The news headlines preceding Christmas 2016 were frightening – massacre in Germany, major threat averted in Australia, bombing in Syria, Libyan plane hijacked, and the list goes on. None of those events suggest that we are experiencing peace on earth.
Interestingly, the same could be said of the world in which Jesus was born. The philosophical and religious backgrounds of paganism in the first century left a sense of emptiness among many. For instance, belief in the reality of the ancient gods and goddesses of classical mythology resulted in widespread agnosticism.
Many sceptics deduced that the gods were originally men who had distinguished themselves either as warriors or benefactors of mankind, and who after their death were accorded divine honors.
What was aptly termed “the failure of nerve” characterized the moral and religious vacuum that many felt but could not overcome, despite the panaceas offered by a welter of competing teachers, philosophers, priests, astrologers and quacks.
Epictetus, a first century Roman historian and philosopher said of this era: “while the emperor may give peace from war on land and sea, he is unable to give peace from passion, grief and envy. He cannot give peace of heart, for which humanity yearns more than even for outward peace.” As emperor, Caesar Augustus ruled the nations, but could not conquer the human heart.
That was the religious and philosophical world into which Jesus came. That was the world which heard the angels say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests” (Luke 2:14). So unlike today’s understanding of peace, the angels were not referring to the absence of war. They were declaring God's desire for harmonious relationships between men and nations.
Like with the Hebrew word shalom, peace means completeness, wholeness, health, welfare, safety soundness, tranquility, prosperity, perfectness, fullness, rest, harmony, the absence of agitation or discord. Shalom comes from the root verb shalom meaning to be complete, perfect and full.
That understanding of peace is so different from those who believe that assuming a posture of strength dissuades potential attacks, consequently leading to peace – the absence of war. But peace is much more than the absence of war.
In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul linked peace to a person, and not merely to an ideology. He contended, “for He (Jesus) is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility... (Ephesians 2:14).
Hundreds of years earlier, the prophet Isaiah predicted of the coming Messiah, that He would be sar shalom – Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus, who Christians believe is that Messiah, said to His disciples, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you...” (John 14:27). For this reason, Christians see Christmas as the arrival of the Prince of Peace.
Despite the isolated cases in history of using Christianity to incite and initiate wars, the Christian message is universally known as a message of peace.
Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia, sex trafficking and abortion persists.
Because Christians are expected to demonstrate the life of Christ as a lifestyle, we should constantly pursue peace. The biblical teaching is unambiguous, “... as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). Christmas provides tremendous opportunities to illustrate this truth.
In 2015, an estimated $373 billion was received for charities from Americans. About $119 billion of that amount went to religious charities – including churches and para church organizations. That is more than what is spent by the federal government on education or human services. Interestingly, most of that money was received within ten weeks before Christmas.
This fact reminds me that every hour, during this month of December, there is a performance of Handel’s Messiah somewhere in the world. Since the musical was premiered on April 13, 1742, the response around the world has been phenomenal.
George Frideric Handel personally conducted more than thirty performances of Messiah. The millions of dollars that Handel’s performances raised for charity led one biographer to note, "Messiah has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, fostered the orphan . . . more than any other single musical production in this or any country."
In essence, the proceeds have brought peace to many. It is that message of peace, about the Prince of Peace, that continues to bring wholeness and harmony to billions around the world. For this reason, there is no need for anyone to live in turmoil, knowing that God’s peace is available in the Christ of Christmas.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
FAKE NEWS OR GOOD NEWS?
When I was a child, anything that was intended to mislead was called a lie – it was not the truth. Some have since described such lies as half-truths, and more recently as fake news.
According to the New York Times, fake news refers to fictitious articles, fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers. Generally, with the goal of profiting through “clickbait” (Internet content of a sensational or provocative nature, whose main purpose is to attract attention and draw visitors to a particular web page).
PolitiFact described fake news as “fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination”. While in Germany recently, President Obama referred to fake news as “active misinformation”.
It is so sad when one cannot trust the media, committed to trustworthy communication. It is like we need a campaign for good news. News that is wholesome and reliable.
In a culture plagued with fake news, Good News is always good. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood at the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.
Near-Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”
One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.
The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.
Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.
Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society.
Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world.
Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists.
Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines.
However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news.
Interestingly, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.
According to the New York Times, fake news refers to fictitious articles, fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers. Generally, with the goal of profiting through “clickbait” (Internet content of a sensational or provocative nature, whose main purpose is to attract attention and draw visitors to a particular web page).
PolitiFact described fake news as “fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination”. While in Germany recently, President Obama referred to fake news as “active misinformation”.
It is so sad when one cannot trust the media, committed to trustworthy communication. It is like we need a campaign for good news. News that is wholesome and reliable.
In a culture plagued with fake news, Good News is always good. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood at the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.
Near-Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”
One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.
The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.
Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.
Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society.
Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world.
Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists.
Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines.
However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news.
Interestingly, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.
Monday, December 12, 2016
The Virgin Birth: UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL?
Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. It is believed that some
pagan deities were also born miraculously of virgins, making the birth of Jesus nothing new in the history of world religions.
One Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to boost the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
As a careful historian, Luke anticipates the skepticism that would arise in telling the story, hence the inclusion of Mary’s question: “how will this be, since I am a virgin?” In addition, he quotes the angel as saying, “for nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:34,37).
To merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
pagan deities were also born miraculously of virgins, making the birth of Jesus nothing new in the history of world religions.
One Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to boost the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
As a careful historian, Luke anticipates the skepticism that would arise in telling the story, hence the inclusion of Mary’s question: “how will this be, since I am a virgin?” In addition, he quotes the angel as saying, “for nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:34,37).
To merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
Sunday, November 27, 2016
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.
(This commentary first appeared in December 2014)
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.
(This commentary first appeared in December 2014)
Monday, November 21, 2016
Happy Thanksgiving!
My family observed our first American Thanksgiving in 1991. A few months earlier, we began our studies in a northern suburb of Chicago. We learned rather quickly that in America, Thanksgiving was a time for families to get together.
An American family invited us to join them for that first celebration. For five years, we celebrated with them in St. Louis. The joyous times made the 300-mile journey very tolerable. Now, twenty-five years later, the friendships we maintain are just as meaningful as in those early years.
When our family-group of twenty gather this week, I will be aware that our celebration would not be anything like the first American Thanksgiving. The first observance of Thanksgiving in America was entirely religious in nature and involved no form of feasting. On Wednesday, December 4, 1619, a group of 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation on the James River in Virginia. The charter of the group required that the day of arrival be observed as a Day of Thanksgiving to God.
The celebration was probably derived from the harvest-home ceremonies originally held in England. Those were days reserved to thank God for plentiful crops and a bountiful harvest. Accordingly, this holiday still takes place late in the Fall Season, after crops have been gathered.
In 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first official Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.”
Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level. Much of the credit for the adoption of a later annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For 30 years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting president after president until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving.
Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. In 1941, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.
It is believed that the English idea of giving thanks for crops had its genesis among the Jews. In Leviticus 23:15-16, God commanded the Jews to count seven full weeks (49 days), beginning on the second day of Passover. The celebration was known by different names throughout the Bible. Among them were The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of the Fiftieth Day and the Day of Pentecost – from the Greek word pentecostes, meaning fiftieth.
Even with a cursory study of the Jewish, British and American practices of thanksgiving, a few common threads seem obvious. Each celebration was in keeping with harvest festivals and acknowledged God’s faithful provision.
In June Jews celebrate Shavuot – the biblical harvest festival. Normally, they spend hours studying the Torah, chant the Ten Commandments, read from the book of Ruth and decorate their homes and synagogues with roses and spices.
In America, it would seem as though the tradition of thanking God has been replaced by the eating of turkey. Some historians believe when colonists sat down to eat with native Indians, beef and fowl were on the menu. A letter written by pilgrim Edward Winslow confirmed this belief when he mentioned a turkey hunting trip before the meal.
Within modern times, the annual "pardoning" of White House turkeys is an interesting tradition that has captured the imagination of the public. It is often stated that President Lincoln’s 1863 clemency to a turkey was the origin for the pardoning ceremony. It is a rather trivial American tradition that the poultry industry looks forward to.
On a more serious note though, for what will you be giving thanks this week? As the patriarch at our Thanksgiving table, I will encourage my family to reflect on something within the last year. My list would very likely include my faith, health, family, church, career and upcoming retirement from pastoral ministry.
What would your list look like? What about saying thanks to at least five persons who had a positive impact on your life within the last year? Have fun. Happy Thanksgiving!
An American family invited us to join them for that first celebration. For five years, we celebrated with them in St. Louis. The joyous times made the 300-mile journey very tolerable. Now, twenty-five years later, the friendships we maintain are just as meaningful as in those early years.
When our family-group of twenty gather this week, I will be aware that our celebration would not be anything like the first American Thanksgiving. The first observance of Thanksgiving in America was entirely religious in nature and involved no form of feasting. On Wednesday, December 4, 1619, a group of 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation on the James River in Virginia. The charter of the group required that the day of arrival be observed as a Day of Thanksgiving to God.
The celebration was probably derived from the harvest-home ceremonies originally held in England. Those were days reserved to thank God for plentiful crops and a bountiful harvest. Accordingly, this holiday still takes place late in the Fall Season, after crops have been gathered.
In 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first official Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.”
Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level. Much of the credit for the adoption of a later annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For 30 years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting president after president until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving.
Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. In 1941, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.
It is believed that the English idea of giving thanks for crops had its genesis among the Jews. In Leviticus 23:15-16, God commanded the Jews to count seven full weeks (49 days), beginning on the second day of Passover. The celebration was known by different names throughout the Bible. Among them were The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of the Fiftieth Day and the Day of Pentecost – from the Greek word pentecostes, meaning fiftieth.
Even with a cursory study of the Jewish, British and American practices of thanksgiving, a few common threads seem obvious. Each celebration was in keeping with harvest festivals and acknowledged God’s faithful provision.
In June Jews celebrate Shavuot – the biblical harvest festival. Normally, they spend hours studying the Torah, chant the Ten Commandments, read from the book of Ruth and decorate their homes and synagogues with roses and spices.
In America, it would seem as though the tradition of thanking God has been replaced by the eating of turkey. Some historians believe when colonists sat down to eat with native Indians, beef and fowl were on the menu. A letter written by pilgrim Edward Winslow confirmed this belief when he mentioned a turkey hunting trip before the meal.
Within modern times, the annual "pardoning" of White House turkeys is an interesting tradition that has captured the imagination of the public. It is often stated that President Lincoln’s 1863 clemency to a turkey was the origin for the pardoning ceremony. It is a rather trivial American tradition that the poultry industry looks forward to.
On a more serious note though, for what will you be giving thanks this week? As the patriarch at our Thanksgiving table, I will encourage my family to reflect on something within the last year. My list would very likely include my faith, health, family, church, career and upcoming retirement from pastoral ministry.
What would your list look like? What about saying thanks to at least five persons who had a positive impact on your life within the last year? Have fun. Happy Thanksgiving!
