husband, my friends and I were engaging in small talk at the bedside when a male nurse entered and addressed me specifically.
“Who are you?” he asked. To which I answered by giving my name. He proceeded to ask, “And what are you doing here?” Before I had a chance to respond, the husband of the patient answered that I was their pastor. With that, the nurse left the room.
We looked at each other baffled at what had just happened. We were baffled because, of the four persons in the room, I was the only one who was black. Because of the severity of the illness and the tension the white nurse created, no one dared discuss what had just happened.
It was on our way to the car, my two friends steered the conversation to what had just taken place. They were confident that they had just witnessed a display of racial prejudice. They were so disgusted and embarrassed that they offered to support me in whatever way I chose to respond to the matter.
More than 15 years have gone since that incident, and although it never altered my sense of worth as someone of value, the memories of bigotry have not left me. Unless one has experienced racial prejudice, one is not fully disposed to understanding it.
Prejudice is a bias, favoring or opposing something based on personal opinion or feelings. It means to "pre-judge" or to make an assumption beforehand without any knowledge, factual reason, or objective consideration. It is an unjustified or incorrect attitude (usually negative) towards an individual based solely on the individual’s race, gender or disposition.
Racial prejudice is the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others. It is those feelings of superiority that cause some ethnic groups to feel entitled to discriminate against other groups that are different.
Historically, these feelings of superiority have been influential in establishing institutions that protect and advance varying forms of prejudice. Thankfully, with increasing ethnic diversity and academic opportunities, many of these color structures are dying.
Isn’t it ironic that we appreciate variety in the colors of the rainbow, in nature, in floral arrangements and interior designs? However, when it comes to fellow human beings, we discriminate. Have you ever heard of a hospital advertising for blood from black, white or Hispanic donors?
It is equally ridiculous to believe, that although the best dressed among my colleagues at the hospital, my skin color disqualified me from visiting a patient. In a carefully worded letter I expressed my disgust to the hospital administration. The hospital called to verify the authenticity of the letter and promised to investigate the matter. The process of enquiry was as pathetic as the conclusion reached.
Among the options available to me, I knew my reaction had to be guided by my Christian worldview and not my ethnicity. In addition, I was not prepared to affirm someone else’s warped understanding of superiority with any uncivilized reaction. Like the apostle Paul, when imprisoned for no cause, he used his incarceration as a platform to advance the cause of Jesus Christ.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was no different. When beaten and imprisoned for righteousness, he refused to resort to violence. He even dissociated from others who felt violence was justified. Dr. King was determined to be guided by his Christian convictions and not by what his alleged superiors expected. Hence, when he is remembered today he is referred to as a godly leader and not a militant filled with hate.
Racial and social prejudices are not contemporary phenomena. In his New Testament epistle, James confronted prejudice. Simply put, he said, “...don’t show favoritism” (James 2:1). James went on to remind his readers that “God has chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith...”
In Galatians the apostle Paul challenged Peter for being prejudicial in his treatment of Gentile Christians. Paul contended, “...as for those who seemed to be important-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance...” (Galatians 2:6).
The same should be said of Christians today – we should not judge by external appearance. To me it is sad when one’s claim to superiority is only skin deep.
“Who are you?” he asked. To which I answered by giving my name. He proceeded to ask, “And what are you doing here?” Before I had a chance to respond, the husband of the patient answered that I was their pastor. With that, the nurse left the room.
We looked at each other baffled at what had just happened. We were baffled because, of the four persons in the room, I was the only one who was black. Because of the severity of the illness and the tension the white nurse created, no one dared discuss what had just happened.
It was on our way to the car, my two friends steered the conversation to what had just taken place. They were confident that they had just witnessed a display of racial prejudice. They were so disgusted and embarrassed that they offered to support me in whatever way I chose to respond to the matter.
More than 15 years have gone since that incident, and although it never altered my sense of worth as someone of value, the memories of bigotry have not left me. Unless one has experienced racial prejudice, one is not fully disposed to understanding it.
Prejudice is a bias, favoring or opposing something based on personal opinion or feelings. It means to "pre-judge" or to make an assumption beforehand without any knowledge, factual reason, or objective consideration. It is an unjustified or incorrect attitude (usually negative) towards an individual based solely on the individual’s race, gender or disposition.
Racial prejudice is the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others. It is those feelings of superiority that cause some ethnic groups to feel entitled to discriminate against other groups that are different.
Historically, these feelings of superiority have been influential in establishing institutions that protect and advance varying forms of prejudice. Thankfully, with increasing ethnic diversity and academic opportunities, many of these color structures are dying.
Isn’t it ironic that we appreciate variety in the colors of the rainbow, in nature, in floral arrangements and interior designs? However, when it comes to fellow human beings, we discriminate. Have you ever heard of a hospital advertising for blood from black, white or Hispanic donors?
It is equally ridiculous to believe, that although the best dressed among my colleagues at the hospital, my skin color disqualified me from visiting a patient. In a carefully worded letter I expressed my disgust to the hospital administration. The hospital called to verify the authenticity of the letter and promised to investigate the matter. The process of enquiry was as pathetic as the conclusion reached.
Among the options available to me, I knew my reaction had to be guided by my Christian worldview and not my ethnicity. In addition, I was not prepared to affirm someone else’s warped understanding of superiority with any uncivilized reaction. Like the apostle Paul, when imprisoned for no cause, he used his incarceration as a platform to advance the cause of Jesus Christ.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was no different. When beaten and imprisoned for righteousness, he refused to resort to violence. He even dissociated from others who felt violence was justified. Dr. King was determined to be guided by his Christian convictions and not by what his alleged superiors expected. Hence, when he is remembered today he is referred to as a godly leader and not a militant filled with hate.
Racial and social prejudices are not contemporary phenomena. In his New Testament epistle, James confronted prejudice. Simply put, he said, “...don’t show favoritism” (James 2:1). James went on to remind his readers that “God has chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith...”
In Galatians the apostle Paul challenged Peter for being prejudicial in his treatment of Gentile Christians. Paul contended, “...as for those who seemed to be important-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance...” (Galatians 2:6).
