Marilyn Garcia worked two jobs. She did not even have enough money to buy a Christmas tree. She agreed to buy at least the Hello Kitty car for her four-year-old granddaughter. She paid down on the car and placed it in a layaway plan at a Walmart store in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. On the deadline date for the final payment, she called the store to request an extension.
Upon receiving her call, a Walmart employee told Marilyn that no extension was necessary – “you could pick up your granddaughter’s present – it was all paid for in full.” Marilyn is one of hundreds of customers on layaway plans whose balances were paid off by persons who chose to remain anonymous.
According to a CNN report, an unknown male customer paid $50,000.00 to cover some 100 layaway accounts at that Walmart store. At another Walmart store in Lake City, Florida, an anonymous customer gave $59,000.00 to cover about 300 accounts. Still at another Walmart store in Chiefland, Florida a customer donated $51,000.00.
Layaway customers at Toys ‘R’ Us stores also benefitted from the Christmas generosity. Last year, some 600 customers benefitted. So far this year, at their store in Bellingham, Massachusetts, an anonymous woman paid $20,000.00 for every layaway item. She reportedly told the store manager on her way out of the store, “If you have it, give it...” Her contribution was able to clear 275 layaway accounts.
Recently I learned that there is even a non-profit organization that is devoted to helping people in need to buy their holiday gifts. Pay Away the Layaway was created in 2011 to assist families that may be unable to afford to complete payment on their layaway plans - donors are referred to as “layaway angels”.
Lee Karchawer, a 30-year old marketing professional from New York City, began soliciting donations through the website he founded, payawaythelayaway.org. The average donation he gets is $25. The first year he raised $2,000 from 75 people. Last year he raised $5,000 from 135, and this year he hopes to receive $8,000.
For Dave Wilson, 65, who went from living on a poor farm in Iowa to owning 17 car dealerships in Orange County, Calif., it's a way to give back. Every December, he gives his wife Holly, a Kmart receipt for her birthday. On it are listed hundreds of transactions, all the layaway account balances he's paid off at his local store. In 2011, it was 260 accounts to the tune of nearly $16,000. In 2012, it was more than 320 accounts at $18,000. This year’s figures are still to be calculated.
Wal-Mart said it has tracked more than 1,000 instances so far this season of strangers paying down others' layaway accounts. Kmart said strangers have paid more than $1.5 million in other's layaway contracts over the years.
One of the interesting features in all of the cases with layaway angels is that the donors have chosen to remain anonymous. They get no promotional mileage, nor tax benefits from their generosity. Other than helping someone who may need help, these donors know nothing more about the recipients.
This practice of giving purely for altruistic purposes benefits more than the recipients. Among other things, the practice fosters altruism in the wider society. The increasing cases of layaway angels this Christmas would seem to confirm this view.
In what Christians refer to as The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said to those listening, “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:3-4).
In essence, our giving must never be the grim and self-righteous outcome of a sense of duty, still less must it be done to enhance our own glory and prestige among men – it must be the instinctive outflow of a loving heart. We must give to others just as Jesus gave Himself to us.
Earlier in the Matthew passage, Jesus taught that when one gives, it should not be done as when hypocrites give – they give to be seen and to be acknowledged. Interestingly, the English word hypocrite comes from a Greek word which means actor – one who is playing a part.
One of the things Jesus is also saying about giving in secret, is that what is secret to us, is not a secret to God, who knows all things. “This God,” Jesus contends, “will reward appropriately.”
The joy Walmart customers displayed when their bills were paid, pales, when compared with the joy authentic layaway angels will display after the God who knows all secrets, rewards them openly.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Monday, December 22, 2014
CHRISTMAS ROOTS!
The television mini-series ROOTS, which first aired in January 1977, was the most-watched TV show in US history. More than 36 million households or 51.1% watched it, giving it a Nielsen share of 71%. The movie was the dramatization of Alex Haley’s novel, Roots: The Saga of an American Family.
The release of the novel, combined with its hugely popular television adaptation, led to a cultural sensation in the United States. Because of Alex Haley’s work, an amazing interest in ancestral studies developed. Numerous books and movies received an overwhelming response from global enthusiasts, eager to learn of their ancestry or genealogy.
The interest in genealogy did not begin with Alex Haley. That interest has been within human societies for thousands of years. Whereas for many of us in the West, ancestral studies is a fad, the same cannot be said of persons in the Middle East.
In the Middle East, one’s rank in the community was often determined by one’s ancestral history. That became obvious when Jesus was challenged by some from His community. They had just heard Jesus contend that He was the fulfillment of an Isaiah 61 prophecy. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. In other words, does his ancestral rank give him this authority (Luke 4:20-22)?
Both Matthew and Luke were very much aware of this cultural requirement of anyone claiming to speak with authority. Therefore, in seeking to establish that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the promised Messiah, it was necessary to trace the ancestral roots of Jesus. Both Gospel writers chose to establish the ancestral roots of Jesus very early in their presentations. Although there are noticeable differences in their approach, they were both fully aware of the significance of establishing credible ancestry.
These genealogies of Jesus serve as a grounding force in the narrative that roots the text into an historical context. Interestingly, one of the main differences between the mythological stories of the Greeks and Romans over against the Bible is that the Greek myths include fantastical creatures such as Centaurs, Cyclops, sphinxes, and the like.
Biblical stories do not include any of these fictional characters, but rather seek to tell what actually happened. Genealogies establish human links and are rooted in reality. When you read through and grapple with the names and lineages of the genealogies of the Jewish people and of Jesus, you come away with the sensation that you are reading through a family tree, and you are struck with the fact that these were real people.
Genealogies in the Bible indicate to the reader that family identity and lineage is of utmost importance within the cultural milieu of Scripture. In providing the genealogy of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke were careful to provide credibility to their stories – credibility that was rooted in history and lineage. Those are the contexts in which they tell the story of the birth of Jesus.
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. History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation.
In his opening verses, Luke established that he complied with rules of historical analysis. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refered to the sources that were at his disposal and declared that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
Furthermore, the birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other claim of virgin birth, no claim preceded the birth of the child. Claims were often made by supporters, after the birth and in an attempt to exalt the child born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction: “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). He reinforced this conviction by providing a genealogy that placed Jesus in an ancestral setting, consistent with community requirements and the expectations of the prophets.
It is the birth of that Jesus, I am celebrating this Christmas – not some mythological figure. Rather, one of whom Matthew said, “Mary will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That Savior is the reason for the season of Christmas.
The release of the novel, combined with its hugely popular television adaptation, led to a cultural sensation in the United States. Because of Alex Haley’s work, an amazing interest in ancestral studies developed. Numerous books and movies received an overwhelming response from global enthusiasts, eager to learn of their ancestry or genealogy.
The interest in genealogy did not begin with Alex Haley. That interest has been within human societies for thousands of years. Whereas for many of us in the West, ancestral studies is a fad, the same cannot be said of persons in the Middle East.
In the Middle East, one’s rank in the community was often determined by one’s ancestral history. That became obvious when Jesus was challenged by some from His community. They had just heard Jesus contend that He was the fulfillment of an Isaiah 61 prophecy. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. In other words, does his ancestral rank give him this authority (Luke 4:20-22)?
Both Matthew and Luke were very much aware of this cultural requirement of anyone claiming to speak with authority. Therefore, in seeking to establish that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the promised Messiah, it was necessary to trace the ancestral roots of Jesus. Both Gospel writers chose to establish the ancestral roots of Jesus very early in their presentations. Although there are noticeable differences in their approach, they were both fully aware of the significance of establishing credible ancestry.
These genealogies of Jesus serve as a grounding force in the narrative that roots the text into an historical context. Interestingly, one of the main differences between the mythological stories of the Greeks and Romans over against the Bible is that the Greek myths include fantastical creatures such as Centaurs, Cyclops, sphinxes, and the like.
Biblical stories do not include any of these fictional characters, but rather seek to tell what actually happened. Genealogies establish human links and are rooted in reality. When you read through and grapple with the names and lineages of the genealogies of the Jewish people and of Jesus, you come away with the sensation that you are reading through a family tree, and you are struck with the fact that these were real people.
Genealogies in the Bible indicate to the reader that family identity and lineage is of utmost importance within the cultural milieu of Scripture. In providing the genealogy of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke were careful to provide credibility to their stories – credibility that was rooted in history and lineage. Those are the contexts in which they tell the story of the birth of Jesus.
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. History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation.
In his opening verses, Luke established that he complied with rules of historical analysis. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refered to the sources that were at his disposal and declared that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
Furthermore, the birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other claim of virgin birth, no claim preceded the birth of the child. Claims were often made by supporters, after the birth and in an attempt to exalt the child born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction: “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). He reinforced this conviction by providing a genealogy that placed Jesus in an ancestral setting, consistent with community requirements and the expectations of the prophets.
It is the birth of that Jesus, I am celebrating this Christmas – not some mythological figure. Rather, one of whom Matthew said, “Mary will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That Savior is the reason for the season of Christmas.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Is Christmas Christian?
Jesus never celebrated Christmas – neither did any of His disciples. Actually, for more than 300 years after the birth of Jesus, no one celebrated Christmas. The few birthday ceremonies we have recorded in the Bible were celebrated in non-Jewish communities.
Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.
The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.
Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.
In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.
Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.
By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”
As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.
At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.
Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia.
Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.
In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.
Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!
In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.
For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.
Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.
The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.
Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.
In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.
Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.
By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”
As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.
At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.
Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia.
Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.
In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.
Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!
In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.
For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Ouija for Christmas?
According to Google, sales of Ouija boards are up 300%. At this rate, Google, the internet sales giant contends that sales are threatening to become a Christmas “must buy”. Ouija boards interests have spiked since the new horror film, Ouija. The film tells the story of kids looking for something scary during the Halloween season.
Ticket sales would seem to suggest that kids loved the movie. Ouija benefited from audiences looking to get into the Halloween spirit by topping charts with $20 million from 2,858 locations. The film cost less than $5 million to produce, allowing Universal Pictures to realize enviable profit margins.
Actually, the Ouija board is just a piece of compressed wood, sold at virtually all toy stores and occult supply and book stores. Ouija is a combination of two words: "oui" and "ja" which mean "yes" in French and German respectively. The board itself is not dangerous but the form of communication that you are attempting often is.
To some, the Ouija board represents a harmless form of enjoyment, “a pretend-scary rite of passage” for teenagers in search of thrills on a stormy night. The board has been used by thousands for spirit
communication and is very similar to automatic writing - an alleged psychic ability allowing a person to produce written words without consciously writing. The words are claimed to arise from a subconscious, spiritual or supernatural source.
Playing with the Ouija board is often linked with playing séances – attempts to communicate with spirits. As a safety precaution, some researchers advise that the board be used in the presence of a psychic, medium or clairvoyant.
Like me, by now you might be asking, if this game is so harmless, why is it desirable to have psychics present when the game is being played? Or, what is so funny about contacting ghosts and spirits? Some scholars believe the Ouija must be avoided in that it is a trigger for psychological harm.
Dr. Carl Wickland, an American psychiatrist, wrote his classic work on mental illness, Thirty Years Among the Dead in 1924, within which he warns:
In his book, One Ultimate Reality, Adrian Cooper makes the point that “the only solution to such a serious situation involving inter-dimensional forces would be an exorcism carried out by a highly experienced practitioner. The most sensible solution therefore is to resist any such temptations completely, leaving the Ouija board and similar instruments such as a tumbler with playing cards and automatic writing very well alone for your own safety and for the safety of those around you.”
By now it is very obvious that the Ouija board is not the kind of game I would want to give to any of my grandchildren – or to anyone as a matter of fact. Why would I want to expose anyone to the occult? This is no “pretend scary rite of passage”. This is witchcraft – Webster's dictionary defines witchcraft as the act or instance of employing sorcery, especially with malevolent intent - a magical rite or technique.
Both the Old and New Testaments strongly condemn witchcraft and all forms of communication with unknown spirits. The instructions were clear to the Jews as they were preparing for the Promised Land: “Let no one be found among you who...engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritists or who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
Among Paul’s list of “the sinful nature” is “idolatry and witchcraft”. He concludes his list with a stern warning – “...that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21).
The use of Ouija boards is psychologically and spiritually harmful. It is not a game – rather, it is a subtle introduction to the occult – and that is not harmless, funny or merely scary.
Ticket sales would seem to suggest that kids loved the movie. Ouija benefited from audiences looking to get into the Halloween spirit by topping charts with $20 million from 2,858 locations. The film cost less than $5 million to produce, allowing Universal Pictures to realize enviable profit margins.
Actually, the Ouija board is just a piece of compressed wood, sold at virtually all toy stores and occult supply and book stores. Ouija is a combination of two words: "oui" and "ja" which mean "yes" in French and German respectively. The board itself is not dangerous but the form of communication that you are attempting often is.