Sunday, November 13, 2016
“We the People?”
The phrase “WE THE PEOPLE” is in the very first sentence of the United States Constitution. The entire phrase reads, “We the people of the United States...”. It would seem obvious that the phrase was referring to citizens of the United States.
To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”
What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.
In America, the power to govern comes from the people. 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.
Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.
If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.
Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.
In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest 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 called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County 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 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 upon."
That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.
The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.
To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”
What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.
In America, the power to govern comes from the people. 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.
Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.
If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.
Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.
In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest 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 called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County 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 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 upon."
That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.
The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Two Slivers of Hope
I am among the 82% of Americans who are disgusted with the current presidential campaign. Yes, I am eager for the campaign to end. I am sick of hearing quips like, “Clinton is a crook”, and “Trump is a creep”. One seasoned journalist described the campaign as “the most negative and ‘issue-less’ one of my career.”
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most unpopular presidential candidates in more than 30 years of ABC News/Washington Post polling. Among US adults, Hillary Clinton has a 56% unfavourability rating while Donald Trump has 63%. According to Gallup, Trump and Clinton are currently among the worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades.
Amid my political despair, I came across two slivers of hope. The first was my introduction to The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program – I wish it were mandatory for all political candidates to graduate from this great six-month program.
According to the program’s website, “The Presidential Leadership Scholars program is designed for leaders from diverse backgrounds who share a commitment to facing society’s greatest challenges.
The program looks for participants who have the desire and capacity to take their leadership strengths to a higher level in order to help their communities and emboldens them with the practical skills needed to drive solution-oriented action.”
The program draws on the strengths and leadership initiatives of four affiliated presidential centers. By including a bipartisan roster of presidential centers – two Republican and two Democratic – and by enjoying the engagement of former presidents from both parties, the program creates a rare opportunity to instill in students a brand of principled leadership that transcends diverse backgrounds.
This executive-style education series creates a life-long network for Scholars from the business, public service, nonprofit, and military sectors and fosters opportunities for leaders to emerge ready to offer solutions to pressing national problems.
The Presidential Leadership Scholars program aims to build a strong and diverse alumni network that can put the lessons of cooperation and collaborative problem-solving to use in a variety of sectors and inspire a new kind of leadership.
I would hope that with this non-partisan professional program, America would never again have to nominate the cadre of political candidates we see in this 2016 cycle. Among alumni from this program, it is most unlikely to hear descriptions like crook and creep.
My second sliver of hope came during my studies, in preparation for preaching this weekend. I will be unpacking one of the key verses from the Old Testament book of Daniel. Daniel and his people were in captivity in Babylon. Unlike America, Babylon was a despotic autocracy.
It was in that ungodly and cruel context the theme of the book of Daniel emerged – “the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone He wishes” (Daniel 5:21). It was in that context some of the clearest biblical statements of courage and fortitude emerged.
The prophet Jeremiah was addressing exiles in that context when he wrote, “Also, 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).
Like Babylon, America is religiously diverse, but not committed to the God of Abraham. We are becoming more interested in eclectic spirituality than in pursuing a biblical worldview – a system that affirms God as sovereign. Or, as expressed in my sermon topic for this weekend: “God Is In Charge Here”! Looking at America today through these lenses, gives me hope.
In his book, The Handwriting on the Wall, David Jeremiah contends, “Christians should be the calmest people on earth. We have no right to run around this world in frenzied activity, staying up and walking the floor at night, wondering what is going to happen. God in heaven rules the kingdoms of men.”
So be calm. By Tuesday, November 8, 2016 we will know who will be in the White House in January. However, prior to and after that time, our God will still be reigning “over the kingdoms of men...”.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most unpopular presidential candidates in more than 30 years of ABC News/Washington Post polling. Among US adults, Hillary Clinton has a 56% unfavourability rating while Donald Trump has 63%. According to Gallup, Trump and Clinton are currently among the worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades.
Amid my political despair, I came across two slivers of hope. The first was my introduction to The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program – I wish it were mandatory for all political candidates to graduate from this great six-month program.
According to the program’s website, “The Presidential Leadership Scholars program is designed for leaders from diverse backgrounds who share a commitment to facing society’s greatest challenges.
The program looks for participants who have the desire and capacity to take their leadership strengths to a higher level in order to help their communities and emboldens them with the practical skills needed to drive solution-oriented action.”
The program draws on the strengths and leadership initiatives of four affiliated presidential centers. By including a bipartisan roster of presidential centers – two Republican and two Democratic – and by enjoying the engagement of former presidents from both parties, the program creates a rare opportunity to instill in students a brand of principled leadership that transcends diverse backgrounds.
This executive-style education series creates a life-long network for Scholars from the business, public service, nonprofit, and military sectors and fosters opportunities for leaders to emerge ready to offer solutions to pressing national problems.
The Presidential Leadership Scholars program aims to build a strong and diverse alumni network that can put the lessons of cooperation and collaborative problem-solving to use in a variety of sectors and inspire a new kind of leadership.
I would hope that with this non-partisan professional program, America would never again have to nominate the cadre of political candidates we see in this 2016 cycle. Among alumni from this program, it is most unlikely to hear descriptions like crook and creep.
My second sliver of hope came during my studies, in preparation for preaching this weekend. I will be unpacking one of the key verses from the Old Testament book of Daniel. Daniel and his people were in captivity in Babylon. Unlike America, Babylon was a despotic autocracy.
It was in that ungodly and cruel context the theme of the book of Daniel emerged – “the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone He wishes” (Daniel 5:21). It was in that context some of the clearest biblical statements of courage and fortitude emerged.