The same should be said of Christians today – we should not judge by external appearance. To me it is sad when one’s claim to superiority is only skin deep.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Innocent or Not-Guilty?
Within recent days the nation has been divided on hearing the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial. Much of the reaction however, does not concern the trial. Many used the trial as a metaphor, or as a mirror of other national issues. Some of these would include gun control legislation, racism, civil rights or even Florida’s “stand your ground law”.
The 27 pages of jury instructions reminded the six jurors of what the case was all about. It was not about who killed Trayvon Martin. Rather, it was about the reason for killing Martin. The jury was told if they had any reasonable doubt on whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.
According to the judge's instructions, "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person ... would have believed the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force."
The jury was never asked to declare Zimmerman to be innocent. Innocence presupposes blamelessness or freedom from moral wrong. In addition, innocence implies the absence of evil intent. To declare someone to be innocent requires knowledge no court of law possesses.
In order to come to a reasonable conclusion the court required truth. One reason that could not be determined was because one of the two witnesses was dead. In his absence, attempts at determining truth required various branches of forensic science. From this scientific evidence, the court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, and as such, Zimmerman could not be held liable on the charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
In order to determine if justice was served, one must ask the hard questions. The judicial system was not designed to take revenge. Rather, it was intended to ensure a just outcome, based on available facts.
The prosecution had the responsibility to present those facts. The prosecution also had the responsibility to share those facts with the defense. The prosecution should never attempt to withhold information that could influence the outcome of a case. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution sent the case to the judge, and attempted to willfully withhold exculpatory evidence. Interestingly, the Director of Information Technology who disclosed what was happening has since been fired by the Florida State Attorney’s Office.
According to Harvard Professor of Law, Alan M. Dershowitz, “The prosecutors denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations. Prosecutors violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team.”
The American legal system is one of the best in the world - however, it is not perfect. Like in the case with the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial, those who use the system try to manipulate the system for political and financial gains.
Every civil system operates on an assumption of truth. To undermine truth is to undermine reality. Hence, to swear and then fail to tell the truth is perjury – a felonious act, which can result in a miscarriage of justice. Other than its mention in the Ten Commandments, the Bible speaks strongly against perjury (The false witness will not go unpunished; no one who utters lies will go free Proverbs 19:5). For this, I believe both the prosecution and the defense will be held accountable.
Since the not-guilty verdict, there has been much hostility and requests for a civil trial. Within the American legal system that route can be pursued. I believe the outcome of such a trial might bring about some healing in the nation. It is best when civil outrage can be addressed in a court of law, rather than on the streets, as persists in many countries.
However, I long to see similar outrage about the other killings. In the 513 days between the death of Trayvon Martin, and the George Zimmerman verdict, more than 11,000 African Americans were murdered by other African-Americans. As a matter of fact, almost 22 African-Americans are killed every day in America. And that is separate from the 1,875 black babies that are aborted daily.
In these killing fields of America there ought to be outrage and a refocusing on the message of wholesome living offered by Jesus. It was He who said, “I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life that they ever dreamed of” (John 10:10 – The Message).
The 27 pages of jury instructions reminded the six jurors of what the case was all about. It was not about who killed Trayvon Martin. Rather, it was about the reason for killing Martin. The jury was told if they had any reasonable doubt on whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.
According to the judge's instructions, "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person ... would have believed the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force."
The jury was never asked to declare Zimmerman to be innocent. Innocence presupposes blamelessness or freedom from moral wrong. In addition, innocence implies the absence of evil intent. To declare someone to be innocent requires knowledge no court of law possesses.
In order to come to a reasonable conclusion the court required truth. One reason that could not be determined was because one of the two witnesses was dead. In his absence, attempts at determining truth required various branches of forensic science. From this scientific evidence, the court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, and as such, Zimmerman could not be held liable on the charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
In order to determine if justice was served, one must ask the hard questions. The judicial system was not designed to take revenge. Rather, it was intended to ensure a just outcome, based on available facts.
The prosecution had the responsibility to present those facts. The prosecution also had the responsibility to share those facts with the defense. The prosecution should never attempt to withhold information that could influence the outcome of a case. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution sent the case to the judge, and attempted to willfully withhold exculpatory evidence. Interestingly, the Director of Information Technology who disclosed what was happening has since been fired by the Florida State Attorney’s Office.
According to Harvard Professor of Law, Alan M. Dershowitz, “The prosecutors denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations. Prosecutors violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team.”
The American legal system is one of the best in the world - however, it is not perfect. Like in the case with the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial, those who use the system try to manipulate the system for political and financial gains.
Every civil system operates on an assumption of truth. To undermine truth is to undermine reality. Hence, to swear and then fail to tell the truth is perjury – a felonious act, which can result in a miscarriage of justice. Other than its mention in the Ten Commandments, the Bible speaks strongly against perjury (The false witness will not go unpunished; no one who utters lies will go free Proverbs 19:5). For this, I believe both the prosecution and the defense will be held accountable.
Since the not-guilty verdict, there has been much hostility and requests for a civil trial. Within the American legal system that route can be pursued. I believe the outcome of such a trial might bring about some healing in the nation. It is best when civil outrage can be addressed in a court of law, rather than on the streets, as persists in many countries.
However, I long to see similar outrage about the other killings. In the 513 days between the death of Trayvon Martin, and the George Zimmerman verdict, more than 11,000 African Americans were murdered by other African-Americans. As a matter of fact, almost 22 African-Americans are killed every day in America. And that is separate from the 1,875 black babies that are aborted daily.
In these killing fields of America there ought to be outrage and a refocusing on the message of wholesome living offered by Jesus. It was He who said, “I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life that they ever dreamed of” (John 10:10 – The Message).
Monday, July 8, 2013
Egyptian Christianity
From time to time I come across people who refer to Christianity as “the white man’s religion.” Such persons know very little history. Africa has had a greater influence on Christianity than many Western countries. Doctrinal definitions of orthodoxy like the Trinity, emerged through a process that began in Africa, and more specifically in Egypt.