To some, the Ouija board represents a harmless form of enjoyment, “a pretend-scary rite of passage” for teenagers in search of thrills on a stormy night. The board has been used by thousands for spirit
communication and is very similar to automatic writing - an alleged psychic ability allowing a person to produce written words without consciously writing. The words are claimed to arise from a subconscious, spiritual or supernatural source.
Playing with the Ouija board is often linked with playing séances – attempts to communicate with spirits. As a safety precaution, some researchers advise that the board be used in the presence of a psychic, medium or clairvoyant.
Like me, by now you might be asking, if this game is so harmless, why is it desirable to have psychics present when the game is being played? Or, what is so funny about contacting ghosts and spirits? Some scholars believe the Ouija must be avoided in that it is a trigger for psychological harm.
Dr. Carl Wickland, an American psychiatrist, wrote his classic work on mental illness, Thirty Years Among the Dead in 1924, within which he warns:
The serious problem of alienation and mental derangement attending ignorant psychic experiments was first brought to my attention by cases of several persons whose seemingly harmless activities with automatic writing and the Ouija board resulted in such wild insanity that commitment to asylums was necessitated. Many other disastrous results which followed the use of the supposedly innocent Ouija board came to my notice, and my observations led me into research in psychic phenomena for a possible explanation of these strange occurrences”.
In his book, One Ultimate Reality, Adrian Cooper makes the point that “the only solution to such a serious situation involving inter-dimensional forces would be an exorcism carried out by a highly experienced practitioner. The most sensible solution therefore is to resist any such temptations completely, leaving the Ouija board and similar instruments such as a tumbler with playing cards and automatic writing very well alone for your own safety and for the safety of those around you.”
By now it is very obvious that the Ouija board is not the kind of game I would want to give to any of my grandchildren – or to anyone as a matter of fact. Why would I want to expose anyone to the occult? This is no “pretend scary rite of passage”. This is witchcraft – Webster's dictionary defines witchcraft as the act or instance of employing sorcery, especially with malevolent intent - a magical rite or technique.
Both the Old and New Testaments strongly condemn witchcraft and all forms of communication with unknown spirits. The instructions were clear to the Jews as they were preparing for the Promised Land: “Let no one be found among you who...engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritists or who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
Among Paul’s list of “the sinful nature” is “idolatry and witchcraft”. He concludes his list with a stern warning – “...that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21).
The use of Ouija boards is psychologically and spiritually harmful. It is not a game – rather, it is a subtle introduction to the occult – and that is not harmless, funny or merely scary.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
A Season of Giving
In America, charitable giving increases during the months of November and December. It is believed that many charities receive as much as half of their annual donations during that period.
According to Giving USA’s annual survey of philanthropy, Americans gave more than $321 billion to charity in 2012. That amount increased to more than $335 billion in 2013, an increase of 22% since the official end of the recession in 2009.
The single largest contributor to the increase in total charitable giving in 2013, over 2012, was an increase of almost $10 billion in giving by individuals. Much of this money was given by families and estates. Although giving by foundations increased, giving by corporations declined slightly in 2013.
According to Atlantic Monthly reports, “one of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans (those with earnings in the top 20%) contributed on average 1.3% of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid (those in the bottom 20%) donated 3.2% of their income.”
One wonders, to whom is all of this money given? Analysts contend that the poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to give to colleges and universities and museums. Of the fifty largest individual gifts to public charities in 2011, not a single one of them went to a social-service organization, or to a charity that principally serves the poor and dispossessed.
Such analyses lead one to ask questions like, what are some of the motivating factors that encourage people to give to charities and non-profit organizations? Because of the time of year most giving is done, it would seem safe to conclude that much giving is driven by tax incentives, and not the spirit of joy that captivates the season.
From her perspective, Dr. Una Osili, Director of Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, “giving to education, health, and environmental and animal welfare organizations, in particular, have shown robust giving patterns in recent years.”
However, when compared with other countries, America’s giving is not that robust. According to the World Giving Index 2013, America was ranked thirteenth, with 62% of Americans reporting that they made a financial donation in the previous month. In the first place internationally is Myanmar, where 85% of its people made donations in the previous month. The United Kingdom was second with 76%.
According to Ted Hart, Chief Executive with Charities Aid Foundation, “what makes a society charitable is how we care for each other, not just the measure of how much money we give away.” Ted Hart is on to something interesting – charity is more than cash.
Jesus taught this to His disciples as they watched a crowd putting money into the temple treasury. According to the text, “many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.”
Jesus brought this act of giving to the attention of His disciples. He said to them - “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything – all she had to live on” (Mark 12:41-44).
Jesus was not measuring the amount of money given, but rather the woman’s attitude to giving. Although she gave the smallest coins in circulation in Palestine, Jesus concluded that she “put more into the treasury...” But how could she have given more even though she gave less? It is because her giving was tantamount to sacrifice and not surplus. What mattered more to Jesus was not the amount that was given as much as the cost of the gift to the giver.
Another truth about sacrificial giving is that it is reckless – the widow in this story gave everything. Her understanding of sacrifice was not based on how much she kept, but rather, on how much she gave. Unlike so many in today’s culture, she was not driven by end-of-year tax incentives.
Another appropriate lesson for us at this time of year is the amount she gave. Had she been looking at the big donors, she would have been intimidated and would probably have decided against giving. She refused to allow the culture of superfluity to suffocate her knowledge of sacrifice.
Such an attitude is a big challenge to all of us during this season of giving. Let us be guided by sacrifice and not surplus and tax incentives.
According to Giving USA’s annual survey of philanthropy, Americans gave more than $321 billion to charity in 2012. That amount increased to more than $335 billion in 2013, an increase of 22% since the official end of the recession in 2009.
The single largest contributor to the increase in total charitable giving in 2013, over 2012, was an increase of almost $10 billion in giving by individuals. Much of this money was given by families and estates. Although giving by foundations increased, giving by corporations declined slightly in 2013.
According to Atlantic Monthly reports, “one of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans (those with earnings in the top 20%) contributed on average 1.3% of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid (those in the bottom 20%) donated 3.2% of their income.”
One wonders, to whom is all of this money given? Analysts contend that the poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to give to colleges and universities and museums. Of the fifty largest individual gifts to public charities in 2011, not a single one of them went to a social-service organization, or to a charity that principally serves the poor and dispossessed.
Such analyses lead one to ask questions like, what are some of the motivating factors that encourage people to give to charities and non-profit organizations? Because of the time of year most giving is done, it would seem safe to conclude that much giving is driven by tax incentives, and not the spirit of joy that captivates the season.
From her perspective, Dr. Una Osili, Director of Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, “giving to education, health, and environmental and animal welfare organizations, in particular, have shown robust giving patterns in recent years.”
However, when compared with other countries, America’s giving is not that robust. According to the World Giving Index 2013, America was ranked thirteenth, with 62% of Americans reporting that they made a financial donation in the previous month. In the first place internationally is Myanmar, where 85% of its people made donations in the previous month. The United Kingdom was second with 76%.
According to Ted Hart, Chief Executive with Charities Aid Foundation, “what makes a society charitable is how we care for each other, not just the measure of how much money we give away.” Ted Hart is on to something interesting – charity is more than cash.
Jesus taught this to His disciples as they watched a crowd putting money into the temple treasury. According to the text, “many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.”
Jesus brought this act of giving to the attention of His disciples. He said to them - “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything – all she had to live on” (Mark 12:41-44).
Jesus was not measuring the amount of money given, but rather the woman’s attitude to giving. Although she gave the smallest coins in circulation in Palestine, Jesus concluded that she “put more into the treasury...” But how could she have given more even though she gave less? It is because her giving was tantamount to sacrifice and not surplus. What mattered more to Jesus was not the amount that was given as much as the cost of the gift to the giver.
Another truth about sacrificial giving is that it is reckless – the widow in this story gave everything. Her understanding of sacrifice was not based on how much she kept, but rather, on how much she gave. Unlike so many in today’s culture, she was not driven by end-of-year tax incentives.
Another appropriate lesson for us at this time of year is the amount she gave. Had she been looking at the big donors, she would have been intimidated and would probably have decided against giving. She refused to allow the culture of superfluity to suffocate her knowledge of sacrifice.
Such an attitude is a big challenge to all of us during this season of giving. Let us be guided by sacrifice and not surplus and tax incentives.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Flames in Ferguson
Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson is both a police officer and a symbol. As a police officer, he was taken before a St. Louis County grand jury for the death of Michael Brown. After several days of deliberation, the twelve-panel jury saw no grounds for indicting the officer for the shooting death of Michael Brown.
Brown was shot to death by the police officer following a confrontation with the officer. From information released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Brown was at fault in that he accosted a uniformed police officer in a marked police car. The police officer contended that “he feared for his life, that he had never before seen such aggression directed towards a police officer.”
As a police officer, Darren Wilson was set free. He was not freed because he was white. He was freed because as a police officer he was within his rights to defend a personal threat and a threat to his authority as a law enforcement officer.
However, as a representative of a system of power, he is still being tried. This time the trial is taking place on the streets of Ferguson. Opportunists, angered by a system that targets minorities and uses excessive force to subdue them, have resorted to violent protests.
In order to understand this tragedy, many persons must be blamed. Many in the media must be blamed for the use of inflammatory language, totally unrelated to the facts of the Michael Brown case. For example, to describe the victim as “an unarmed, black eighteen-year-old,” or as “a gentle giant” is to suggest to the reader that an innocent and gentle teen was overpowered by “a white armed police officer.” Such descriptions appeal to the emotions and are not intended to provoke thoughtful analysis of what actually happened.
Some of the local and federal politicians must also share blame for the flames in Ferguson. Rather than use the occasion to foster healthy dialog and defuse tension, politicians chose to encourage peaceful protests. Many knew that peaceful protests would not be possible. Then why did the politicians not encourage more civil discourse? Why did the politicians not assure the people of Ferguson that the judicial system was designed to bring about a just result?
Why were people not reminded that many changes in a civil society begin at the ballot box? When people choose not to vote, they should not blame others for their negligence. Elected officials appoint persons who they believe are suitable to serve. When we elect officials of our choice, we are more likely to see civil servants reflecting our choices.
For instance, 70% of the residents in Ferguson are black. However, in 2013, less than 12% of blacks, eligible to vote, actually cast a ballot. The result, Ferguson's black majority is minimally represented in its government. Ferguson black residents need to reshape their city’s electoral landscape – legally, that takes place at the ballot box and not through violence on the streets.
In a recent Early Voting appeal in Ferguson, citizens were reminded that five of its six city council members and 94% of its police force were white. The appeal went on to say “...if we want a better, safer future for our children, it’s up to us to vote for change. The choices may not always be perfect, but the cost of inaction is simply too great.”
In the absence of responsible citizenship, the Justice Department has begun a federal probe into whether police officers in Ferguson have used racial profiling or overly aggressive force. The Civil Rights Division is also investigating whether Officer Wilson violated Michael Brown’s civil rights.
Whatever the political outcome, the parents of Michael Brown will continue to carry the pain of losing their son prematurely. As expected, they were disappointed with the outcome. Very maturely, they appealed to protesters to channel their frustration in ways that will make positive change.
They further appealed to everyone to “join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera. We respectfully ask that you please keep your protests peaceful. Answering violence with violence is not the appropriate reaction. Let’s not just make noise, let’s make a difference.”
The Browns are echoing a Christian theme – we should make every effort to live at peace with everyone. In his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:18-21).
I wish for you and everyone in Ferguson, a blessed thanksgiving. Upon arrival to the United States, the first four thanksgiving celebrations my family and I observed were in St. Louis, Missouri. Despite the gloom, I am confident that there are still more good things for which we can be thankful.
Brown was shot to death by the police officer following a confrontation with the officer. From information released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Brown was at fault in that he accosted a uniformed police officer in a marked police car. The police officer contended that “he feared for his life, that he had never before seen such aggression directed towards a police officer.”
As a police officer, Darren Wilson was set free. He was not freed because he was white. He was freed because as a police officer he was within his rights to defend a personal threat and a threat to his authority as a law enforcement officer.
However, as a representative of a system of power, he is still being tried. This time the trial is taking place on the streets of Ferguson. Opportunists, angered by a system that targets minorities and uses excessive force to subdue them, have resorted to violent protests.
In order to understand this tragedy, many persons must be blamed. Many in the media must be blamed for the use of inflammatory language, totally unrelated to the facts of the Michael Brown case. For example, to describe the victim as “an unarmed, black eighteen-year-old,” or as “a gentle giant” is to suggest to the reader that an innocent and gentle teen was overpowered by “a white armed police officer.” Such descriptions appeal to the emotions and are not intended to provoke thoughtful analysis of what actually happened.
Some of the local and federal politicians must also share blame for the flames in Ferguson. Rather than use the occasion to foster healthy dialog and defuse tension, politicians chose to encourage peaceful protests. Many knew that peaceful protests would not be possible. Then why did the politicians not encourage more civil discourse? Why did the politicians not assure the people of Ferguson that the judicial system was designed to bring about a just result?