The prophet Jeremiah was addressing exiles in that context when he wrote, “Also, 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).
Like Babylon, America is religiously diverse, but not committed to the God of Abraham. We are becoming more interested in eclectic spirituality than in pursuing a biblical worldview – a system that affirms God as sovereign. Or, as expressed in my sermon topic for this weekend: “God Is In Charge Here”! Looking at America today through these lenses, gives me hope.
In his book, The Handwriting on the Wall, David Jeremiah contends, “Christians should be the calmest people on earth. We have no right to run around this world in frenzied activity, staying up and walking the floor at night, wondering what is going to happen. God in heaven rules the kingdoms of men.”
So be calm. By Tuesday, November 8, 2016 we will know who will be in the White House in January. However, prior to and after that time, our God will still be reigning “over the kingdoms of men...”.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
I Intend to Vote!
Upon becoming a citizen of the United States, I knew I would earn the right to vote - that right I cherish. Especially now, considering that some 70% of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. My vote might just make the difference to stem this downward trend.
Agreed, the political climate is toxic. However, that toxicity is because of the personalities in the presidential race and not because of the issues at stake. To ignore the issues and focus almost exclusively on leadership traits is a distraction. From a recent survey, the American Psychological Association concluded that more than 50% of American adults view the 2016 election cycle as “a very or somewhat” significant source of stress.
Interestingly, the stress is not only among Americans. Stress and curiosity go beyond foreign policy and security. American policies on trade, immigration, the environment and even health care often carry implications for other nations.
I can make a difference and I intend to do so on Tuesday, November 8. However, as I prayerfully prepare myself to vote, I know that I cannot limit my thinking to the two presidential candidates. As far as I am concerned, both candidates lack the moral authority to lead America. To date, the variety of salacious disclosures will make it very difficult for either candidate to lead with integrity.
However, as I prepare to vote, I will be forced to vote for the candidate who best represents the positions which are important to me. I will vote for the candidate who supports the appointment of justices and judges who respect constitutional limits and the authority of states.
I am aware that the next president may select as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. These justices will decide on cultural issues that will affect me, my children and my grandchildren. Both presidential candidates have indicated the kind of persons they would like to serve on the Supreme Court – there is a stark ideological difference. In addition, the next president will appoint district and appellate judges throughout the nation.
As a person of color, I am very concerned that on average, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. Did you know that, annually, abortion among black Americans causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Regardless of color, every life is sacred, and I will be voting for a presidential candidate that is sensitive to this concern.
My faith defines me and the Bill of Rights protects my right to practice my faith. I want to live according to the dictates of my conscience. I have no problem living in a religiously diverse culture. I want to be sure that all faith-based institutions are protected from government discrimination. Whichever presidential candidate protects these rights will get my vote.
The institution of marriage, defined as a union between a man and a woman, has served every culture for millennia. Both social scientists and theologians will agree that “the institution of marriage is the relationship that best provides for the most favorable exercise of human sexuality, the overall well-being of adults, and the proper socialization of children.” Agreed, other familial relationships meet similar needs. However, lifelong, monogamous marriage is the best option.
If the above is true, then why demonize this option? Researcher Glen Stanton is correct, “Marriage has no close rival. It stands independently above any other option: singleness, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage.” I am eager to vote for a candidate who shares my passion.
When my family and I came to this country 25 years ago, our privileges were limited by our overseas student status. I was determined to live within the immigration limits placed on us. I had a moral obligation to model to my children that we were a law-abiding family. In addition, I had a biblical obligation to display consistency in all areas of my life. We were deprived of luxuries, but maintained our integrity.
I want other immigrants to have a similar appreciation for the laws of the land. It was good to hear the officer say at my citizenship interview, “We are sorry it took so long, but welcome to America.” I plan to vote for a presidential candidate who respects the process of law and order when it comes to immigration. Everyone wins when we play clean. You now know why I intend to vote on November 8.
Agreed, the political climate is toxic. However, that toxicity is because of the personalities in the presidential race and not because of the issues at stake. To ignore the issues and focus almost exclusively on leadership traits is a distraction. From a recent survey, the American Psychological Association concluded that more than 50% of American adults view the 2016 election cycle as “a very or somewhat” significant source of stress.
Interestingly, the stress is not only among Americans. Stress and curiosity go beyond foreign policy and security. American policies on trade, immigration, the environment and even health care often carry implications for other nations.
I can make a difference and I intend to do so on Tuesday, November 8. However, as I prayerfully prepare myself to vote, I know that I cannot limit my thinking to the two presidential candidates. As far as I am concerned, both candidates lack the moral authority to lead America. To date, the variety of salacious disclosures will make it very difficult for either candidate to lead with integrity.
However, as I prepare to vote, I will be forced to vote for the candidate who best represents the positions which are important to me. I will vote for the candidate who supports the appointment of justices and judges who respect constitutional limits and the authority of states.
I am aware that the next president may select as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. These justices will decide on cultural issues that will affect me, my children and my grandchildren. Both presidential candidates have indicated the kind of persons they would like to serve on the Supreme Court – there is a stark ideological difference. In addition, the next president will appoint district and appellate judges throughout the nation.
As a person of color, I am very concerned that on average, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. Did you know that, annually, abortion among black Americans causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Regardless of color, every life is sacred, and I will be voting for a presidential candidate that is sensitive to this concern.
My faith defines me and the Bill of Rights protects my right to practice my faith. I want to live according to the dictates of my conscience. I have no problem living in a religiously diverse culture. I want to be sure that all faith-based institutions are protected from government discrimination. Whichever presidential candidate protects these rights will get my vote.