Out of the African ethos came a great hunger to follow the consensus of the New Testament canonical writers. The New Testament was written all around the Mediterranean, but the canonization process took place as a result of decisions taken in Africa. Even the Old Testament Jesus used was translated in Africa (The Septuagint – a Greek translation).
From its inception, Christianity was nurtured on the African continent. The Middle East and African origins of Christianity emphasized the communal nature of the Christian faith - so unlike the individualism that is prevalent in today’s American Christianity.
In the early centuries of Christianity, it was the Africans who understood what it meant to die for the faith. Their sacrificial lifestyles, models of mutual care, and pursuit of spiritual community continue to teach us in these days of compromise and “easy believe-ism”.
The great tradition of philosophy and theological scholarship that distinguished Alexandria in the age of Origen and Clement was swept away by the invasion of Islam in the seventh century, while elsewhere in North Africa, Christianity left only relics and fading memories as Muslim forces moved in to assert control.
However, because of the rural roots of Coptic Christianity in Egypt, many believers escaped the barbarianism of the Muslims. “Coptic” means “Egyptian,” and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians.
As a denomination, they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 - A.D. 62.
This is the same Coptic Church that has been in the news recently and had been persecuted by former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s Islamic regime. It was this Islamic regime that openly persecuted Coptic Christians with impunity.
Egypt’s Christians have celebrated the Egyptian Army’s decision to force president Morsi out of power and set up a new government, after some
30 million Egyptians took to the streets to demand Morsi’s ouster. The June 30 protests sponsored by the Tamarod (“Rebel”) movement are being called the largest mass demonstration in world history.
The fall from power of former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood could prove a decisive moment for the future of Coptic Christianity in Egypt. Since the Muslim Brotherhood took power, the situation of Egypt’s Christians had deteriorated rapidly. Not only had attacks on Christian communities rapidly increased under Morsi, but churches had been attacked or bombed.
In an unprecedented move, Islamists besieged St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, the heart of Coptic Orthodoxy, in broad daylight. More than 500 Christian women were kidnapped to face forced conversion, rape or forced marriage. Under the authoritarian rule of the former regime, Christians in Egypt experienced the worst suffering in more than sixty years.
Egypt is still in crisis, in that having been ousted, the Muslim Brotherhood has instigated protests and refuses to sit at the table to form an interim government. The willingness of Christians to discuss an interim government with the military is now cause for further targeting by radical Islamists.
In the early centuries of Christianity, Egypt gave the world great thinkers like Clement, Origen and Athanasius – today, our brothers and sisters in Egypt need our help. Actually, we need their help also. We need to understand and appreciate more of what it means to live in community as believers. The challenges of post-modernism require less cerebral and more demonstrative Christianity.
That demonstrative Christianity was what Paul encouraged when Christians were suffering in Jerusalem. He challenged the churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Corinth to provide practical assistance to those who pioneered the faith (See 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:5).
If you would care to know more about the impact of African Christianity, here are two helpful resources you may want to access: www.worldwatchlist.us and Thomas Oden’s volume – How Africa Shaped The Christian Mind (exploring the role of African Christians and theologians in shaping the doctrines and practices of the church in the first 500 years).
Out of the African ethos came a great hunger to follow the consensus of the New Testament canonical writers. The New Testament was written all around the Mediterranean, but the canonization process took place as a result of decisions taken in Africa. Even the Old Testament Jesus used was translated in Africa (The Septuagint – a Greek translation).
From its inception, Christianity was nurtured on the African continent. The Middle East and African origins of Christianity emphasized the communal nature of the Christian faith - so unlike the individualism that is prevalent in today’s American Christianity.
In the early centuries of Christianity, it was the Africans who understood what it meant to die for the faith. Their sacrificial lifestyles, models of mutual care, and pursuit of spiritual community continue to teach us in these days of compromise and “easy believe-ism”.
The great tradition of philosophy and theological scholarship that distinguished Alexandria in the age of Origen and Clement was swept away by the invasion of Islam in the seventh century, while elsewhere in North Africa, Christianity left only relics and fading memories as Muslim forces moved in to assert control.
However, because of the rural roots of Coptic Christianity in Egypt, many believers escaped the barbarianism of the Muslims. “Coptic” means “Egyptian,” and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians.
As a denomination, they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 - A.D. 62.
This is the same Coptic Church that has been in the news recently and had been persecuted by former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s Islamic regime. It was this Islamic regime that openly persecuted Coptic Christians with impunity.
Egypt’s Christians have celebrated the Egyptian Army’s decision to force president Morsi out of power and set up a new government, after some
30 million Egyptians took to the streets to demand Morsi’s ouster. The June 30 protests sponsored by the Tamarod (“Rebel”) movement are being called the largest mass demonstration in world history.
The fall from power of former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood could prove a decisive moment for the future of Coptic Christianity in Egypt. Since the Muslim Brotherhood took power, the situation of Egypt’s Christians had deteriorated rapidly. Not only had attacks on Christian communities rapidly increased under Morsi, but churches had been attacked or bombed.
In an unprecedented move, Islamists besieged St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, the heart of Coptic Orthodoxy, in broad daylight. More than 500 Christian women were kidnapped to face forced conversion, rape or forced marriage. Under the authoritarian rule of the former regime, Christians in Egypt experienced the worst suffering in more than sixty years.
Egypt is still in crisis, in that having been ousted, the Muslim Brotherhood has instigated protests and refuses to sit at the table to form an interim government. The willingness of Christians to discuss an interim government with the military is now cause for further targeting by radical Islamists.
In the early centuries of Christianity, Egypt gave the world great thinkers like Clement, Origen and Athanasius – today, our brothers and sisters in Egypt need our help. Actually, we need their help also. We need to understand and appreciate more of what it means to live in community as believers. The challenges of post-modernism require less cerebral and more demonstrative Christianity.
That demonstrative Christianity was what Paul encouraged when Christians were suffering in Jerusalem. He challenged the churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Corinth to provide practical assistance to those who pioneered the faith (See 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:5).