Why were people not reminded that many changes in a civil society begin at the ballot box? When people choose not to vote, they should not blame others for their negligence. Elected officials appoint persons who they believe are suitable to serve. When we elect officials of our choice, we are more likely to see civil servants reflecting our choices.
For instance, 70% of the residents in Ferguson are black. However, in 2013, less than 12% of blacks, eligible to vote, actually cast a ballot. The result, Ferguson's black majority is minimally represented in its government. Ferguson black residents need to reshape their city’s electoral landscape – legally, that takes place at the ballot box and not through violence on the streets.
In a recent Early Voting appeal in Ferguson, citizens were reminded that five of its six city council members and 94% of its police force were white. The appeal went on to say “...if we want a better, safer future for our children, it’s up to us to vote for change. The choices may not always be perfect, but the cost of inaction is simply too great.”
In the absence of responsible citizenship, the Justice Department has begun a federal probe into whether police officers in Ferguson have used racial profiling or overly aggressive force. The Civil Rights Division is also investigating whether Officer Wilson violated Michael Brown’s civil rights.
Whatever the political outcome, the parents of Michael Brown will continue to carry the pain of losing their son prematurely. As expected, they were disappointed with the outcome. Very maturely, they appealed to protesters to channel their frustration in ways that will make positive change.
They further appealed to everyone to “join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera. We respectfully ask that you please keep your protests peaceful. Answering violence with violence is not the appropriate reaction. Let’s not just make noise, let’s make a difference.”
The Browns are echoing a Christian theme – we should make every effort to live at peace with everyone. In his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:18-21).
I wish for you and everyone in Ferguson, a blessed thanksgiving. Upon arrival to the United States, the first four thanksgiving celebrations my family and I observed were in St. Louis, Missouri. Despite the gloom, I am confident that there are still more good things for which we can be thankful.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Fair & Free From Fear
The 2014 midterm elections have gone – however, not the memories. This was my first time voting since my recent status as a citizen. As a novice to the process, I have very much for which to be thankful.
For days I prayed that the elections would be fair and free from fear. From all appearances, it would seem as though my prayer was answered. In my community it was a quiet day – I discovered many persons had opted for early voting. I was among the 43% of Floridians who voted.
Nationally, voter turnout in the elections was terrible. Imagine, only 36.3% of eligible voters cast votes. The New York Times reported that this election was the worst turnout in 72 years. Only the 1942 election (33.9%) had a lower rate of voter turnout. Voter turnout is usually measured as a proportion of registered voters rather than of those eligible to vote — and census numbers show that more than 70 million Americans of voting age are not registered voters.
With a voter turnout of less than 36%, one questions the moral basis for the claim that the winners got a clear mandate to rule. Interestingly, if the Constitution required a simple majority for election results to be valid, many elections in America would be cancelled for the lack of a quorum.
In addition, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group whose job is to track political spending, estimated that candidates, parties, committees, outside groups and donors spent at least $3.67 billion on the 2014 midterm elections, some $40 million more than what was spent in 2010.
Pollsters contend that most persons did not vote because they “just couldn’t be bothered”. Say what? Do you know how many countries would love to have an opportunity to vote in elections that are free from fear? Even many persons within developed countries wish they had an electoral system like the United States. For instance, whereas the US Constitution has established limits and specific times for elections, many countries within the Westminster Model face sudden elections, with the timing often favoring the ruling government.
Apart from having one of the best electoral systems in the world, I am especially grateful for the recent midterm elections for a number of reasons. One was the sheer demeanor displayed by congressional candidate Dan Bongino. He lost to Democrat John Delaney.
In his concession speech, Bongino revealed that his wife had been experiencing health issues, which had forced him to limit campaign appearances. Upon learning of her illness, Bongino’s opponent, responded with a handwritten letter “expressing his heartfelt concerns for my wife and my family, given the circumstances we were dealing with.” Bongino graciously admitted, “I never forgot that, it reminded me that although our wonderful country is currently marked by passionate political differences, these differences should never become personal.”
Yes, that happened in America, and I wished it got more press. I could also say the same about Mia Love from Utah. For years I have followed this 37-year old political leader. On her second attempt she won her seat to represent her district – she is the first black female Republican in Congress.
In response to a journalist who attempted to credit her gender and ethnicity for her success, Mia Love responded, “This is historic but it’s not because of the color of my skin - it’s historic because Utah has decided to elect a person based on their principles.” She represents a district with fewer than 2% of black voters.
Both in the case of Mia Love and Tim Scott, it would seem as though an increasing number of Americans are prepared to vote for character rather than color. Scott is the first black lawmaker elected to both chambers of Congress. He represents South Carolina, a state with just about 28% black citizens.
Another interesting record was broken in Iowa. Joni Ernst’s win makes her the first female combat veteran to get elected to the Senate and the first woman in Congress from that state. Another first among women, was Elise Stefanik, 30, who when elected, became the youngest female member of Congress.
In addition, 37-year-old Arkansas GOP Rep. Tom Cotton winning a Senate seat makes him the youngest member of the upper chamber. Although she will not be in Washington, Saira Blair, just eighteen, won the election for West Virginia’s 59th House District. Still a freshman at West Virginia University, Saira became the youngest state lawmaker in the nation after sweeping 63% of the vote.
I suppose by now you understand why I am so thankful after the midterm elections – ethnic walls are continuing to break down, gender equality is more evident and our youth are continuing to assume positions of leadership. I thank God that He has allowed me to participate in such an electoral system – not perfect, but certainly fair and free from fear.
For days I prayed that the elections would be fair and free from fear. From all appearances, it would seem as though my prayer was answered. In my community it was a quiet day – I discovered many persons had opted for early voting. I was among the 43% of Floridians who voted.
Nationally, voter turnout in the elections was terrible. Imagine, only 36.3% of eligible voters cast votes. The New York Times reported that this election was the worst turnout in 72 years. Only the 1942 election (33.9%) had a lower rate of voter turnout. Voter turnout is usually measured as a proportion of registered voters rather than of those eligible to vote — and census numbers show that more than 70 million Americans of voting age are not registered voters.
With a voter turnout of less than 36%, one questions the moral basis for the claim that the winners got a clear mandate to rule. Interestingly, if the Constitution required a simple majority for election results to be valid, many elections in America would be cancelled for the lack of a quorum.
In addition, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group whose job is to track political spending, estimated that candidates, parties, committees, outside groups and donors spent at least $3.67 billion on the 2014 midterm elections, some $40 million more than what was spent in 2010.
Pollsters contend that most persons did not vote because they “just couldn’t be bothered”. Say what? Do you know how many countries would love to have an opportunity to vote in elections that are free from fear? Even many persons within developed countries wish they had an electoral system like the United States. For instance, whereas the US Constitution has established limits and specific times for elections, many countries within the Westminster Model face sudden elections, with the timing often favoring the ruling government.
Apart from having one of the best electoral systems in the world, I am especially grateful for the recent midterm elections for a number of reasons. One was the sheer demeanor displayed by congressional candidate Dan Bongino. He lost to Democrat John Delaney.
In his concession speech, Bongino revealed that his wife had been experiencing health issues, which had forced him to limit campaign appearances. Upon learning of her illness, Bongino’s opponent, responded with a handwritten letter “expressing his heartfelt concerns for my wife and my family, given the circumstances we were dealing with.” Bongino graciously admitted, “I never forgot that, it reminded me that although our wonderful country is currently marked by passionate political differences, these differences should never become personal.”
Yes, that happened in America, and I wished it got more press. I could also say the same about Mia Love from Utah. For years I have followed this 37-year old political leader. On her second attempt she won her seat to represent her district – she is the first black female Republican in Congress.
In response to a journalist who attempted to credit her gender and ethnicity for her success, Mia Love responded, “This is historic but it’s not because of the color of my skin - it’s historic because Utah has decided to elect a person based on their principles.” She represents a district with fewer than 2% of black voters.
Both in the case of Mia Love and Tim Scott, it would seem as though an increasing number of Americans are prepared to vote for character rather than color. Scott is the first black lawmaker elected to both chambers of Congress. He represents South Carolina, a state with just about 28% black citizens.
Another interesting record was broken in Iowa. Joni Ernst’s win makes her the first female combat veteran to get elected to the Senate and the first woman in Congress from that state. Another first among women, was Elise Stefanik, 30, who when elected, became the youngest female member of Congress.
In addition, 37-year-old Arkansas GOP Rep. Tom Cotton winning a Senate seat makes him the youngest member of the upper chamber. Although she will not be in Washington, Saira Blair, just eighteen, won the election for West Virginia’s 59th House District. Still a freshman at West Virginia University, Saira became the youngest state lawmaker in the nation after sweeping 63% of the vote.
I suppose by now you understand why I am so thankful after the midterm elections – ethnic walls are continuing to break down, gender equality is more evident and our youth are continuing to assume positions of leadership. I thank God that He has allowed me to participate in such an electoral system – not perfect, but certainly fair and free from fear.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Why Should I Vote?
One of two responsibilities of U.S. citizens is to vote in federal elections. Although the law does not require citizens to vote, it is obvious that voting is a very important part of any democracy. By voting citizens are participating in the democratic process.
Among other things, the democratic process requires citizens to elect eligible fellow citizens to represent their ideas – in essence, to form the government. This government is “for the people”, meaning that the sole purpose of government is to act in ways that benefit citizens.
In my last commentary, I contended that the words “we the people” in the opening sentence of the Constitution meant that people set up the government. Basic lessons in American Civics would confirm that the government works for the people and protects the rights of people.
The Founders of the United States decided that this country should be a representative democracy. They wanted a nation ruled by laws. In a representative democracy, the people choose officials to make laws and represent their views and concerns in government. Hence, elections is the mechanism provided by the Constitution to ensure that citizens can elect leaders of their choice to govern.
When eligible citizens fail to vote, they are abrogating a primary responsibility of citizenship. Whereas the government is responsible to ensure that every citizen can vote, it is the responsibility of every citizen to vote. Hence, to choose not to vote when one can vote is irresponsible.
Because millions of Americans will be voting on Tuesday, it is easy for some to conclude that their single vote is not needed - that is illogical. The truth is, every vote counts. Ask the people of Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania, Africa). On January 18, 1961, the Afro-Shirazi Party won the general elections by a single vote/seat. The seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island had been gained by a single vote. According to the Guinness World Book of Records, that was the closest general elections ever recorded in the world.
Some of us can remember the Presidential Elections of 2000. Then, President George W. Bush won the election by a margin of just half of a percentage point of the 110 million Americans who cast votes. The message is simple – every vote counts.
I have met American citizens who decide against voting for some of the most trivial reasons. Some contend that if it is not a Presidential Election, then it is not important. That is not true. Electing persons to Congress is as critical as electing a President. As a matter of fact, congressional representatives are closer to my community than the President.
The Framers of the Constitution believed that short two-year terms and frequent elections would keep representatives close to their constituents, public opinion, and more aware of local and community concerns. One can therefore understand why the population of a state determines the number of representatives in Congress. In this way, states with many people have a stronger voice in the House of Representatives.
For a moment I must comment on persons who choose not to vote because candidates do not represent the preferences of the voter. In such cases, it is possible that the prospective voter did not influence the process of choosing the candidate. Furthermore, no candidate will ever represent all the preferences of voters. Most times one elects persons who best represent their preferences.
Far too often we choose candidates because of political party affiliation and not the personal suitability of the representatives. For me, parties do not vote on my preferences, representatives do. Agreed, political parties provide the platform for representatives. However, it is representatives who govern and are accountable to citizens.
I now have my Voter Guide and will continue to study how candidates view my preferences. I will also be studying state constitutional amendments that are on the ballots. Studying the issues is critical for me, if I am going to register my preferences on Tuesday.
As a Christian, I have too much at stake to take federal elections lightly. The New Testament encourages me to pray for political leaders. The purpose for prayer is to ensure “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...” (1 Timothy 2:2). That objective requires more than closing my eyes in a prayer gathering.
Desiring leaders who can facilitate a peaceful and quiet lifestyle requires me to influence the choice of those leaders. In addition, that requires me to hold those leaders accountable for the lifestyles they promised. For me, the voting booth provides an excellent venue to accomplish my goals. In addition, because it is the responsible thing to do, I will be casting my first vote in America on Tuesday morning.
Among other things, the democratic process requires citizens to elect eligible fellow citizens to represent their ideas – in essence, to form the government. This government is “for the people”, meaning that the sole purpose of government is to act in ways that benefit citizens.
In my last commentary, I contended that the words “we the people” in the opening sentence of the Constitution meant that people set up the government. Basic lessons in American Civics would confirm that the government works for the people and protects the rights of people.
The Founders of the United States decided that this country should be a representative democracy. They wanted a nation ruled by laws. In a representative democracy, the people choose officials to make laws and represent their views and concerns in government. Hence, elections is the mechanism provided by the Constitution to ensure that citizens can elect leaders of their choice to govern.