The institution of marriage, defined as a union between a man and a woman, has served every culture for millennia. Both social scientists and theologians will agree that “the institution of marriage is the relationship that best provides for the most favorable exercise of human sexuality, the overall well-being of adults, and the proper socialization of children.” Agreed, other familial relationships meet similar needs. However, lifelong, monogamous marriage is the best option.
If the above is true, then why demonize this option? Researcher Glen Stanton is correct, “Marriage has no close rival. It stands independently above any other option: singleness, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage.” I am eager to vote for a candidate who shares my passion.
When my family and I came to this country 25 years ago, our privileges were limited by our overseas student status. I was determined to live within the immigration limits placed on us. I had a moral obligation to model to my children that we were a law-abiding family. In addition, I had a biblical obligation to display consistency in all areas of my life. We were deprived of luxuries, but maintained our integrity.
I want other immigrants to have a similar appreciation for the laws of the land. It was good to hear the officer say at my citizenship interview, “We are sorry it took so long, but welcome to America.” I plan to vote for a presidential candidate who respects the process of law and order when it comes to immigration. Everyone wins when we play clean. You now know why I intend to vote on November 8.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Dr. Usain Bolt!
John F. Kennedy Airport’s Terminal Eight was evacuated Sunday night after apparent gunshots were reported. After an initial investigation, police discovered that it was not gunfire that startled frightened travelers. It was actually clapping and banging after Usain Bolt’s history-making sprint that caused the ruckus.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the initial call came in at 9:30 p.m., which is about a minute after Bolt won his 100-meter race, securing a gold medal. There were no injuries reported, though the Federal Airport Authority placed a ground stop at the airport.
Bolt made history Sunday, becoming the first sprinter to win the 100-meter race in three straight Olympic games. It does not matter that his 9.80-second winning time was not his best time at that distance. He won, and that is all that matters.
For me, Bolt is more than a sporting hero; he is by far a cultural icon. He represents a cause – probable many causes. On the Olympic podium he received a gold medal, however, outside of the stadium he will continue to be crowned as a champion of the little man. In his homeland Jamaica, he is already known as Dr. the Honorable Ambassador Usain St. Leo Bolt, OJ (Order of Jam.).
Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness has labelled Usain Bolt’s third consecutive Olympic 100m victory as historic and legendary. According to a release from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), the nation’s political leader said Bolt’s indomitable spirit and focus, inspire not only Jamaicans but millions of people all over the world. "Bolt has etched his name as the greatest sprinter the world has ever seen. Jamaica is fortunate to have a son who inspires so many and ensures our country continues to be the sprint capital of the world.”
As we glory in Bolt’s victories and medals, we may want to remember that at the first Olympic Games back in 776 BCE, competitors did not receive medals. Instead, the top athletes were crowned with wreaths made of olive leaves. This tradition continued until the Romans abolished the Olympics around the year 400 CE. The revival of the Olympics dates from the late 19th century, with the first modern Games taking place in 1896. The awarding of medals arose around this time as well, though its roots lie in ancient Greek mythology.
By the way, did you know that Olympic gold medals are not really made of gold? Each gold medal is made up of 92.5% silver and 1.34% gold. The remainder of the gold medal was made of copper. The value of the materials used in the gold medal is about $644.00. Whereas the silver medal was made up of about 92.5% silver, the bronze medal, was 97% copper.
Obviously, that was much more expensive than the awards that were given at the Isthmian Games in the first century. Paul referred to these Games in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
The Isthmian Games were celebrated every two years on the isthmus of Corinth. The prizes in these games were perishable wreaths. However, like our own Olympics, the games were events of patriotic pride. Athletes contested in track and field, horse and chariot racing, jumping, boxing, wrestling and throwing the discus and javelin. Compare that with Rio’s 306 events in 28 different sports.
Paul’s reference to the Isthmian Games was not intended to promote the games. Rather, he was using the games as a metaphor to teach about the discipline necessary to become winners. Paul was contending that the Corinthians were disciplining themselves in order to receive an award that would perish in a few days. In addition, winning was accompanied by a great sense of devotion to the state and to whichever god was being honored as patron of the games.
Paul saw the Christian life as a race. As participants, Christians should discipline themselves in the race of life. As athletes do, we must identify and eliminate all distractions. Distractions would include activities and behaviors that would affect victorious living. Just like athletes, Christians must be focused on the goal. Sometimes we forget that the goal is not the other athletes, who are also in the race.
It is at the end of the race winners are determined. Winners are determined not only by those who crossed the finish line, but also by those who ran according to the rules.
According to Paul, “…run in such a way as to get the prize”. In addition, the prize is not like the first century Isthmian wreath or the gold-plated Olympian goal medal. For the Christian, the prize is “a crown that will last forever”.
Both Paul and Bolt know the discipline required to earn a prize – one is gold-plated, the other is quite different. For this reason, Paul asserted, “I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Corinthians 9:27).
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the initial call came in at 9:30 p.m., which is about a minute after Bolt won his 100-meter race, securing a gold medal. There were no injuries reported, though the Federal Airport Authority placed a ground stop at the airport.
Bolt made history Sunday, becoming the first sprinter to win the 100-meter race in three straight Olympic games. It does not matter that his 9.80-second winning time was not his best time at that distance. He won, and that is all that matters.
For me, Bolt is more than a sporting hero; he is by far a cultural icon. He represents a cause – probable many causes. On the Olympic podium he received a gold medal, however, outside of the stadium he will continue to be crowned as a champion of the little man. In his homeland Jamaica, he is already known as Dr. the Honorable Ambassador Usain St. Leo Bolt, OJ (Order of Jam.).
Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness has labelled Usain Bolt’s third consecutive Olympic 100m victory as historic and legendary. According to a release from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), the nation’s political leader said Bolt’s indomitable spirit and focus, inspire not only Jamaicans but millions of people all over the world. "Bolt has etched his name as the greatest sprinter the world has ever seen. Jamaica is fortunate to have a son who inspires so many and ensures our country continues to be the sprint capital of the world.”
As we glory in Bolt’s victories and medals, we may want to remember that at the first Olympic Games back in 776 BCE, competitors did not receive medals. Instead, the top athletes were crowned with wreaths made of olive leaves. This tradition continued until the Romans abolished the Olympics around the year 400 CE. The revival of the Olympics dates from the late 19th century, with the first modern Games taking place in 1896. The awarding of medals arose around this time as well, though its roots lie in ancient Greek mythology.
By the way, did you know that Olympic gold medals are not really made of gold? Each gold medal is made up of 92.5% silver and 1.34% gold. The remainder of the gold medal was made of copper. The value of the materials used in the gold medal is about $644.00. Whereas the silver medal was made up of about 92.5% silver, the bronze medal, was 97% copper.
Obviously, that was much more expensive than the awards that were given at the Isthmian Games in the first century. Paul referred to these Games in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
The Isthmian Games were celebrated every two years on the isthmus of Corinth. The prizes in these games were perishable wreaths. However, like our own Olympics, the games were events of patriotic pride. Athletes contested in track and field, horse and chariot racing, jumping, boxing, wrestling and throwing the discus and javelin. Compare that with Rio’s 306 events in 28 different sports.
Paul’s reference to the Isthmian Games was not intended to promote the games. Rather, he was using the games as a metaphor to teach about the discipline necessary to become winners. Paul was contending that the Corinthians were disciplining themselves in order to receive an award that would perish in a few days. In addition, winning was accompanied by a great sense of devotion to the state and to whichever god was being honored as patron of the games.
Paul saw the Christian life as a race. As participants, Christians should discipline themselves in the race of life. As athletes do, we must identify and eliminate all distractions. Distractions would include activities and behaviors that would affect victorious living. Just like athletes, Christians must be focused on the goal. Sometimes we forget that the goal is not the other athletes, who are also in the race.
It is at the end of the race winners are determined. Winners are determined not only by those who crossed the finish line, but also by those who ran according to the rules.
According to Paul, “…run in such a way as to get the prize”. In addition, the prize is not like the first century Isthmian wreath or the gold-plated Olympian goal medal. For the Christian, the prize is “a crown that will last forever”.
Both Paul and Bolt know the discipline required to earn a prize – one is gold-plated, the other is quite different. For this reason, Paul asserted, “I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Corinthians 9:27).
Friday, July 29, 2016
White Privilege
When we migrated to America twenty-five years ago, we were often told that we were not seen as being black. We understood then, that that was a statement of acceptance. Acceptance by others who determined that our conduct was not a threat to their way of living.
I believe those who affirmed us were genuine. They were unconscious of assuming and displaying a posture of privilege. On one occasion, I was visiting a woman who was dying in hospital. During that visit, my presence was questioned by a white nurse. The white husband of the dying woman sensed the racist tone in the nurse’s question. Although he was not being addressed, the husband answered – “He is our pastor.” With that, the nurse left the room.
In coming to my defense, that husband and two other white friends who were present, were utilizing their inherited privilege. Simply put, they were raised in a society that attached significance to their ethnicity. They tapped into that inherited right and defended me.
Those memories of life in Midwest America returned while watching a video someone sent me a few days ago. The story in the video was told by a black woman. She and her sister-in-law grew up together. Her sister-in-law was half white and half black with blue eyes, “whiter than most white folks.” Along with their spouses and children, they shared wonderful, multicultural family times.
Both women were in the check-out line at a neighborhood supermarket. Kathleen, the sister-in-law, checked her groceries first. The cashier who was a strawberry blond, freckled and extremely warm, engaged Kathleen in pleasant small talk. During the friendly exchange, Kathleen prepared and submitted a personal check for her groceries. “She picked up her groceries and waited for me a few feet away.”
“It was now my turn to be served. The pleasant demeanor that Kathleen got was gone. My groceries were checked and I got my check book ready to pay.” On submitting my check I was told that I needed two pieces of identification.”
My ten-year old daughter who was witnessing this ordeal began to cry. “Mommy, why is she doing this to us?” I am now trying to figure-out how best to react to this ordeal. Behind me are two elderly white women – I know I had to avoid becoming the typical “angry black woman.”
I chose to avoid conflict and submitted the two pieces of identification that the cashier requested. I could not imagine that this situation could get worse until the cashier pulled out the “bad checks book.” She wanted to see if I was listed among customers with a bounced-check record.
By this time, I am thoroughly humiliated and my daughter is sobbing with embarrassment. My sister-in-law Kathleen had seen enough. She intervened.
“Excuse me! Why are you doing this?” “What do you mean?” replied the cashier. “Why are you taking her through all of these procedures, why are you doing this?” “Well, this is our policy.” “This is not your policy - you did not do this to me.”
“Well, I know you,” said the cashier. “No! No! She has been living here for years. I have only lived here for three months,” said Kathleen. At this point the two white elderly ladies exclaimed, “Oh, we can’t believe what this cashier has done with this woman – this is totally unacceptable.”
On hearing the commotion, the manager walked over – “Is there a problem here?” “Oh yes,” replied Kathleen. “There is a problem here and this is what happened.”