If you would care to know more about the impact of African Christianity, here are two helpful resources you may want to access: www.worldwatchlist.us and Thomas Oden’s volume – How Africa Shaped The Christian Mind (exploring the role of African Christians and theologians in shaping the doctrines and practices of the church in the first 500 years).
Friday, July 5, 2013
Redefining Marriage
The recent rulings by the US Supreme Court marked a confusing day for the institution of marriage in America. The decisions are complex and will take days for legal analysts to understand the full implications. What we do know is that both good and bad have come from the court’s decisions.
In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, the court approved federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states which have adopted homosexual marriages.
In the California Proposition Eight case, the Supreme Court did not overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions. The Court also did not force one standard upon all the states but instead respected the rights of states to define marriage. Thankfully, the Court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they may have done.
One of the things the Supreme Court also did was to open the door for dialog about marriage and other familial arrangements. As a Christian, the Court has challenged me to re-examine marriage and other familial arrangements in the Bible.
In the Bible, marriage contracts and arrangements come in different shapes and forms across cultures. For instance, in Genesis we read where Abraham got married to Sarah, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). In addition, Abraham’s son Isaac, got married to his first cousin (Genesis 24:15). Sometime later, Jacob, Isaac’s son, got married to two sisters, both his cousins (Genesis 29:10).
These practices describe what anthropologists often refer to as polygeny (births through ancestral relationships) and tribal endogamy (marrying only within one’s tribe). Interestingly, many of the marriage customs of American aborigines run parallel with those of the biblical patriarchs.
Both in Genesis and later Old Testament texts, polygamy (having many wives) was also practiced. However, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul expected church leaders to be the husbands of one wife. In attempting to establish a norm for marriage, Paul invited the young Christians to consider the model of Adam and Eve.
That model was one man with one wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus made a similar reference to the Adam and Eve pattern. He acknowledged the accommodations in marriage, but stressed the original intent was to bring together male and female.
Some analysts would want us to believe that the Supreme Court was similarly acknowledging accommodations in different forms of marriage. With this I must disagree. Nowhere in the Bible do we find accommodations including same sex marriage as a viable alternative. Every familial accommodation involved males and females. Same sex relationships were always renounced as deviant.
Even outside of Jewish society, same-sex relationships were rarely viewed as something noble. No culture or society in history has flourished because it welcomed the practice of same sex relationships. However, the practice of heterosexual marriage, the union of husband and wife is timeless, universal and particularly special because children flourish best with a mother and a father. Ninety-four percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In addition, every major world religion affirms marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
For such reasons I will agree with John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, when he said “no court decision or public opinion poll can affect that which is evident in biology, logic, common sense and the collective wisdom of human history.”
Similar sentiments were shared by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He contends, “Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from that union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.”
Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, we appeal to every leader in America to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. This creation arrangement has always been suitable – “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 1:27).
In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, the court approved federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states which have adopted homosexual marriages.
In the California Proposition Eight case, the Supreme Court did not overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions. The Court also did not force one standard upon all the states but instead respected the rights of states to define marriage. Thankfully, the Court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they may have done.
One of the things the Supreme Court also did was to open the door for dialog about marriage and other familial arrangements. As a Christian, the Court has challenged me to re-examine marriage and other familial arrangements in the Bible.
In the Bible, marriage contracts and arrangements come in different shapes and forms across cultures. For instance, in Genesis we read where Abraham got married to Sarah, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). In addition, Abraham’s son Isaac, got married to his first cousin (Genesis 24:15). Sometime later, Jacob, Isaac’s son, got married to two sisters, both his cousins (Genesis 29:10).
These practices describe what anthropologists often refer to as polygeny (births through ancestral relationships) and tribal endogamy (marrying only within one’s tribe). Interestingly, many of the marriage customs of American aborigines run parallel with those of the biblical patriarchs.
Both in Genesis and later Old Testament texts, polygamy (having many wives) was also practiced. However, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul expected church leaders to be the husbands of one wife. In attempting to establish a norm for marriage, Paul invited the young Christians to consider the model of Adam and Eve.
That model was one man with one wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus made a similar reference to the Adam and Eve pattern. He acknowledged the accommodations in marriage, but stressed the original intent was to bring together male and female.
Some analysts would want us to believe that the Supreme Court was similarly acknowledging accommodations in different forms of marriage. With this I must disagree. Nowhere in the Bible do we find accommodations including same sex marriage as a viable alternative. Every familial accommodation involved males and females. Same sex relationships were always renounced as deviant.
Even outside of Jewish society, same-sex relationships were rarely viewed as something noble. No culture or society in history has flourished because it welcomed the practice of same sex relationships. However, the practice of heterosexual marriage, the union of husband and wife is timeless, universal and particularly special because children flourish best with a mother and a father. Ninety-four percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In addition, every major world religion affirms marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
For such reasons I will agree with John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, when he said “no court decision or public opinion poll can affect that which is evident in biology, logic, common sense and the collective wisdom of human history.”
Similar sentiments were shared by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He contends, “Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from that union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.”
Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, we appeal to every leader in America to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. This creation arrangement has always been suitable – “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 1:27).
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Which - Cohabit or Marry?
This weekend my wife and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary. Had we chosen to cohabit rather than marry, would the forty years have been the same? According to the Pew Research Center (“The Decline of Marriage and the Rise of New Families”, November 2010), “since 1960, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States has increased fifteen-fold.” In other words, more than 70% of couples in the United States now cohabit before marriage.
I understand some persons choose to cohabit because they fear failure in marriage – hence the need to get to know each other better and to see whether they get along well enough to embark on marriage. Others believe, because of the cost of hosting a wedding, it is more practical to begin to share life with a loving companion. Some even believe since it is only a legal document that makes the difference, they could opt for cohabiting.
Forty years ago we did not have enough money for the wedding of our dreams – we both graduated from college the day before we got married. We did not have enough time to become familiar with our differing cultures –we were from two different countries and got to know each other during our undergrad studies. Based on the rational used in some circles today, we seemed ideally poised to cohabit, as a way to prepare for marriage.