When eligible citizens fail to vote, they are abrogating a primary responsibility of citizenship. Whereas the government is responsible to ensure that every citizen can vote, it is the responsibility of every citizen to vote. Hence, to choose not to vote when one can vote is irresponsible.
Because millions of Americans will be voting on Tuesday, it is easy for some to conclude that their single vote is not needed - that is illogical. The truth is, every vote counts. Ask the people of Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania, Africa). On January 18, 1961, the Afro-Shirazi Party won the general elections by a single vote/seat. The seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island had been gained by a single vote. According to the Guinness World Book of Records, that was the closest general elections ever recorded in the world.
Some of us can remember the Presidential Elections of 2000. Then, President George W. Bush won the election by a margin of just half of a percentage point of the 110 million Americans who cast votes. The message is simple – every vote counts.
I have met American citizens who decide against voting for some of the most trivial reasons. Some contend that if it is not a Presidential Election, then it is not important. That is not true. Electing persons to Congress is as critical as electing a President. As a matter of fact, congressional representatives are closer to my community than the President.
The Framers of the Constitution believed that short two-year terms and frequent elections would keep representatives close to their constituents, public opinion, and more aware of local and community concerns. One can therefore understand why the population of a state determines the number of representatives in Congress. In this way, states with many people have a stronger voice in the House of Representatives.
For a moment I must comment on persons who choose not to vote because candidates do not represent the preferences of the voter. In such cases, it is possible that the prospective voter did not influence the process of choosing the candidate. Furthermore, no candidate will ever represent all the preferences of voters. Most times one elects persons who best represent their preferences.
Far too often we choose candidates because of political party affiliation and not the personal suitability of the representatives. For me, parties do not vote on my preferences, representatives do. Agreed, political parties provide the platform for representatives. However, it is representatives who govern and are accountable to citizens.
I now have my Voter Guide and will continue to study how candidates view my preferences. I will also be studying state constitutional amendments that are on the ballots. Studying the issues is critical for me, if I am going to register my preferences on Tuesday.
As a Christian, I have too much at stake to take federal elections lightly. The New Testament encourages me to pray for political leaders. The purpose for prayer is to ensure “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...” (1 Timothy 2:2). That objective requires more than closing my eyes in a prayer gathering.
Desiring leaders who can facilitate a peaceful and quiet lifestyle requires me to influence the choice of those leaders. In addition, that requires me to hold those leaders accountable for the lifestyles they promised. For me, the voting booth provides an excellent venue to accomplish my goals. In addition, because it is the responsible thing to do, I will be casting my first vote in America on Tuesday morning.
Monday, September 29, 2014
“We the People...”
That simple statement, “we the people,” was an answer to the 100 questions we had to study for a recent naturalization test. Following our Swearing-In Ceremony a few days ago, my wife and I can now be called “American Yankees”.
For my family it has been a long journey which began in 1991 when we migrated to America. My wife and the three children accompanied me as I pursued graduate and post-graduate studies in the Midwest. From Foreign Students to Citizens should be an interesting read of God’s faithfulness to a family that dared to trust Him.
In those 23 years, my wife also earned an advanced degree and our three children completed college. Last Sunday we were honored to witness the baptism of two of our six grandchildren. They now represent the fourth generation of Corbins coming to faith in Jesus Christ. For this we praise the Lord!
However, becoming citizens is much more than a privilege – it is a responsibility. The civics lessons learned in preparing for naturalization have helped to reinforce the solemn trust enshrined in being a citizen of a country. As American citizens we now recognize that we can be called-up any minute to serve as jurors in a court of law. In addition, we have the right to vote in a federal election.
Our acquired home, America, is “a popular sovereign” state. The people elect representatives to make laws. With the words “we the people,” the Constitution states that the people set up the government. The government works for the people and protects the rights of the people. In America, the power to govern comes from the people, who are the highest power. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.
Just last week I was reminded that even the study of Civics in America is under attack. Hundreds of students walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver in protest over a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.
The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."
The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County calls for instructional materials that present positive aspects of America and its heritage. It would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."
When interviewed, a student demonstrator, a senior at Arvada High School, said that the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, "and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built off of."
This is not what I learned in civics about America – “the nation’s foundation was built on civil protests?” Agreed, America has had its share of internal and foreign wars. However, can the results of those wars be considered to be foundations upon which the nation was built?
The protests among high school teachers and students in Colorado is a microcosm of what is happening across the nation – an infiltration of ideological bias in interpreting history. At times some Christians are guilty of that bias when they interpret American history to suggest that the Puritans came to America to establish only Christian communities.
A few months ago we were subjected to another ideological interpretation of history. President Obama was addressing a group of Muslims at an Eid-al-Fitr celebration. There he thanked the Muslims “for their many achievements and contributions...to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”
As a fledgling citizen, could someone please help me? Where in America’s history can one find the “many achievements...to building the fabric of our nation” from the Muslim community? As a melting pot of religious communities, America has become the most religiously diverse country in the world. However, as religious communities come to this country, they often adjust their religious practices to comply with American life and culture. Generally speaking, that cannot be said of many Muslim communities.
As a Christian and a new citizen, my civic mandate is greatly influenced by Jeremiah’s words to the Jewish exiles in Babylon: “... seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29: 7).
For my family it has been a long journey which began in 1991 when we migrated to America. My wife and the three children accompanied me as I pursued graduate and post-graduate studies in the Midwest. From Foreign Students to Citizens should be an interesting read of God’s faithfulness to a family that dared to trust Him.
In those 23 years, my wife also earned an advanced degree and our three children completed college. Last Sunday we were honored to witness the baptism of two of our six grandchildren. They now represent the fourth generation of Corbins coming to faith in Jesus Christ. For this we praise the Lord!
However, becoming citizens is much more than a privilege – it is a responsibility. The civics lessons learned in preparing for naturalization have helped to reinforce the solemn trust enshrined in being a citizen of a country. As American citizens we now recognize that we can be called-up any minute to serve as jurors in a court of law. In addition, we have the right to vote in a federal election.
Our acquired home, America, is “a popular sovereign” state. The people elect representatives to make laws. With the words “we the people,” the Constitution states that the people set up the government. The government works for the people and protects the rights of the people. In America, the power to govern comes from the people, who are the highest power. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.
Just last week I was reminded that even the study of Civics in America is under attack. Hundreds of students walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver in protest over a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.
The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."
The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County calls for instructional materials that present positive aspects of America and its heritage. It would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."
When interviewed, a student demonstrator, a senior at Arvada High School, said that the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, "and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built off of."
This is not what I learned in civics about America – “the nation’s foundation was built on civil protests?” Agreed, America has had its share of internal and foreign wars. However, can the results of those wars be considered to be foundations upon which the nation was built?
The protests among high school teachers and students in Colorado is a microcosm of what is happening across the nation – an infiltration of ideological bias in interpreting history. At times some Christians are guilty of that bias when they interpret American history to suggest that the Puritans came to America to establish only Christian communities.
A few months ago we were subjected to another ideological interpretation of history. President Obama was addressing a group of Muslims at an Eid-al-Fitr celebration. There he thanked the Muslims “for their many achievements and contributions...to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”
As a fledgling citizen, could someone please help me? Where in America’s history can one find the “many achievements...to building the fabric of our nation” from the Muslim community? As a melting pot of religious communities, America has become the most religiously diverse country in the world. However, as religious communities come to this country, they often adjust their religious practices to comply with American life and culture. Generally speaking, that cannot be said of many Muslim communities.
As a Christian and a new citizen, my civic mandate is greatly influenced by Jeremiah’s words to the Jewish exiles in Babylon: “... seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29: 7).
Monday, September 22, 2014
Tell Me a Story...
One of the most universal human impulses can be summed up in four words – tell me a story. According to Professor Leland Ryken, “the Bible satisfies that human demand for a story.” (Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible – Second Edition, by Leland Ryken). Narrative is the dominant literary form found in the Bible. It is believed that some 40% of the Old Testament is narrative.
Henry Luce, founder of Time magazine would most likely agree with Ryken. Luce once quipped, “Time did not start this emphasis on stories about people; the Bible did.”
To further reinforce the point about the dominant use of narrative in the Bible, literary critic Robert Alter said, “It is peculiar, and culturally significant, that among ancient peoples, only Israel should have chosen to cast its sacred national traditions in prose.” (The Art of Biblical Narrative).
One wonders, why did the writers of the Bible, and more specifically the Old Testament, steer away from the literary forms that were commonly used among other religions in ancient culture? Put differently, why did the biblical writers prefer to use prose narrative to tell their stories?
The impulse of the Bible writers was to give a circumstantial and factual basis to their stories. The result is what literary scholars call realism. Literary realism shares with history and biography the quality of being rooted in observable reality. In addition, we associate realism with the tendency to be concrete, vivid and specific.
Part of the realism of Bible stories is the refusal of writers to omit sordid actions in the name of niceness. For instance, the choice and role of David as king of Israel is remarkable. He earned the title of “a man after God’s own heart”. However, unlike some ancient writings, the Bible does not hesitate to point out that Dave was a murderer, an adulterer and someone who abused his royal authority.
Another thing that links the stories of the Bible with literary realism is their focus on common experience and characters of average social standing. This is in sharp contrast to ancient stories like the epics of Homer, where only aristocratic characters count for much and people of lesser standing are a nameless, faceless group.
In narrative, one of the goals of a writer in telling a story is to invite readers to share an experience with the characters in the story. For the writer, the plot, characters, and setting of a story are the means by which he or she communicates aspects of reality.
Jesus illustrates this point well when asked to define who is a neighbor. He could have given a simple definition to the lawyer who confronted Him. Instead, Jesus wanted to involve the man in the answer He was about to give. So, He told the man a story.
As with any good story-teller, the story Jesus told included setting, action and character. Upon hearing the story, the lawyer concluded that the neighbor was the character who had mercy on the victim. Although that character did not have the profile of someone who would do the neighborly thing, the lawyer chose him. His choice required him to listen, to analyze and to exercise judgment.
Following that story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus said to the lawyer, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:38). Jesus understood that the use of narrative as a literary device draws one into encounters with characters and events and make response inevitable.
The outcome was no different when Nathan the prophet confronted King David about his despicable behavior (2 Samuel 12). David was quick to pass judgment on the abusing character in the story Nathan told. At that point Nathan exposed David as the real abuser. The character in Nathan’s story drew David into an encounter that demanded a response.
Is it possible that the frequent use of narrative as a literary device in the Bible was designed to solicit response by readers? The writer to the Book of Hebrews was convinced that biblical information had the power to provoke response. This is how he expressed his conviction: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
That ability to convict must also be seen in the context of narratives portraying God as hero or protagonist in the biblical stories. God’s role is often unmentioned, although obvious through one character. A good example is presented in the story of the Prodigal Son.
The actual title given to the story would seem to suggest that the main character in the story is the son who repented and returned home. I would encourage that you re-read the story, viewing the father of the prodigal as the main character. Something tells me that you will walk away with an appreciation for a forgiving and gracious God rather than a mere report on a worthless son who repented.
Henry Luce, founder of Time magazine would most likely agree with Ryken. Luce once quipped, “Time did not start this emphasis on stories about people; the Bible did.”
To further reinforce the point about the dominant use of narrative in the Bible, literary critic Robert Alter said, “It is peculiar, and culturally significant, that among ancient peoples, only Israel should have chosen to cast its sacred national traditions in prose.” (The Art of Biblical Narrative).
One wonders, why did the writers of the Bible, and more specifically the Old Testament, steer away from the literary forms that were commonly used among other religions in ancient culture? Put differently, why did the biblical writers prefer to use prose narrative to tell their stories?
The impulse of the Bible writers was to give a circumstantial and factual basis to their stories. The result is what literary scholars call realism. Literary realism shares with history and biography the quality of being rooted in observable reality. In addition, we associate realism with the tendency to be concrete, vivid and specific.
Part of the realism of Bible stories is the refusal of writers to omit sordid actions in the name of niceness. For instance, the choice and role of David as king of Israel is remarkable. He earned the title of “a man after God’s own heart”. However, unlike some ancient writings, the Bible does not hesitate to point out that Dave was a murderer, an adulterer and someone who abused his royal authority.
Another thing that links the stories of the Bible with literary realism is their focus on common experience and characters of average social standing. This is in sharp contrast to ancient stories like the epics of Homer, where only aristocratic characters count for much and people of lesser standing are a nameless, faceless group.
In narrative, one of the goals of a writer in telling a story is to invite readers to share an experience with the characters in the story. For the writer, the plot, characters, and setting of a story are the means by which he or she communicates aspects of reality.
Jesus illustrates this point well when asked to define who is a neighbor. He could have given a simple definition to the lawyer who confronted Him. Instead, Jesus wanted to involve the man in the answer He was about to give. So, He told the man a story.
As with any good story-teller, the story Jesus told included setting, action and character. Upon hearing the story, the lawyer concluded that the neighbor was the character who had mercy on the victim. Although that character did not have the profile of someone who would do the neighborly thing, the lawyer chose him. His choice required him to listen, to analyze and to exercise judgment.