Although Kathleen was half black and half white, she used her white privilege to point out an injustice. Her stand for justice influenced others around her. Kathleen knew, that because of her color, she inherited rights from society – in other words, white privilege. She used that right to educate and correct an injustice.
Like me, had this black woman reacted, she would have been perceived to be another angry black. It was the person with the assumed privilege to make the difference. However, to make such a difference, requires courage and an awareness that one's pigmentation does not make one superior.
Not until we continue to have authentic conversations and apply biblical truth to our discourse, would we begin to see things differently. When non-Jewish Christians were being treated as second-class believers, Paul insisted, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
Agreed, white privilege can be destructive, and more so among Christians. In Christ, Christians should celebrate ethnic differences and not use such differences as badges of privilege.
I believe those who affirmed us were genuine. They were unconscious of assuming and displaying a posture of privilege. On one occasion, I was visiting a woman who was dying in hospital. During that visit, my presence was questioned by a white nurse. The white husband of the dying woman sensed the racist tone in the nurse’s question. Although he was not being addressed, the husband answered – “He is our pastor.” With that, the nurse left the room.
In coming to my defense, that husband and two other white friends who were present, were utilizing their inherited privilege. Simply put, they were raised in a society that attached significance to their ethnicity. They tapped into that inherited right and defended me.
Those memories of life in Midwest America returned while watching a video someone sent me a few days ago. The story in the video was told by a black woman. She and her sister-in-law grew up together. Her sister-in-law was half white and half black with blue eyes, “whiter than most white folks.” Along with their spouses and children, they shared wonderful, multicultural family times.
Both women were in the check-out line at a neighborhood supermarket. Kathleen, the sister-in-law, checked her groceries first. The cashier who was a strawberry blond, freckled and extremely warm, engaged Kathleen in pleasant small talk. During the friendly exchange, Kathleen prepared and submitted a personal check for her groceries. “She picked up her groceries and waited for me a few feet away.”
“It was now my turn to be served. The pleasant demeanor that Kathleen got was gone. My groceries were checked and I got my check book ready to pay.” On submitting my check I was told that I needed two pieces of identification.”
My ten-year old daughter who was witnessing this ordeal began to cry. “Mommy, why is she doing this to us?” I am now trying to figure-out how best to react to this ordeal. Behind me are two elderly white women – I know I had to avoid becoming the typical “angry black woman.”
I chose to avoid conflict and submitted the two pieces of identification that the cashier requested. I could not imagine that this situation could get worse until the cashier pulled out the “bad checks book.” She wanted to see if I was listed among customers with a bounced-check record.
By this time, I am thoroughly humiliated and my daughter is sobbing with embarrassment. My sister-in-law Kathleen had seen enough. She intervened.
“Excuse me! Why are you doing this?” “What do you mean?” replied the cashier. “Why are you taking her through all of these procedures, why are you doing this?” “Well, this is our policy.” “This is not your policy - you did not do this to me.”
“Well, I know you,” said the cashier. “No! No! She has been living here for years. I have only lived here for three months,” said Kathleen. At this point the two white elderly ladies exclaimed, “Oh, we can’t believe what this cashier has done with this woman – this is totally unacceptable.”
On hearing the commotion, the manager walked over – “Is there a problem here?” “Oh yes,” replied Kathleen. “There is a problem here and this is what happened.”
Although Kathleen was half black and half white, she used her white privilege to point out an injustice. Her stand for justice influenced others around her. Kathleen knew, that because of her color, she inherited rights from society – in other words, white privilege. She used that right to educate and correct an injustice.
Like me, had this black woman reacted, she would have been perceived to be another angry black. It was the person with the assumed privilege to make the difference. However, to make such a difference, requires courage and an awareness that one's pigmentation does not make one superior.
Not until we continue to have authentic conversations and apply biblical truth to our discourse, would we begin to see things differently. When non-Jewish Christians were being treated as second-class believers, Paul insisted, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
Agreed, white privilege can be destructive, and more so among Christians. In Christ, Christians should celebrate ethnic differences and not use such differences as badges of privilege.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
PREJUDICE!
He was dark-skinned and of Indian decent. He sat alone on the four-seater couch in the waiting room of the doctor’s office. He appeared stoic, but was well-dressed and was obviously awaiting service. Within minutes the man was joined by a white-skinned family – father, mother and early teenage daughter.
There was just enough space for everyone to sit on the couch. The young lady showed discomfort having to sit next to the Indian gentleman. She exchanged seats with her mother. Even with that change, the father seemed uncomfortable. He then chose to stand, leaving a vacant seat between his wife and the dark-skinned gentleman. Although silent, the family’s body language was very loud.
The family appeared relieved when a nurse invited them to see the doctor with whom they had an appointed. It became increasing uncomfortable when the nurse extended a similar invitation to the gentleman. While in his office, the doctor recapped the delight his staff felt, following the successful kidney transplant of their daughter.
However, that joy was short-lived as the doctor introduced the Indian gentleman as the kidney-donor who saved the life of the teenage daughter. The tension and embarrassing looks were obvious as the gentleman acknowledged the doctor’s introduction.
That online video ably illustrated the heinousness and ridiculousness of prejudice – a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience. The word prejudice comes from the Latin word praejudicium - prae, meaning before and judicium, meaning judgment.
Prejudice usually implies an unfavorable prepossession and connotes a feeling rooted in suspicion, fear, or intolerance. It implies an unreasoned and unfair distortion of judgment in favor of or against a person or thing.
At the root of many of the national social problems we are facing at the moment is prejudice. Imagine someone feeling superior to another because of the color of their skin – how ridiculous.