Research data indicate that some 62% of young adults believe that “living together with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid an eventual divorce.” However, people today don’t have to wonder how living together might work out, because we can learn from the experiences of those who have already tried.
For instance, research confirms that cohabiting lacks meaningful mutual commitment. The absence of meaningful commitment produces insecurity, a critical ingredient in any trusting relationship. When relationships lack commitment, extended family members are reluctant to provide caring and meaningful support.
Veteran social scientist James Wilson was correct when he said that “marriage requires more up-front and ongoing investment from the spouses and their extended families – neither the man nor the woman has any strong incentive to invest heavily in the union.” In essence, marriage is a commitment to longevity, built on mutual trust. So unlike cohabiting, which is built on expedience.
In his book, The Ring Makes All the Difference, Glen Stanton contends that “according to the best research on the subject, cohabiting relationships are far less healthy than marital relationships.” Jan Stets concurs. As one of the first scholars to make a serious study of cohabiting relationships, Stets observed that “cohabiting couples, compared to married couples, have lower relationship quality, lower stability and a higher level of disagreements.”
Interestingly, cohabiting couples report more fights or violence, as well as lower levels of fairness in their relationships and happiness with them. Researchers also confirm that cohabiting couples have breakup rates five times higher than those who are married. Actually, cohabiting couples who marry have a 50-80% higher likelihood of divorcing that married couples who never cohabited (Demography 29 [1992]).
Most couples, married or not, expect sexual faithfulness for themselves and their partners. However, the National Sex Survey reports that live-in boyfriends are nearly four times more likely than husbands to cheat on their partners. And while women are generally more faithful, cohabiting women are eight times more likely than wives to cheat (Journal of Marriage and Family 62 [2000]).
Let’s talk money – research over the past few decades consistently finds that marriage is a wealth-building institution. Married people typically earn and save more than their cohabiting counterparts. For instance, The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6%, it jumps to 31% for children with a cohabiting mother and father. Actually, cohabiting couples act more like roommates than as a team in handling finances. This is obvious when one considers the experimental nature of cohabiting relationships.
Long before the findings of social scientists on cohabiting relationships, the Bible spoke strongly against familial relationships that were not built on mutual trust and honor. The frequent references to adultery and fornication speak volumes. The idea is to avoid illicit sexual relationships. Both in Old and New Testaments, the terms are never associated with desirable behavior. The consequences are always disastrous to all the parties involved.
The truth is, cohabitation puts adults at risk for marital failure, and puts children at risk for neglect and abuse. Interestingly, both science and the Bible agree that marriage is good and cohabitation is never a good idea.
SUGGESTED READING:
The Ring Makes All the Difference – Glenn Stanton
The Power of Commitment – Scott Stanley
I understand some persons choose to cohabit because they fear failure in marriage – hence the need to get to know each other better and to see whether they get along well enough to embark on marriage. Others believe, because of the cost of hosting a wedding, it is more practical to begin to share life with a loving companion. Some even believe since it is only a legal document that makes the difference, they could opt for cohabiting.
Forty years ago we did not have enough money for the wedding of our dreams – we both graduated from college the day before we got married. We did not have enough time to become familiar with our differing cultures –we were from two different countries and got to know each other during our undergrad studies. Based on the rational used in some circles today, we seemed ideally poised to cohabit, as a way to prepare for marriage.
Research data indicate that some 62% of young adults believe that “living together with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid an eventual divorce.” However, people today don’t have to wonder how living together might work out, because we can learn from the experiences of those who have already tried.
For instance, research confirms that cohabiting lacks meaningful mutual commitment. The absence of meaningful commitment produces insecurity, a critical ingredient in any trusting relationship. When relationships lack commitment, extended family members are reluctant to provide caring and meaningful support.
Veteran social scientist James Wilson was correct when he said that “marriage requires more up-front and ongoing investment from the spouses and their extended families – neither the man nor the woman has any strong incentive to invest heavily in the union.” In essence, marriage is a commitment to longevity, built on mutual trust. So unlike cohabiting, which is built on expedience.
In his book, The Ring Makes All the Difference, Glen Stanton contends that “according to the best research on the subject, cohabiting relationships are far less healthy than marital relationships.” Jan Stets concurs. As one of the first scholars to make a serious study of cohabiting relationships, Stets observed that “cohabiting couples, compared to married couples, have lower relationship quality, lower stability and a higher level of disagreements.”
Interestingly, cohabiting couples report more fights or violence, as well as lower levels of fairness in their relationships and happiness with them. Researchers also confirm that cohabiting couples have breakup rates five times higher than those who are married. Actually, cohabiting couples who marry have a 50-80% higher likelihood of divorcing that married couples who never cohabited (Demography 29 [1992]).
Most couples, married or not, expect sexual faithfulness for themselves and their partners. However, the National Sex Survey reports that live-in boyfriends are nearly four times more likely than husbands to cheat on their partners. And while women are generally more faithful, cohabiting women are eight times more likely than wives to cheat (Journal of Marriage and Family 62 [2000]).
Let’s talk money – research over the past few decades consistently finds that marriage is a wealth-building institution. Married people typically earn and save more than their cohabiting counterparts. For instance, The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6%, it jumps to 31% for children with a cohabiting mother and father. Actually, cohabiting couples act more like roommates than as a team in handling finances. This is obvious when one considers the experimental nature of cohabiting relationships.
Long before the findings of social scientists on cohabiting relationships, the Bible spoke strongly against familial relationships that were not built on mutual trust and honor. The frequent references to adultery and fornication speak volumes. The idea is to avoid illicit sexual relationships. Both in Old and New Testaments, the terms are never associated with desirable behavior. The consequences are always disastrous to all the parties involved.
The truth is, cohabitation puts adults at risk for marital failure, and puts children at risk for neglect and abuse. Interestingly, both science and the Bible agree that marriage is good and cohabitation is never a good idea.