Following that story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus said to the lawyer, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:38). Jesus understood that the use of narrative as a literary device draws one into encounters with characters and events and make response inevitable.
The outcome was no different when Nathan the prophet confronted King David about his despicable behavior (2 Samuel 12). David was quick to pass judgment on the abusing character in the story Nathan told. At that point Nathan exposed David as the real abuser. The character in Nathan’s story drew David into an encounter that demanded a response.
Is it possible that the frequent use of narrative as a literary device in the Bible was designed to solicit response by readers? The writer to the Book of Hebrews was convinced that biblical information had the power to provoke response. This is how he expressed his conviction: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
That ability to convict must also be seen in the context of narratives portraying God as hero or protagonist in the biblical stories. God’s role is often unmentioned, although obvious through one character. A good example is presented in the story of the Prodigal Son.
The actual title given to the story would seem to suggest that the main character in the story is the son who repented and returned home. I would encourage that you re-read the story, viewing the father of the prodigal as the main character. Something tells me that you will walk away with an appreciation for a forgiving and gracious God rather than a mere report on a worthless son who repented.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Just Another Book?
Most religions have sacred writings. However, Christians contend that their sacred writings are very different from the writings of other religions. Christians believe the Bible ably complies with a proper definition of sacred writings.
Sacred writings are religious writings that claim to be influenced by divine or non-human sources. In other words, the writings are supernatural in origin. Furthermore, these writings are communicated via human beings who were in direct contact with or were clearly influenced by a divine source.
The fact that the Bible is outstanding as a literary production, is not enough for one to conclude that it is sacred. Neither is it enough to say that because the Bible has influenced more persons than any other piece of literature, it is sacred. No human factor should be used to determine sacredness. Sacredness should only be determined by clear evidence of contact with a divine or non-human source.
Although the claim to inspiration is no proof of inspiration, one cannot ignore that numerous passages in the Bible which speak unequivocally as a response to the voice of God. Even the most cursory reading of the prophets reveals the constant recurrence of such expressions as “the word of the Lord came,” or “the Lord said”. Interestingly, the same cannot be said of the Apocryphal Books or other ancient writings.
Christians believe that there is internal and external evidence that attest to the Bible as the word of God. Internal evidences would be those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin.
The first case of internal evidence is in the unity of the Bible. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1,500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction in doctrine. This unity is unique when compared with other religious writings and provides evidence of divine origin.
In addition, the Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations. Other prophecies concern the coming of the Messiah. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed.
For instance, there are numerous prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and His lineage, but also how He would die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible contains.
There is also external evidence that suggests that the Bible is the Word of God. One such area of evidence is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.
The accuracy with which the Bible has been preserved, despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it, is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is supernaturally protected. Interestingly, no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. The late Professor Bernard Ramm was correct when he said, “no other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized and vilified” (Protestant Christian Evidences).
Throughout history, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has confirmed it as historical. Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts and teachings have had a positive influence on societies and cultures throughout the world.
Globally, the Bible, more than any other sacred text, has profoundly influenced law, literature, politics, ethics, philosophy, art and religion. I believe it was also Professor Ramm who said, “No other book in all of human history has in turn inspired the writing of so many books as the Bible has.”
Unlike other religious writings, the Bible is historical at its core. Even ideas like sin, forgiveness and virtue, are presented in historical contexts. With this history one sees realism and not extreme mysticism, asceticism or mere religious theories. The historical thread of the Bible is unique in religious philosophy.
Because John was so confident that he was recording the word of God, he warned in Revelation, “if anyone adds...or takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will...add to him the plagues described in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).
Sacred writings are religious writings that claim to be influenced by divine or non-human sources. In other words, the writings are supernatural in origin. Furthermore, these writings are communicated via human beings who were in direct contact with or were clearly influenced by a divine source.
The fact that the Bible is outstanding as a literary production, is not enough for one to conclude that it is sacred. Neither is it enough to say that because the Bible has influenced more persons than any other piece of literature, it is sacred. No human factor should be used to determine sacredness. Sacredness should only be determined by clear evidence of contact with a divine or non-human source.
Although the claim to inspiration is no proof of inspiration, one cannot ignore that numerous passages in the Bible which speak unequivocally as a response to the voice of God. Even the most cursory reading of the prophets reveals the constant recurrence of such expressions as “the word of the Lord came,” or “the Lord said”. Interestingly, the same cannot be said of the Apocryphal Books or other ancient writings.
Christians believe that there is internal and external evidence that attest to the Bible as the word of God. Internal evidences would be those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin.
The first case of internal evidence is in the unity of the Bible. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1,500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction in doctrine. This unity is unique when compared with other religious writings and provides evidence of divine origin.
In addition, the Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations. Other prophecies concern the coming of the Messiah. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed.
For instance, there are numerous prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and His lineage, but also how He would die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible contains.
There is also external evidence that suggests that the Bible is the Word of God. One such area of evidence is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.
The accuracy with which the Bible has been preserved, despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it, is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is supernaturally protected. Interestingly, no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. The late Professor Bernard Ramm was correct when he said, “no other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized and vilified” (Protestant Christian Evidences).
Throughout history, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has confirmed it as historical. Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts and teachings have had a positive influence on societies and cultures throughout the world.
Globally, the Bible, more than any other sacred text, has profoundly influenced law, literature, politics, ethics, philosophy, art and religion. I believe it was also Professor Ramm who said, “No other book in all of human history has in turn inspired the writing of so many books as the Bible has.”
Unlike other religious writings, the Bible is historical at its core. Even ideas like sin, forgiveness and virtue, are presented in historical contexts. With this history one sees realism and not extreme mysticism, asceticism or mere religious theories. The historical thread of the Bible is unique in religious philosophy.
Because John was so confident that he was recording the word of God, he warned in Revelation, “if anyone adds...or takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will...add to him the plagues described in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).
Monday, September 8, 2014
Another Beheading
The recent beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff in Iraq were savage acts. Many watched the videos of their murders by Islamist State militants and were horrified. Muslim organizations around the world distanced themselves from the militants and decried the brutal slaying, making it clear that the acts did not represent Islam.
Our opinion of associating beheading with barbarism is consistent with a modernized view of capital punishment. For instance, the Romans were brutal and beheading was not uncommon. In the New Testament there was the case of John the Baptist’s head on Herod’s platter. Interestingly, the Romans considered beheading to be more honorable than crucifixion. They beheaded their own people but limited crucifixion to non-Romans.
Beheading was widely used in Europe and Asia until the 20th century. Interestingly, all the European countries that previously used beheading have now totally abolished the death penalty. As recent as 2007, 153 men and three women were beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Beheading is still practiced in Iran.
Apart from being used as a means of capital punishment by a state, the act of beheading is used to obliterate enemies. According to Ian Tuttle of the National Review Institute, “beheading is not just a warning or a promise; it is a ritual expression of an ideology. That this ideology seeks to annihilate and tyrannize is clear from the jihadists’ beheading method; not a quick, clean blow, but a slow, agonizing sawing motion that keeps the victim alive to experience his own execution.”
The vicious murders of the journalists were not done as acts of capital punishment – like Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, they committed no crime. The beheadings were done in the name of religion. It would seem as though Islamists practice beheading because they believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Their intent is to weaken the will of opponents.
According to Professor Timothy Furnish, “Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings” (The Middle East Quarterly: Spring 2005. Volume 12: Number 2).
Jihadist groups justify the decapitation of opponents with Qur’anic Scripture. In chapter (sura) 47 verse (ayah) 4 of the Qur’an it says: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” With little variation, Muslim scholars have translated the verse as, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks.”
Many modern interpretations of this verse remain consistent with those of early Islam. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote that the injunction to “smite at their necks,” should be taken both literally and figuratively. “You cannot wage war with kid gloves,” he argued (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p. 1378).
In Islamic history, beheading of captives is a recurring theme. The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. The earliest biographer of Mohammad is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him (‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham, [translated]).
Since Mohammad’s time, many Islamic leaders have followed his model. History is replete of examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead. For instance, the Ottoman Empire was often referred to as the decapitation state. Upon their victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners. In the early 19th century, even the British fell victim to the Ottoman barbarianism. An 1807 British expedition to Egypt resulted in “a few hundred spiked British heads left rotting in the sun outside Rosetta.”
So much for history – we do not expect such barbaric behavior in the 21st century. As people groups migrate, they take their religious ideas with them. In the process migrants are expected to live with people who share differing worldviews. As we share opportunities for advancement, we should be free to learn about the religious or irreligious views of our neighbors.
For Christians, migration brings opportunity - opportunities to learn from others and to share with others. Like Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17), we must be ready to share our faith in the marketplace of ideas. We must listen and learn how to share our faith without attempting to destroy others who may disagree with our approach to life.
Jesus clearly taught us how to deal with people who disagree with us. He never taught violence as an option. Instead, He instructed us to pray for those who disagree with us. As an evangelistic strategy, compassion is always more effective than confrontation.
Our opinion of associating beheading with barbarism is consistent with a modernized view of capital punishment. For instance, the Romans were brutal and beheading was not uncommon. In the New Testament there was the case of John the Baptist’s head on Herod’s platter. Interestingly, the Romans considered beheading to be more honorable than crucifixion. They beheaded their own people but limited crucifixion to non-Romans.
Beheading was widely used in Europe and Asia until the 20th century. Interestingly, all the European countries that previously used beheading have now totally abolished the death penalty. As recent as 2007, 153 men and three women were beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Beheading is still practiced in Iran.
Apart from being used as a means of capital punishment by a state, the act of beheading is used to obliterate enemies. According to Ian Tuttle of the National Review Institute, “beheading is not just a warning or a promise; it is a ritual expression of an ideology. That this ideology seeks to annihilate and tyrannize is clear from the jihadists’ beheading method; not a quick, clean blow, but a slow, agonizing sawing motion that keeps the victim alive to experience his own execution.”
The vicious murders of the journalists were not done as acts of capital punishment – like Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, they committed no crime. The beheadings were done in the name of religion. It would seem as though Islamists practice beheading because they believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Their intent is to weaken the will of opponents.
According to Professor Timothy Furnish, “Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings” (The Middle East Quarterly: Spring 2005. Volume 12: Number 2).
Jihadist groups justify the decapitation of opponents with Qur’anic Scripture. In chapter (sura) 47 verse (ayah) 4 of the Qur’an it says: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” With little variation, Muslim scholars have translated the verse as, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks.”
Many modern interpretations of this verse remain consistent with those of early Islam. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote that the injunction to “smite at their necks,” should be taken both literally and figuratively. “You cannot wage war with kid gloves,” he argued (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p. 1378).
In Islamic history, beheading of captives is a recurring theme. The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. The earliest biographer of Mohammad is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him (‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham, [translated]).
Since Mohammad’s time, many Islamic leaders have followed his model. History is replete of examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead. For instance, the Ottoman Empire was often referred to as the decapitation state. Upon their victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners. In the early 19th century, even the British fell victim to the Ottoman barbarianism. An 1807 British expedition to Egypt resulted in “a few hundred spiked British heads left rotting in the sun outside Rosetta.”
So much for history – we do not expect such barbaric behavior in the 21st century. As people groups migrate, they take their religious ideas with them. In the process migrants are expected to live with people who share differing worldviews. As we share opportunities for advancement, we should be free to learn about the religious or irreligious views of our neighbors.
For Christians, migration brings opportunity - opportunities to learn from others and to share with others. Like Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17), we must be ready to share our faith in the marketplace of ideas. We must listen and learn how to share our faith without attempting to destroy others who may disagree with our approach to life.
Jesus clearly taught us how to deal with people who disagree with us. He never taught violence as an option. Instead, He instructed us to pray for those who disagree with us. As an evangelistic strategy, compassion is always more effective than confrontation.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Labor Day Reflections
According to the US Department of Labor, Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers.
It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country. The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union.
As we celebrate Labor Day 2014, it might be a good opportunity to re-examine the history of labor and capitalism, as they relate to the church. Historian Michael Novak makes the point that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was the main locus for the first flowerings of capitalism. Max Weber located the origin of capitalism in modern Protestant cities, but today’s historians find capitalism much earlier.
“It was the church more than any other agency,” writes historian Randall Collins, “that put in place what Weber called the preconditions of capitalism.”
The church owned nearly a third of all the land of Europe. In order to administer those vast holdings, it established a continent-wide system of canon law that tied together multiple jurisdictions of empire, nation, barony, bishopric, religious order, chartered city, guild, confraternity, merchants, entrepreneurs, and traders. The church also provided local and regional administrative bureaucracies of arbitrators, jurists, negotiators, and judges, along with an international language, “Canon Law Latin.”
The Cistercians (Catholic Religious Order), who eschewed the aristocratic and sedentary ways of the Benedictines (monastic order) and, consequently, broke farther away from feudalism, became famous as entrepreneurs. They mastered rational cost accounting, plowed all profits back into new ventures, and moved capital around from one venue to another, cutting losses where necessary, and pursuing new opportunities when feasible.