SUGGESTED READING:
The Ring Makes All the Difference – Glenn Stanton
The Power of Commitment – Scott Stanley
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Lessons for Dad from the Kids
When invited to have breakfast with me some ten years ago, my son replied, “Me and you alone? What is there to talk about?” However, some years later, after having breakfast with him alone, he phoned his mother to report that he had just experienced the best two hours of his life.
A few weeks ago, another invitation was extended to my son – he was asked to be my associate in a team-teaching experiment for the Father’s Day service at church – to this invitation he eagerly answered in the affirmative. What made the difference ten years later? Many things, and this Father’s Day weekend affords me the opportunity to reflect on some of them. In other words, here are some lessons to a father from a son.
Much of the literature available on fathers, deal with the impact of fathers on children. One of the few resources that challenge us to hear from the children was written by Yale University researcher, Dr. Kyle Pruett. In his book Fatherneed, Pruett addresses the reciprocal benefits of father-child relationships.
Pruett contends that “research from the child’s side of the aisle shows that kids yearn deeply for dads. Infants in the first months of life can tell the differences between a mother’s and a father’s style of care. Furthermore, children thrive when they experience those different styles throughout all the developmental stages of life. Children and fathers hunger for each other early, often, and for a very long time.”
Much of this I took for granted until I read this recent birthday card from my son: “You are the only example of a godly man I’ve ever been able to follow my whole life. You’ve consistently been a source of encouragement, support, honesty and more to me and that’s something I can’t replace.”
“I still remember,” he wrote, “how you’d sneak-in to my games to support me, and though I wasn’t mature enough at the time to appreciate it, your coming meant the world to me.”
Interestingly, my son’s reflections were not based on the sermons and speeches he heard, but rather the visible acts he saw. Although frightening, it is true, our audiences remember more of who we are than what we say.
I pray that my son will continue to be aware of this as he fathers his two-year old son. Although there are areas of similarity, fathers make a different impact on children than mothers do. Studies confirm that as early as eight weeks of age, kids can anticipate the complex differences in their mother’s and father’s caretaking and handling styles.
In addressing the subject of adaptive and problem-solving abilities of children, Dr. Pruett argued that “infants who have been well fathered during the first eighteen to twenty-four months of life, are more secure than those who were not in exploring the world around them, and they do so with vigor and interest.”
That interest to explore I already see with my two-year old grandson. I believe much of it comes from the hours my son invests playing and working with him. Interestingly, in displaying his language skills, one of the first words our grandson attempted was “ball”. He is not intimidated by electronic gadgets – he handles controls just like his dad. As we attempt to child-proof our home we are having to secure many of the items his dad uses.
We often wondered though, about our grandson’s eagerness to care and participate in projects around the house. At his age, these skills would not have been overtly taught. However, researchers are now telling us that “the strongest predictor of a child’s empathic concern for others in adult life is a high level of paternal child care.”
Ross Parke, a preeminent fatherhood researcher from California, studied how a child’s physical development responds to involved fathering. “An infant’s scores on assessments of intellectual and motor, or physical competencies are higher if fathers are actively involved during the first six months of the child’s life. The father’s tendency to activate his child in their interactions encourages and supports the child’s pleasurable discovery of his own body.”
Although much of this commentary is on the father-son relationship, one should not think that that is the extent of a father’s influence. Because of space limitations and the occasion of Father’s Day, the father-son emphasis becomes obvious.
However, what is also obvious and frightening, is the great impact fathers have on their children. The apostle Paul was correct, Fathers should not exasperate their children, “instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). When viewed positively, the biblical text is acknowledging the extent of the father’s influence to encourage and empower children. What an awesome responsibility.
On this Father’s Day, it is my prayer that God would bless every man who has had the opportunity to play the role of father in another’s life.
A few weeks ago, another invitation was extended to my son – he was asked to be my associate in a team-teaching experiment for the Father’s Day service at church – to this invitation he eagerly answered in the affirmative. What made the difference ten years later? Many things, and this Father’s Day weekend affords me the opportunity to reflect on some of them. In other words, here are some lessons to a father from a son.
Much of the literature available on fathers, deal with the impact of fathers on children. One of the few resources that challenge us to hear from the children was written by Yale University researcher, Dr. Kyle Pruett. In his book Fatherneed, Pruett addresses the reciprocal benefits of father-child relationships.
Pruett contends that “research from the child’s side of the aisle shows that kids yearn deeply for dads. Infants in the first months of life can tell the differences between a mother’s and a father’s style of care. Furthermore, children thrive when they experience those different styles throughout all the developmental stages of life. Children and fathers hunger for each other early, often, and for a very long time.”
Much of this I took for granted until I read this recent birthday card from my son: “You are the only example of a godly man I’ve ever been able to follow my whole life. You’ve consistently been a source of encouragement, support, honesty and more to me and that’s something I can’t replace.”
“I still remember,” he wrote, “how you’d sneak-in to my games to support me, and though I wasn’t mature enough at the time to appreciate it, your coming meant the world to me.”
Interestingly, my son’s reflections were not based on the sermons and speeches he heard, but rather the visible acts he saw. Although frightening, it is true, our audiences remember more of who we are than what we say.
I pray that my son will continue to be aware of this as he fathers his two-year old son. Although there are areas of similarity, fathers make a different impact on children than mothers do. Studies confirm that as early as eight weeks of age, kids can anticipate the complex differences in their mother’s and father’s caretaking and handling styles.
In addressing the subject of adaptive and problem-solving abilities of children, Dr. Pruett argued that “infants who have been well fathered during the first eighteen to twenty-four months of life, are more secure than those who were not in exploring the world around them, and they do so with vigor and interest.”
That interest to explore I already see with my two-year old grandson. I believe much of it comes from the hours my son invests playing and working with him. Interestingly, in displaying his language skills, one of the first words our grandson attempted was “ball”. He is not intimidated by electronic gadgets – he handles controls just like his dad. As we attempt to child-proof our home we are having to secure many of the items his dad uses.
We often wondered though, about our grandson’s eagerness to care and participate in projects around the house. At his age, these skills would not have been overtly taught. However, researchers are now telling us that “the strongest predictor of a child’s empathic concern for others in adult life is a high level of paternal child care.”
Ross Parke, a preeminent fatherhood researcher from California, studied how a child’s physical development responds to involved fathering. “An infant’s scores on assessments of intellectual and motor, or physical competencies are higher if fathers are actively involved during the first six months of the child’s life. The father’s tendency to activate his child in their interactions encourages and supports the child’s pleasurable discovery of his own body.”
Although much of this commentary is on the father-son relationship, one should not think that that is the extent of a father’s influence. Because of space limitations and the occasion of Father’s Day, the father-son emphasis becomes obvious.
However, what is also obvious and frightening, is the great impact fathers have on their children. The apostle Paul was correct, Fathers should not exasperate their children, “instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). When viewed positively, the biblical text is acknowledging the extent of the father’s influence to encourage and empower children. What an awesome responsibility.
On this Father’s Day, it is my prayer that God would bless every man who has had the opportunity to play the role of father in another’s life.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Marriage in Crisis: Why the Silence?
In February, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Chicago about strengthening the middle class. He stated that rebuilding “the ladders of opportunity for everybody willing to climb them” does not start with the White House, the States, or the Public Schools – rebuilding “starts at home.”
“There’s no more important ingredient for success,” the President suggested, “nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families – which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”
The President is correct - there is a correlation between stable homes and stable societies. This truth is strongly supported in research done by The National Marriage Project (NMP), a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and interdisciplinary initiative located at the University of Virginia.
The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cultural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to increase marital quality and stability. In preparing this commentary, I depended heavily on NMP data.
Annual surveys continue to report that high schoolers plan to marry one day and that having a good marriage is “extremely important” to them.
At the same time, we recognize the signs of change. The rising median age of first marriage, now 27 for women and 29 for men, is linked to a rapid rise in cohabitation prior to marriage and a dramatic increase in the number of children born outside of marriage. A growing number of couples, both young and old, now live together with no plans to marry eventually.
For first marriages recently formed, between 40 and 50 percent are likely to end in divorce. The divorce rate for remarriages is higher than that for first marriages. Yet amid these familiar trends, something astonishing has happened.
In “Middle America,” defined here as the nearly 60 percent of Americans aged 25 to 60 who have a high school but not a four-year college degree, marriage is rapidly slipping away. As historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead recently wrote, “Four decades ago, these moderately educated Americans led the kind of family lives that looked much like the family lives of the more highly educated. They were just as likely to be happily married, and just as likely to be in first marriages. Today, they are significantly less likely to achieve a stable marriage, or even to form one in the first place.”
The plight of this population who once married in high proportions and formed families within marriage—and who still aspire to marriage but increasingly are unable to achieve it—is the social challenge for our times. And virtually no one is talking about it.
How dramatic is the change? As recently as the 1980s, only 13% of the children of moderately-educated mothers were born outside of marriage - by the late 2000s, that figure had risen to 44%. And earlier this year, a striking threshold was crossed. Based on a recent Child Trends analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics, a front-page story in the New York Times revealed that in the U.S. today among women under 30, more than half of births—53% - now occur outside of marriage.
As a nation we know of the benefits of marriage. We are inundated with statistics confirming that marriage sets the stage for happier, healthier and more stable living. The benefits of marriage are not only personal, they facilitate better societies. Then, “why is no one talking about it?”
Within recent years we have spent more time talking about redefining marriage rather than strengthening what we know works. We need more than the media to participate in the process of restoring rather than redefining marriage.
In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama talked about ending marriage penalties for low-income couples. Actually, there are numerous disincentives to marriage for people who receive public benefits such as food stamps and housing allowances, sending the wrong message about marriage to low-income Americans.
In addition, we need to create a waiting period for divorcing couples combined with education about the option of reconciliation; and building upon marriage and relationship skills curricula. We’ve got to be more intentional if we sincerely believe a broad and sustainable middle class begins at home.
Interestingly, long before social scientists discovered the value of marriage in society, the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes concluded, “...two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work...” (4:9).
(I deeply regret my long absence from this weekly commentary. Thanks so much for your patience and expressions of concern.)
“There’s no more important ingredient for success,” the President suggested, “nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families – which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”
The President is correct - there is a correlation between stable homes and stable societies. This truth is strongly supported in research done by The National Marriage Project (NMP), a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and interdisciplinary initiative located at the University of Virginia.
The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cultural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to increase marital quality and stability. In preparing this commentary, I depended heavily on NMP data.
Annual surveys continue to report that high schoolers plan to marry one day and that having a good marriage is “extremely important” to them.
At the same time, we recognize the signs of change. The rising median age of first marriage, now 27 for women and 29 for men, is linked to a rapid rise in cohabitation prior to marriage and a dramatic increase in the number of children born outside of marriage. A growing number of couples, both young and old, now live together with no plans to marry eventually.
For first marriages recently formed, between 40 and 50 percent are likely to end in divorce. The divorce rate for remarriages is higher than that for first marriages. Yet amid these familiar trends, something astonishing has happened.
In “Middle America,” defined here as the nearly 60 percent of Americans aged 25 to 60 who have a high school but not a four-year college degree, marriage is rapidly slipping away. As historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead recently wrote, “Four decades ago, these moderately educated Americans led the kind of family lives that looked much like the family lives of the more highly educated. They were just as likely to be happily married, and just as likely to be in first marriages. Today, they are significantly less likely to achieve a stable marriage, or even to form one in the first place.”
The plight of this population who once married in high proportions and formed families within marriage—and who still aspire to marriage but increasingly are unable to achieve it—is the social challenge for our times. And virtually no one is talking about it.
How dramatic is the change? As recently as the 1980s, only 13% of the children of moderately-educated mothers were born outside of marriage - by the late 2000s, that figure had risen to 44%. And earlier this year, a striking threshold was crossed. Based on a recent Child Trends analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics, a front-page story in the New York Times revealed that in the U.S. today among women under 30, more than half of births—53% - now occur outside of marriage.