The role of the Catholic Church helped jump-start a millennium of impressive economic progress. In about 1000 CE, there were barely two hundred million people in the world, most of whom were living in desperate poverty, under various tyrannies, and subject to the unchecked ravages of disease and much civic disorder. Economic development has made possible the sustenance now of more than six billion people–at a vastly higher level than one thousand years ago, and with an average lifespan almost three times as long.
No other part of the world outside Europe (and its overseas offspring) has achieved so powerful and so sustained an economic performance, raised up so many of the poor into the middle class, inspired so many inventions, discoveries, and improvements for the easing of daily life, and brought so great a diminution of age-old plagues, diseases, and ailments.
Economic historian David Landes, who describes himself as an unbeliever, points out that the main factors in this great economic achievement of Western civilization are mainly religious:
• the joy in discovery that arises from each individual being an imago Dei called to be a creator;
• the religious value attached to hard and good manual work;
• the theological separation of the Creator from the creature, such that nature is subordinated to man, not surrounded with taboos;
• the Jewish and Christian sense of linear, not cyclical, time and, therefore, of progress; and
• respect for the market.
In addition to the contribution of the Catholic Church, we cannot ignore the role of the Puritans. They spoke of two callings – a general calling and a particular calling. The general calling is the same for everyone and consists of a call to conversion and godliness.
A particular calling consists of the specific tasks and occupations that God places before a person in the course of daily living. It focuses on, but is not limited to, the work that a person does for a livelihood.
According to Wheaton Professor Leland Ryken, “Since God is the one who calls people to their work, the worker becomes a steward who serves God.” In essence, we serve God through or by means of the work we do. As a result, all legitimate forms of work is dignified, because of God’s involvement.
Christianity has and continues to bring dignity to legitimate work. In his second letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul cautions believers to avoid idleness and dissociate from anyone “who will not work” (3:6-15). Such persons undermine and degrade the Christian work ethic.
It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country. The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union.
As we celebrate Labor Day 2014, it might be a good opportunity to re-examine the history of labor and capitalism, as they relate to the church. Historian Michael Novak makes the point that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was the main locus for the first flowerings of capitalism. Max Weber located the origin of capitalism in modern Protestant cities, but today’s historians find capitalism much earlier.
“It was the church more than any other agency,” writes historian Randall Collins, “that put in place what Weber called the preconditions of capitalism.”
The church owned nearly a third of all the land of Europe. In order to administer those vast holdings, it established a continent-wide system of canon law that tied together multiple jurisdictions of empire, nation, barony, bishopric, religious order, chartered city, guild, confraternity, merchants, entrepreneurs, and traders. The church also provided local and regional administrative bureaucracies of arbitrators, jurists, negotiators, and judges, along with an international language, “Canon Law Latin.”
The Cistercians (Catholic Religious Order), who eschewed the aristocratic and sedentary ways of the Benedictines (monastic order) and, consequently, broke farther away from feudalism, became famous as entrepreneurs. They mastered rational cost accounting, plowed all profits back into new ventures, and moved capital around from one venue to another, cutting losses where necessary, and pursuing new opportunities when feasible.
The role of the Catholic Church helped jump-start a millennium of impressive economic progress. In about 1000 CE, there were barely two hundred million people in the world, most of whom were living in desperate poverty, under various tyrannies, and subject to the unchecked ravages of disease and much civic disorder. Economic development has made possible the sustenance now of more than six billion people–at a vastly higher level than one thousand years ago, and with an average lifespan almost three times as long.
No other part of the world outside Europe (and its overseas offspring) has achieved so powerful and so sustained an economic performance, raised up so many of the poor into the middle class, inspired so many inventions, discoveries, and improvements for the easing of daily life, and brought so great a diminution of age-old plagues, diseases, and ailments.
Economic historian David Landes, who describes himself as an unbeliever, points out that the main factors in this great economic achievement of Western civilization are mainly religious:
• the joy in discovery that arises from each individual being an imago Dei called to be a creator;
• the religious value attached to hard and good manual work;
• the theological separation of the Creator from the creature, such that nature is subordinated to man, not surrounded with taboos;
• the Jewish and Christian sense of linear, not cyclical, time and, therefore, of progress; and
• respect for the market.
In addition to the contribution of the Catholic Church, we cannot ignore the role of the Puritans. They spoke of two callings – a general calling and a particular calling. The general calling is the same for everyone and consists of a call to conversion and godliness.
A particular calling consists of the specific tasks and occupations that God places before a person in the course of daily living. It focuses on, but is not limited to, the work that a person does for a livelihood.
According to Wheaton Professor Leland Ryken, “Since God is the one who calls people to their work, the worker becomes a steward who serves God.” In essence, we serve God through or by means of the work we do. As a result, all legitimate forms of work is dignified, because of God’s involvement.
Christianity has and continues to bring dignity to legitimate work. In his second letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul cautions believers to avoid idleness and dissociate from anyone “who will not work” (3:6-15). Such persons undermine and degrade the Christian work ethic.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Robin Williams
About two decades ago my wife and I met Robin Williams when we saw the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. Williams, who played the role of Mrs. Doubtfire was outstanding. His winsome personality as an actor made us feel as though we met him personally.
Last week Robin Williams committed suicide. News of his death suddenly replaced the headlines of warfare around the world. “Mrs. Doubtfire” had been struggling with depression for several years and had previously beaten a dependency to alcohol and drugs in the seventies and eighties.
The actor was reported to have been downsizing his properties after two divorces left him in serious debt. In a 2013 interview with Parade Magazine, Williams said that divorce was expensive. He added that he used to joke that before the word “alimony” was invented, they were going to call it “all the money”.
Since his death, some of us are learning that Williams was a humble man. Just as he had an impact on the lives of his viewers, we had an impact on his life. One commentator observed that he was living off our laughs. In their grief, the family requested – “As he is remembered, it is our hope the focus will not be on Robin’s death, but on the countless moments of joy and laughter he gave to millions.”
From my research, I understand depression is a mood disorder in which overwhelming feelings of sadness, loss of pleasure, guilt, and hopelessness interfere with daily life. Everyone experiences some unhappiness, often as a result of a life change, either in the form of a setback or a loss, or simply, as everyday misery. The painful feelings that accompany these events are usually appropriate and temporary, and can even present an opportunity for personal growth and improvement.
However, when sadness persists and impairs daily life, it may indicate a depressive disorder. Severity, duration, and the presence of other symptoms are the factors that distinguish normal sadness from clinical disorder.
My wife who did her graduate thesis on depression, tells me that there are various types of depression. I understand that in major depression, at least five critical symptoms must occur nearly every day for a period of at least 2 weeks, and they must represent a change from previous behavior or mood. Depressed mood or loss of interest must be present.
All the causes of depression are not fully known. Scholars tell us depression is most likely due to a combination of genetic, biologic, and environmental factors. Many people with major depression also have an alcohol use disorder or drug abuse problems. Studies on the connections between alcohol dependence and depression have still not resolved whether one causes the other or if they both share some common biologic factor.
In commenting on Robin Williams, one commentator said, “when you’re a big celebrity, people are afraid to tell you the truth. People are afraid to tell you anything because you’re a source of income. I don’t know if that’s why people were afraid to dig deep with him or that he was just really good at covering his pain.”
One of Robin’s good friends, the CEO of the Laugh Factory, said, “He was always in character – you never saw the real Robin. I knew him 35 years, and I never knew him.” He made us laugh and we assumed that his life was one of similar laughter – that was not the case. He generated moments of joy in public but carried personal pain in private.
I understand depression is not rare in men. In fact, white men over the age of 85 have the highest rates of suicide of any group. Men may be more likely than women to mask their depression by using alcohol.
Researchers tell us depression is less reported in the male population, but this may be caused by male tendencies to deny symptoms, avoid seeking help, and masking emotional disorders with specific behaviors and vices.
Can depressed people be helped? Yes - depending on the severity of one’s depression, treatment will differ. In every case, treatment is intended to assist the depressed person to cope or respond better to the set of circumstances he or she may be facing. At times persons require medication and forms of therapy.
From treatments prescribed, it becomes obvious that wholesome living environments can significantly reduce depression. Such wholesome environments are strongly encouraged for persons who choose to make the Bible their guide.
For instance, it was Peter, the disciple of Jesus who said: “...cast all your anxiety on Him (Jesus) because He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7). The Scriptures are replete with admonitions, encouraging wholesome living. I trust you will find this to be true and not resort to disastrous options.
Last week Robin Williams committed suicide. News of his death suddenly replaced the headlines of warfare around the world. “Mrs. Doubtfire” had been struggling with depression for several years and had previously beaten a dependency to alcohol and drugs in the seventies and eighties.
The actor was reported to have been downsizing his properties after two divorces left him in serious debt. In a 2013 interview with Parade Magazine, Williams said that divorce was expensive. He added that he used to joke that before the word “alimony” was invented, they were going to call it “all the money”.
Since his death, some of us are learning that Williams was a humble man. Just as he had an impact on the lives of his viewers, we had an impact on his life. One commentator observed that he was living off our laughs. In their grief, the family requested – “As he is remembered, it is our hope the focus will not be on Robin’s death, but on the countless moments of joy and laughter he gave to millions.”
From my research, I understand depression is a mood disorder in which overwhelming feelings of sadness, loss of pleasure, guilt, and hopelessness interfere with daily life. Everyone experiences some unhappiness, often as a result of a life change, either in the form of a setback or a loss, or simply, as everyday misery. The painful feelings that accompany these events are usually appropriate and temporary, and can even present an opportunity for personal growth and improvement.
However, when sadness persists and impairs daily life, it may indicate a depressive disorder. Severity, duration, and the presence of other symptoms are the factors that distinguish normal sadness from clinical disorder.
My wife who did her graduate thesis on depression, tells me that there are various types of depression. I understand that in major depression, at least five critical symptoms must occur nearly every day for a period of at least 2 weeks, and they must represent a change from previous behavior or mood. Depressed mood or loss of interest must be present.
All the causes of depression are not fully known. Scholars tell us depression is most likely due to a combination of genetic, biologic, and environmental factors. Many people with major depression also have an alcohol use disorder or drug abuse problems. Studies on the connections between alcohol dependence and depression have still not resolved whether one causes the other or if they both share some common biologic factor.
In commenting on Robin Williams, one commentator said, “when you’re a big celebrity, people are afraid to tell you the truth. People are afraid to tell you anything because you’re a source of income. I don’t know if that’s why people were afraid to dig deep with him or that he was just really good at covering his pain.”
One of Robin’s good friends, the CEO of the Laugh Factory, said, “He was always in character – you never saw the real Robin. I knew him 35 years, and I never knew him.” He made us laugh and we assumed that his life was one of similar laughter – that was not the case. He generated moments of joy in public but carried personal pain in private.
I understand depression is not rare in men. In fact, white men over the age of 85 have the highest rates of suicide of any group. Men may be more likely than women to mask their depression by using alcohol.
Researchers tell us depression is less reported in the male population, but this may be caused by male tendencies to deny symptoms, avoid seeking help, and masking emotional disorders with specific behaviors and vices.
Can depressed people be helped? Yes - depending on the severity of one’s depression, treatment will differ. In every case, treatment is intended to assist the depressed person to cope or respond better to the set of circumstances he or she may be facing. At times persons require medication and forms of therapy.
From treatments prescribed, it becomes obvious that wholesome living environments can significantly reduce depression. Such wholesome environments are strongly encouraged for persons who choose to make the Bible their guide.
For instance, it was Peter, the disciple of Jesus who said: “...cast all your anxiety on Him (Jesus) because He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7). The Scriptures are replete with admonitions, encouraging wholesome living. I trust you will find this to be true and not resort to disastrous options.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Peace in Palestine?
For many Christians, peace in Palestine is impossible. They share the view that without Jesus, the Prince of Peace, peace in the Middle East is not possible. If that were the case then, why “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6)? Furthermore, was it not Paul who taught us to pray for “those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...”?
Christians should always pursue peaceful options. Agreed, the Israeli-Palestinian scenario is very complex and at times appears to be an exercise in futility. However, we must not forget that the conflict first involves people and not land. For this reason, greater attempts must be made to foster ideas among people in cross-border activities.
Ron Pundak, in the Palestine-Israel Journal (Volume 18 No. 2 & 3, 2012) makes the point, “in order for peace to come about, decisions need to be made by state officials at the highest levels. But in order for it to be digested, accepted and implemented, grassroots activities must take place before, during and after an agreement.”
Such grassroots activities have been in place for many years. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one can find people-to-people peace building activities taking place in various forms and at various levels. Cases of dialog between non-official, yet influential individuals from both sides, continue to exist.
Because of our dependence on the media for information, we are often subject to the agenda of the media. That agenda focuses primarily on diplomatic conversations among politicians. That level of diplomacy is necessary but cannot be effective without strong grassroots activity.