As a nation we know of the benefits of marriage. We are inundated with statistics confirming that marriage sets the stage for happier, healthier and more stable living. The benefits of marriage are not only personal, they facilitate better societies. Then, “why is no one talking about it?”
Within recent years we have spent more time talking about redefining marriage rather than strengthening what we know works. We need more than the media to participate in the process of restoring rather than redefining marriage.
In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama talked about ending marriage penalties for low-income couples. Actually, there are numerous disincentives to marriage for people who receive public benefits such as food stamps and housing allowances, sending the wrong message about marriage to low-income Americans.
In addition, we need to create a waiting period for divorcing couples combined with education about the option of reconciliation; and building upon marriage and relationship skills curricula. We’ve got to be more intentional if we sincerely believe a broad and sustainable middle class begins at home.
Interestingly, long before social scientists discovered the value of marriage in society, the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes concluded, “...two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work...” (4:9).
(I deeply regret my long absence from this weekly commentary. Thanks so much for your patience and expressions of concern.)
Monday, April 29, 2013
The Queen James Version of the Bible
People are entitled to their own lifestyle choices. However, when they attempt to justify those choices by recklessly appealing to the Bible for affirmation, that’s another matter. That is exactly what has happened with the Queen James Version of the Bible – dubbed The Gay Bible.
According to the editors, The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality – “we edited eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.” The editing was based on the 1769 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
According to the anonymous editors, the crux of the argument is that homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. The editors contend that “there is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to 1946, only interpretations have been made.”
According to my former professor Dr. Douglas Moo, “while it is true that the word homosexual did not appear in the Bible translations until recent times, there is a good reason for that – the word did not exist in the English language until 1890.” Moo further argues, “That that does not, however mean, that the subject was not broached in earlier translations – the history of English translation shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships.”
The truth is, The Gay Bible lacks intellectual credibility. The very name of the text, The Queen James Version is based on dubious history. The editors assert that King James I was a well-known bisexual. They believe that “although the king did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as ‘Queen James’. It is in his great debt and honor that we name our translation The Queen James Version.”
Among historians, the sexuality of King James I is a matter of dispute. The authors of Early Modern England, 1458-1714, assert that the issue is murky. However, in order to satisfy their bias, the editors of The Gay Bible show little interest in historical accuracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were confirmed that King James I was bisexual, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the text.
That disregard for accuracy is reflected in each of the eight citations in The Gay Bible. Because of the limits of this column, I will examine one of the eight passage that was changed – 1 Corinthians 6:9.
KING JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
QUEEN JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous.
The Greek word that The Gay Bible translates as “morally weak” is a combination of two Greek words. The first word (arsen) means a male. The second word (koite) means a bed. The combined Greek word is describing “a man who lies in bed with another male” – that is a contemporary description of homosexuality.
The editors of The Gay Bible contend that “Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in the text before us. We changed the phrase ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ to ‘promiscuous’ as one who is promiscuous risks their own health and that of others, sexually and otherwise, as they disrespect their God-given body.”
Linguistically and historically that is utter crap. In nearly every classical and Septuagintal use of the word, the masculine gender is in focus. Actually, the Greek word used in the text (arsenokoites) expresses active homosexuality. A related term (malakos) connotes effeminate behavior or passive homosexuality, in which a man allows others to exploit him sexually. Both Greek words are used in the text under review.
Interestingly, the editors of The Gay Bible have chosen to remain anonymous. That decision to remain anonymous is both deceitful and unscholarly. Their work cannot be called a translation – it borders on blasphemy, in that it attempts to attribute to God a perspective that is dishonorable and ungodly. The prophet Isaiah was correct when he said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil...” (Isaiah 5:20).
According to the editors, The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality – “we edited eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.” The editing was based on the 1769 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
According to the anonymous editors, the crux of the argument is that homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. The editors contend that “there is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to 1946, only interpretations have been made.”
According to my former professor Dr. Douglas Moo, “while it is true that the word homosexual did not appear in the Bible translations until recent times, there is a good reason for that – the word did not exist in the English language until 1890.” Moo further argues, “That that does not, however mean, that the subject was not broached in earlier translations – the history of English translation shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships.”
The truth is, The Gay Bible lacks intellectual credibility. The very name of the text, The Queen James Version is based on dubious history. The editors assert that King James I was a well-known bisexual. They believe that “although the king did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as ‘Queen James’. It is in his great debt and honor that we name our translation The Queen James Version.”
Among historians, the sexuality of King James I is a matter of dispute. The authors of Early Modern England, 1458-1714, assert that the issue is murky. However, in order to satisfy their bias, the editors of The Gay Bible show little interest in historical accuracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were confirmed that King James I was bisexual, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the text.
That disregard for accuracy is reflected in each of the eight citations in The Gay Bible. Because of the limits of this column, I will examine one of the eight passage that was changed – 1 Corinthians 6:9.
KING JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
QUEEN JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous.
The Greek word that The Gay Bible translates as “morally weak” is a combination of two Greek words. The first word (arsen) means a male. The second word (koite) means a bed. The combined Greek word is describing “a man who lies in bed with another male” – that is a contemporary description of homosexuality.
The editors of The Gay Bible contend that “Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in the text before us. We changed the phrase ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ to ‘promiscuous’ as one who is promiscuous risks their own health and that of others, sexually and otherwise, as they disrespect their God-given body.”
Linguistically and historically that is utter crap. In nearly every classical and Septuagintal use of the word, the masculine gender is in focus. Actually, the Greek word used in the text (arsenokoites) expresses active homosexuality. A related term (malakos) connotes effeminate behavior or passive homosexuality, in which a man allows others to exploit him sexually. Both Greek words are used in the text under review.
Interestingly, the editors of The Gay Bible have chosen to remain anonymous. That decision to remain anonymous is both deceitful and unscholarly. Their work cannot be called a translation – it borders on blasphemy, in that it attempts to attribute to God a perspective that is dishonorable and ungodly. The prophet Isaiah was correct when he said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil...” (Isaiah 5:20).