In preparing this blog, I became so much more aware of ongoing attempts among academics, research groups and entrepreneurs – all determined to foster better relationships among Arabs and Jews. Through the dissemination of information and while making the public see that there is a realistic plan as well as a credible partner on both sides, the architects of grassroots efforts hope to change the political mindset of the people, who would then themselves pressure their political leaders to change.
For instance, some change can begin in the media. Joint educational programs for journalists or young leaders are one way of reaching the masses indirectly. Another is by establishing “values of peace” through meetings between school children, joint sporting events and the performing arts.
My research tells me that there is some dialog taking place between professionals. There is joint-discussion on topics of mutual interest like the environment, water and agriculture. Limited dialog is also taking place among doctors who jointly conduct breast cancer research, as well as other areas of medical science. While the participants in these activities mainly discuss professional matters, they still create an environment that is conducive to changing attitudes regarding each other and to the spreading of knowledge and ideas.
The most difficult area of dialog is religion. Both Jews and Arabs claim a common heritage in Abraham. As descendants of Abraham, Muslims believe the promises God made to Abraham, were intended for them. Jews disagree. They believe the promises were intended for the descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael, Abraham’s other son who became the father of the Arab world. The spirit of disagreement and conflict was seen very early in the history of both groups. Interestingly, it was said of Ishmael and his people, “and they lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (Genesis 25:18).
Hundreds of years later, Mohammad appears on the scene. He is born in Mecca and as an Arab has a cultural link to Ishmael/Abraham. However, when Mohammad was born, followers of Abraham’s monotheism in the Arab world were called Jews.
Even a cursory study of Islam, the religion practiced by most Arabs, will show that Mohammad was unable to convince Arabian Jews that he was a prophet sent from the God of Abraham. Actually, monotheism as practiced by Abraham, was far removed from what was practiced by Arabs.
Those religious differences brought about hostility between Islam and Judaism – and that hostility continues to be evident today. For example, in Islam’s Hadiths (Bukhari 52:177), “Allah's Apostle said, the Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’"
Muslims who adhere to that ideology contend that there should be no attempt at peace with Jews. This provides fuel for Hamas and other Muslims who resent Jews. Thankfully, all Muslims do not adhere to this ideology – with such Muslims, it is possible to live peacefully with Jews.
Christians should always pursue peaceful options. Agreed, the Israeli-Palestinian scenario is very complex and at times appears to be an exercise in futility. However, we must not forget that the conflict first involves people and not land. For this reason, greater attempts must be made to foster ideas among people in cross-border activities.
Ron Pundak, in the Palestine-Israel Journal (Volume 18 No. 2 & 3, 2012) makes the point, “in order for peace to come about, decisions need to be made by state officials at the highest levels. But in order for it to be digested, accepted and implemented, grassroots activities must take place before, during and after an agreement.”
Such grassroots activities have been in place for many years. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one can find people-to-people peace building activities taking place in various forms and at various levels. Cases of dialog between non-official, yet influential individuals from both sides, continue to exist.
Because of our dependence on the media for information, we are often subject to the agenda of the media. That agenda focuses primarily on diplomatic conversations among politicians. That level of diplomacy is necessary but cannot be effective without strong grassroots activity.
In preparing this blog, I became so much more aware of ongoing attempts among academics, research groups and entrepreneurs – all determined to foster better relationships among Arabs and Jews. Through the dissemination of information and while making the public see that there is a realistic plan as well as a credible partner on both sides, the architects of grassroots efforts hope to change the political mindset of the people, who would then themselves pressure their political leaders to change.
For instance, some change can begin in the media. Joint educational programs for journalists or young leaders are one way of reaching the masses indirectly. Another is by establishing “values of peace” through meetings between school children, joint sporting events and the performing arts.
My research tells me that there is some dialog taking place between professionals. There is joint-discussion on topics of mutual interest like the environment, water and agriculture. Limited dialog is also taking place among doctors who jointly conduct breast cancer research, as well as other areas of medical science. While the participants in these activities mainly discuss professional matters, they still create an environment that is conducive to changing attitudes regarding each other and to the spreading of knowledge and ideas.
The most difficult area of dialog is religion. Both Jews and Arabs claim a common heritage in Abraham. As descendants of Abraham, Muslims believe the promises God made to Abraham, were intended for them. Jews disagree. They believe the promises were intended for the descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael, Abraham’s other son who became the father of the Arab world. The spirit of disagreement and conflict was seen very early in the history of both groups. Interestingly, it was said of Ishmael and his people, “and they lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (Genesis 25:18).
Hundreds of years later, Mohammad appears on the scene. He is born in Mecca and as an Arab has a cultural link to Ishmael/Abraham. However, when Mohammad was born, followers of Abraham’s monotheism in the Arab world were called Jews.
Even a cursory study of Islam, the religion practiced by most Arabs, will show that Mohammad was unable to convince Arabian Jews that he was a prophet sent from the God of Abraham. Actually, monotheism as practiced by Abraham, was far removed from what was practiced by Arabs.
Those religious differences brought about hostility between Islam and Judaism – and that hostility continues to be evident today. For example, in Islam’s Hadiths (Bukhari 52:177), “Allah's Apostle said, the Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’"
Muslims who adhere to that ideology contend that there should be no attempt at peace with Jews. This provides fuel for Hamas and other Muslims who resent Jews. Thankfully, all Muslims do not adhere to this ideology – with such Muslims, it is possible to live peacefully with Jews.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Palestine and Palestinians
Palestine is not a country. Historically, it is a geographical region where Jewish and Arab people live. The term “Palestine” (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region. It is believed that the name was derived from the Philistines who invaded the area between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, before the Common Era.
The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area, under the sovereignty of their city-states, became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”
Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy - remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.
Interestingly, the term “Palestinian” was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The non-Jews of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus).
In early 1947, when the United Nations was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division. They argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.
Following the Six-Day-War (1967), there was a strategic change in language among Arabs. The term “Palestinian” was coined to lend legitimacy to claims for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This ploy was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, in a public interview with Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee. In this March 31, 1977 interview, with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhse’in said:
The revisionist narrative contends that Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state, illegally occupies Arab land and carries out genocide of an indigenous people that had stronger claim to the land than Israel itself.
That is the argument that fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is the rationale behind the preamble of Hamas’ Charter: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.
I am not suggesting that Israel should obliterate Hamas instead. I dislike war. As a Christian, I am encouraged to pursue peace. I am also encouraged to pray for persons in leadership – “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).
However, I recognize that governments have a responsibility to protect their people. The apostle Paul, in the context of governmental authority, referred to the barbaric Roman government as “God’s servant” (Romans 13:1-7). Similarly, Israel has a responsibility to protect and pursue peace for her people.
RECOMMENDED
“Why the Jews” and “Jerusalem” (earlier blogs)
The Fight for Jerusalem by Dore Gold
Why the Jews by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.
Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg
Video: The Middle East Problem
The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area, under the sovereignty of their city-states, became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”
Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy - remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.
Interestingly, the term “Palestinian” was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The non-Jews of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus).
In early 1947, when the United Nations was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division. They argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.
Following the Six-Day-War (1967), there was a strategic change in language among Arabs. The term “Palestinian” was coined to lend legitimacy to claims for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This ploy was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, in a public interview with Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee. In this March 31, 1977 interview, with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhse’in said:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."Wow! In the absence of sound history, we have come to believe revisionist history – a mythic narrative that teaches that Zionists, with the support of the British, have stolen Palestinian land, exiled the people, and initiated a reign of terror and ethnic cleansing.
The revisionist narrative contends that Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state, illegally occupies Arab land and carries out genocide of an indigenous people that had stronger claim to the land than Israel itself.
That is the argument that fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is the rationale behind the preamble of Hamas’ Charter: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.
I am not suggesting that Israel should obliterate Hamas instead. I dislike war. As a Christian, I am encouraged to pursue peace. I am also encouraged to pray for persons in leadership – “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).
However, I recognize that governments have a responsibility to protect their people. The apostle Paul, in the context of governmental authority, referred to the barbaric Roman government as “God’s servant” (Romans 13:1-7). Similarly, Israel has a responsibility to protect and pursue peace for her people.
RECOMMENDED
“Why the Jews” and “Jerusalem” (earlier blogs)
The Fight for Jerusalem by Dore Gold
Why the Jews by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.
Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg
Video: The Middle East Problem
Monday, July 28, 2014
Menace or Mentors
According to Earthjustice, “each year, nearly a billion pounds of pesticides are sprayed in fields and orchards across America.” Much of this is sprayed during Termite Season – April to August. Ants are particularly susceptible to this menace demolition campaign. Simply put, ants are pests, kill them.
I fully understand the rationale, especially during these summer months. Even as I prepare this blog my family has ant killing pesticides appropriately placed in our South Florida home. However, there is something else about ants we often overlook.
Ants live everywhere. They are loosening and oxygenating soil, adding nutrients to the soil, controlling bug populations, transplanting seeds, pollinating plants and flowers, aiding in decomposition, moving and consuming organic and inorganic material on such a large scale that their impact may never be fully appreciated.
I am no myrmecologist (a scientist who studies ants); however, I have learned a few things about ants that can have a profound impact on human behavior. For instance, the work ethic of ants can put even the most ambitious person to shame.
All day long the ant labors in the hot desert, or a wet rain forest, or the cold tundra sniffing out his food and carrying back his load to the nest, no matter how far the journey or how difficult the terrain. Actually, the load an ant carries around all day can be up to 50 times his own body weight.
Ants are probably the most highly developed social insects. Scientists tell us “each colony of ants contains at least one queen. The workers, who are all sterile females, care for the queen, enlarge, repair and defend the nest, care for the young and gather food. Some workers perform only one job throughout their lives while others may change their tasks. The soldier ants are specialized workers whose function is to guard the nest.” In essence, ants possess amazing organizational skills.
The writer of the Book of Proverbs, invites his readers to learn from ants. At least five profound truths are unpacked from the biblical text. In the first place, the writer contends that ants are not lazy. The writer challenges “the sluggard” to go the ant and learn (Proverbs 6:6). Ants are energetic and full of life. They are aware of the fact that their life span is short and live with energy. Like the Psalmist, we too learn “to number our days aright, that we may gain hearts of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). If we can only live our lives, keeping in mind that life is like a vapor – very brief. Live life with enthusiasm, just like ants.
Proverbs also teaches that ants are self-motivated. They operate with “no commander, no overseer or no ruler.” Myrmecologists confirm this biblical truth – “ants form groups with no single leader, and no hierarchical organizational model.” Ants are driven by a desire to survive and the reality of their own limitations. The words of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy would seem to capture this emphasis, when he said, “Ask not what my country can do for me but what I can do for my country.”
In the third place, we must credit ants with being frugal. According to Proverbs, “they store their provision in summer and gather their food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:8). They know when to reap. They know when to put in storage. Ants know what to spend and what to save. In essence, they know how to balance time and resources. In other words, ants know the seasons of life and plan accordingly.
Not only do ants know opportunities, they also know their limitations. “Ants are creatures of little strength” says the writer of Proverbs (30:25). There are some ants that are one twenty-fifth of an inch. They are limited in size and strength. Their survival depends on community. As mentioned earlier, they are probably the most highly developed social insects. Together, they can strip an orange grove of leaves in one night. However, they cannot survive without community.
Another important credit to ants is the fact that they are wise. Proverbs actually says that “they are extremely wise” (Proverbs 30:24). They know how to apply knowledge – knowledge of seasons, their own physiology, their vulnerabilities and the value of community.
Although limited, they know how to use the resources available to them. Army ants may prey on reptiles, birds, or even small mammals. One Amazon species of ants cooperatively builds extensive traps from plant fiber. These traps have many holes and, when an insect steps on one, hundreds of ants inside use the openings to seize it with their jaws.
Honestly, ants are more than a menace – they are mentors, as they teach us to be frugal, wise, resilient and industrious.
I fully understand the rationale, especially during these summer months. Even as I prepare this blog my family has ant killing pesticides appropriately placed in our South Florida home. However, there is something else about ants we often overlook.
Ants live everywhere. They are loosening and oxygenating soil, adding nutrients to the soil, controlling bug populations, transplanting seeds, pollinating plants and flowers, aiding in decomposition, moving and consuming organic and inorganic material on such a large scale that their impact may never be fully appreciated.
I am no myrmecologist (a scientist who studies ants); however, I have learned a few things about ants that can have a profound impact on human behavior. For instance, the work ethic of ants can put even the most ambitious person to shame.
All day long the ant labors in the hot desert, or a wet rain forest, or the cold tundra sniffing out his food and carrying back his load to the nest, no matter how far the journey or how difficult the terrain. Actually, the load an ant carries around all day can be up to 50 times his own body weight.
Ants are probably the most highly developed social insects. Scientists tell us “each colony of ants contains at least one queen. The workers, who are all sterile females, care for the queen, enlarge, repair and defend the nest, care for the young and gather food. Some workers perform only one job throughout their lives while others may change their tasks. The soldier ants are specialized workers whose function is to guard the nest.” In essence, ants possess amazing organizational skills.
The writer of the Book of Proverbs, invites his readers to learn from ants. At least five profound truths are unpacked from the biblical text. In the first place, the writer contends that ants are not lazy. The writer challenges “the sluggard” to go the ant and learn (Proverbs 6:6). Ants are energetic and full of life. They are aware of the fact that their life span is short and live with energy. Like the Psalmist, we too learn “to number our days aright, that we may gain hearts of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). If we can only live our lives, keeping in mind that life is like a vapor – very brief. Live life with enthusiasm, just like ants.
Proverbs also teaches that ants are self-motivated. They operate with “no commander, no overseer or no ruler.” Myrmecologists confirm this biblical truth – “ants form groups with no single leader, and no hierarchical organizational model.” Ants are driven by a desire to survive and the reality of their own limitations. The words of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy would seem to capture this emphasis, when he said, “Ask not what my country can do for me but what I can do for my country.”
In the third place, we must credit ants with being frugal. According to Proverbs, “they store their provision in summer and gather their food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:8). They know when to reap. They know when to put in storage. Ants know what to spend and what to save. In essence, they know how to balance time and resources. In other words, ants know the seasons of life and plan accordingly.
Not only do ants know opportunities, they also know their limitations. “Ants are creatures of little strength” says the writer of Proverbs (30:25). There are some ants that are one twenty-fifth of an inch. They are limited in size and strength. Their survival depends on community. As mentioned earlier, they are probably the most highly developed social insects. Together, they can strip an orange grove of leaves in one night. However, they cannot survive without community.
Another important credit to ants is the fact that they are wise. Proverbs actually says that “they are extremely wise” (Proverbs 30:24). They know how to apply knowledge – knowledge of seasons, their own physiology, their vulnerabilities and the value of community.
Although limited, they know how to use the resources available to them. Army ants may prey on reptiles, birds, or even small mammals. One Amazon species of ants cooperatively builds extensive traps from plant fiber. These traps have many holes and, when an insect steps on one, hundreds of ants inside use the openings to seize it with their jaws.
Honestly, ants are more than a menace – they are mentors, as they teach us to be frugal, wise, resilient and industrious.
Monday, July 21, 2014
AMERICA!
This summer marks 23 years since we landed at Miami International Airport. My family and I were heading for Chicago where I would pursue graduate studies at Trinity International University. I can still recall the drive to the Windy City. The long drive ensured that the five of us remained a close-knit group – that bonding was necessary for the cold winter years in the mid-west.
Our immigration status did not allow my wife to work and I was allowed to work only on campus for what I learned later was minimum wage. The money with which we travelled from Jamaica was finished in three months. I began my graduate program with no scholarships. With our first child in high school and the others at the junior high and elementary school levels, one could just imagine the magnitude of the fiscal challenges we faced.
My wife and I knew the immigration rules, and we were not prepared to break them. We felt that our time in America was consistent with a divine call. We also felt that if God had opened a door for us, He would provide for us. Apart from the risk of being caught and the likely deportation that would follow, we knew if we played dishonestly, we would be robbing ourselves of the moral authority we needed to guide our children. In addition, we would be undermining the standards of integrity by which we sought to guide our lives.
God honored our stand and our status changed in a miraculous way – that’s another story. Our new immigration status enabled us to work. Although some of the jobs were very menial, the money earned affirmed our dignity and strong work ethic.
Not every family can share such stories about coming to America. It is believed that about 60% of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and1780s were brought here as indentured workers. However, while half the European migrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired.
Slaves were among this “never indentured” category. The first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.
Unlike our situation, many families were destroyed because of immigration practices in the United States. Sometimes the immigrating families must be blamed. The truth is, when we pursue financial gain at any cost, usually, our families are affected.
By now everyone is aware of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossing our Southern border that have created a national crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis for these children who have been sent by their families to travel thousands of miles on their own. Many are physically and sexually abused along the way, others never reach their destination. All too often, Border Patrol agents discover small, lifeless bodies washed up on the US side of the river that marks the border between Texas and Mexico.
All forms of migration affect family life – either for better or worse. As a nation, Israel never recovered when Assyria removed most of the men from the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. Today we still talk about the ten lost tribes and the bastardization of the Samaritans.
We as a nation, need to have a serious conversation about the impact of migration on family life. Some of our laws need adjusting to reflect an appreciation for stable family life. No nation can succeed without stability in the family.
As my wife and I prepare for U.S. citizenship, we have become so much more aware of the American experiment. Part of my personal preparation included reading Dr. Ben Carson’s book, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future. In addition, we viewed Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “America: Imagine a World Without Her.” We strongly recommend both resources.
Those resources reminded me of what the American experiment was all about as well as cautioned me about the threat of revisionist history to distort the value of that experiment. As someone who lectures in religion, it is frustrating to come across revisionist literature that attempts to undermine the role of religion in American history.
As a beneficiary of the American experiment I am eager to obtain citizenship. I want the privilege to vote – to influence the branches of government. I want to be sure that when I hear the words “we the people," those words include me.
When faced with the reality of living away from their homeland, God said to the Jews – “build houses and settle down...seek the peace and prosperity of the city ...pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Our immigration status did not allow my wife to work and I was allowed to work only on campus for what I learned later was minimum wage. The money with which we travelled from Jamaica was finished in three months. I began my graduate program with no scholarships. With our first child in high school and the others at the junior high and elementary school levels, one could just imagine the magnitude of the fiscal challenges we faced.
My wife and I knew the immigration rules, and we were not prepared to break them. We felt that our time in America was consistent with a divine call. We also felt that if God had opened a door for us, He would provide for us. Apart from the risk of being caught and the likely deportation that would follow, we knew if we played dishonestly, we would be robbing ourselves of the moral authority we needed to guide our children. In addition, we would be undermining the standards of integrity by which we sought to guide our lives.
God honored our stand and our status changed in a miraculous way – that’s another story. Our new immigration status enabled us to work. Although some of the jobs were very menial, the money earned affirmed our dignity and strong work ethic.
Not every family can share such stories about coming to America. It is believed that about 60% of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and1780s were brought here as indentured workers. However, while half the European migrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired.
Slaves were among this “never indentured” category. The first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.
Unlike our situation, many families were destroyed because of immigration practices in the United States. Sometimes the immigrating families must be blamed. The truth is, when we pursue financial gain at any cost, usually, our families are affected.
By now everyone is aware of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossing our Southern border that have created a national crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis for these children who have been sent by their families to travel thousands of miles on their own. Many are physically and sexually abused along the way, others never reach their destination. All too often, Border Patrol agents discover small, lifeless bodies washed up on the US side of the river that marks the border between Texas and Mexico.
All forms of migration affect family life – either for better or worse. As a nation, Israel never recovered when Assyria removed most of the men from the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. Today we still talk about the ten lost tribes and the bastardization of the Samaritans.
We as a nation, need to have a serious conversation about the impact of migration on family life. Some of our laws need adjusting to reflect an appreciation for stable family life. No nation can succeed without stability in the family.
As my wife and I prepare for U.S. citizenship, we have become so much more aware of the American experiment. Part of my personal preparation included reading Dr. Ben Carson’s book, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future. In addition, we viewed Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “America: Imagine a World Without Her.” We strongly recommend both resources.
Those resources reminded me of what the American experiment was all about as well as cautioned me about the threat of revisionist history to distort the value of that experiment. As someone who lectures in religion, it is frustrating to come across revisionist literature that attempts to undermine the role of religion in American history.
As a beneficiary of the American experiment I am eager to obtain citizenship. I want the privilege to vote – to influence the branches of government. I want to be sure that when I hear the words “we the people," those words include me.
When faced with the reality of living away from their homeland, God said to the Jews – “build houses and settle down...seek the peace and prosperity of the city ...pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Bisexual or Convert?
Recently I was reading the story of a woman who converted to Christianity. She was gay and discontinued the practice upon converting. Today she is happily married with four children. In responding to the story, one columnist suggested that she did not abandon homosexuality because of her conversion. Rather, she was living out her bisexual preference.
According the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, “bisexuality is the potential to feel sexually attracted to and engage in sensual or sexual relationships with people of either sex." Interestingly, there are several theories about different models of bisexual behavior. J. R. Little is a psychologist whose extensive research identified at least 13 types of bisexuality.
However, none of Professor Little’s categories defined the experience of former leftist lesbian professor Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Did Professor Butterfield transition to heterosexuality because she was bisexual, or because of conversion?
As a professor of English and Women’s Studies at Syracuse University, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, Dr. Butterfield cared about morality, justice and compassion. In her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she says, “I used my post (as a professor) to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: AIDS activism, children’s health and literacy and our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few.”
“I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track – the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, in 1997 I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers.”
According to Dr. Butterfield, “the article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk – one for hate mail, and the other for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind of inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire – How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.”
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview... Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
“With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen...He did not mock me. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward – surely this will be good for my research.”
“Something else happened. Ken, his wife Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.”
Dr. Butterfield started reading the Bible. “I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations...I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired...It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in.”
Then, “one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked...Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess...the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother”.”
Dr. Butterfield’s story reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians. He was itemizing specific negative behaviors with which they were identified. With clarity he stated, “...and that is what some of you were, but you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). This statement was not a description of bisexualism. Like Dr. Butterfield’s story, it was a statement of conversion and its effect on behavior.
According the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, “bisexuality is the potential to feel sexually attracted to and engage in sensual or sexual relationships with people of either sex." Interestingly, there are several theories about different models of bisexual behavior. J. R. Little is a psychologist whose extensive research identified at least 13 types of bisexuality.
However, none of Professor Little’s categories defined the experience of former leftist lesbian professor Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Did Professor Butterfield transition to heterosexuality because she was bisexual, or because of conversion?
As a professor of English and Women’s Studies at Syracuse University, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, Dr. Butterfield cared about morality, justice and compassion. In her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she says, “I used my post (as a professor) to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: AIDS activism, children’s health and literacy and our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few.”
“I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track – the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, in 1997 I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers.”
According to Dr. Butterfield, “the article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk – one for hate mail, and the other for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind of inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire – How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.”
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview... Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
“With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen...He did not mock me. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward – surely this will be good for my research.”
“Something else happened. Ken, his wife Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.”
Dr. Butterfield started reading the Bible. “I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations...I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired...It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in.”
Then, “one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked...Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess...the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother”.”
Dr. Butterfield’s story reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians. He was itemizing specific negative behaviors with which they were identified. With clarity he stated, “...and that is what some of you were, but you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). This statement was not a description of bisexualism. Like Dr. Butterfield’s story, it was a statement of conversion and its effect on behavior.
Monday, January 20, 2014
MLK TAUGHT US The Power of Meekness
Some people believe the words power and meekness should never appear in the same sentence. Such persons would very likely describe meekness as weakness. That view of meekness is false and the life of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. illustrates that.
From his sermons and his life, Dr. King attempted to demonstrate a biblical understanding of meekness. He believed the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were prescriptive and not merely descriptive. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
Dr. King understood that Jesus was using language, familiar to His listeners. They knew that meekness was used in the context of trainers who brought wild stallions under control. Although stallions symbolized sheer “horse” power, they could be tamed to behave as gentle animals. Hence, when one thought of meekness, one thought of power under control.
Today, horse power under control is used by physical and occupational therapists. These specialists practice hippotherapy, incorporating the movement of horses into the total care plan of their patients. In essence, controlled power can perform a different kind of powerful service.
While addressing a packed hall at the University of California – Berkley on June 4, 1957, Dr. King chose as his topic: The Power of Nonviolence. Here is a summary of his presentation:
- Non-violence is not a method of cowardice. He stressed that the non-violent resister was just as opposed to evil as the violent resister. However, non-violence should not be confused with stagnant passivity and deadening complacency.
- Non-violence does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but seeks to win his friendship and understanding. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community.
- A boycott is never an end within itself but merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor. The end is reconciliation and redemption.
- The nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than the individual who happens to be caught up in the system. For Dr. King, the struggle was between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
Dr. King’s display of meekness was honed by his Christian worldview of love - a love that sought nothing in return. He loved his enemies, not because they were likable, but because God loved them. He loved the person who disliked blacks but loathed the system that perpetuated hatred for others.
Dr. King was convinced that only through love one was able to really conquer injustice and violence. He felt the ultimate weakness of violence was a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it was seeking to destroy - instead of diminishing evil, violence multiplied evil.
According to Dr. King, “through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”
Today’s celebration of the birth of Dr. King provides a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the life of a pastor who knew God and sought to live-out his understanding of biblical principles.
Dr. King responded well to a rich heritage of pastoral influences. Hear his words: “I am...the son of a Baptist preacher, the grandson of a Baptist preacher and the great grandson of a Baptist preacher. The Church is my life and I have given my life to the Church.”
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King 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 responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)