In less than five minutes one can learn that variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. Skin color has absolutely nothing to do with superiority. The same thing is true of ethnicity, texture of hair or physical features.
That kind of ignorance is at the core of our social problems – our ignorance continues to breed prejudice. Racism is one of the outcomes of this ignorance. Like in our opening story, while living with the kidney of a dark-skinned person, you stupidly consider yourself superior to that person.
In addressing the Athenians in Acts 17, Paul stressed, “from one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).
Paul knew that the Athenians prided themselves on their heritage from the soil of their native Attica – but this pride was ill-founded. They needed to know that all mankind was one in origin – all created by God and all descended from one common ancestor. Such enlightenment removed all imagined justification for the belief that Greeks were innately superior to barbarians.
The late F.F. Bruce was correct, “neither in nature nor in grace – neither in the old creation nor in the new, is there any room for ideas of racial superiority.” Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites.
Hence, to ignore these truths is to act on a foundation of ignorance – and that feeds prejudice. For a while, step back and assess the carnage caused in America within the last week. Whereas some are blaming the availability others are blaming incendiary rhetoric from politicians.
There was just enough space for everyone to sit on the couch. The young lady showed discomfort having to sit next to the Indian gentleman. She exchanged seats with her mother. Even with that change, the father seemed uncomfortable. He then chose to stand, leaving a vacant seat between his wife and the dark-skinned gentleman. Although silent, the family’s body language was very loud.
The family appeared relieved when a nurse invited them to see the doctor with whom they had an appointed. It became increasing uncomfortable when the nurse extended a similar invitation to the gentleman. While in his office, the doctor recapped the delight his staff felt, following the successful kidney transplant of their daughter.
However, that joy was short-lived as the doctor introduced the Indian gentleman as the kidney-donor who saved the life of the teenage daughter. The tension and embarrassing looks were obvious as the gentleman acknowledged the doctor’s introduction.
That online video ably illustrated the heinousness and ridiculousness of prejudice – a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience. The word prejudice comes from the Latin word praejudicium - prae, meaning before and judicium, meaning judgment.
Prejudice usually implies an unfavorable prepossession and connotes a feeling rooted in suspicion, fear, or intolerance. It implies an unreasoned and unfair distortion of judgment in favor of or against a person or thing.
At the root of many of the national social problems we are facing at the moment is prejudice. Imagine someone feeling superior to another because of the color of their skin – how ridiculous.
In less than five minutes one can learn that variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. Skin color has absolutely nothing to do with superiority. The same thing is true of ethnicity, texture of hair or physical features.
That kind of ignorance is at the core of our social problems – our ignorance continues to breed prejudice. Racism is one of the outcomes of this ignorance. Like in our opening story, while living with the kidney of a dark-skinned person, you stupidly consider yourself superior to that person.
In addressing the Athenians in Acts 17, Paul stressed, “from one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).
Paul knew that the Athenians prided themselves on their heritage from the soil of their native Attica – but this pride was ill-founded. They needed to know that all mankind was one in origin – all created by God and all descended from one common ancestor. Such enlightenment removed all imagined justification for the belief that Greeks were innately superior to barbarians.
The late F.F. Bruce was correct, “neither in nature nor in grace – neither in the old creation nor in the new, is there any room for ideas of racial superiority.” Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites.
Hence, to ignore these truths is to act on a foundation of ignorance – and that feeds prejudice. For a while, step back and assess the carnage caused in America within the last week. Whereas some are blaming the availability others are blaming incendiary rhetoric from politicians.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Death of Marriage?
On June 23 my wife and I celebrated 43 years of marriage. Our celebrations included a 1200-mile road trip from Missouri to Florida. On the actual day of our anniversary, we awoke to a Jamaican breakfast, prepared by the woman who catered for our wedding in 1973 – how nostalgic!
However, much of that nostalgia fades in light of the growing decline of traditional marriage in America. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found a number of interesting trends in their most recent look at marriage in America. For one, the study found that after years of declining marriage rates, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has reached a historic high point.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, within the last ten years, homes headed by married couples increased by 7%. Within the same period, homes headed by unmarried couples increased by 72%.
According to Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, “the United States has been experiencing a “cultural retreat from marriage”. Factors like economics, education, careers and decline in religious interest contribute significantly to the decline in traditional marriage.
However, we need to ask ourselves, is traditional marriage significant enough to warrant defending? Some in human potential movements view marriage as a potential threat to individual fulfillment. Proponents of the new psychologies contend that marriage thwarts the highest forms of human needs – autonomy, independence, growth and creativity.
According to Waite and Gallagher, in their volume, The Case for Marriage, “the search for autonomy and independence as the highest good blossomed with the women’s movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as ‘slavery and legalized rape, tied up with a sense of dependency.’”
That assessment does not describe what my wife and I have experienced in marriage. Our advanced studies and experience have given us reason to believe that our marriage has been good for our children, their children and the wider community.
Valuable research confirms that by a broad range of indices, marriage is actually better for you. Married people live longer, are healthier, accumulate more wealth, feel more fulfillment in their lives, enjoy more satisfying sexual relationships, and have happier and more successful children, than persons who remain single, cohabit, or get divorced.
Civil society benefits from stable marriages. Marriage, and by extension, families, are themselves small societies. These societies establish the network of relatives and in-laws and sustain a key ingredient of the “social capital” that facilitates many kinds of beneficial civic associations and private groups.
The virtues acquired within the family – generosity, self-sacrifice, trust, self-discipline – are crucial in every domain of social life. Children who grow up in broken families often fail to acquire these elemental habits of character.
Children, whose parents fail to get and stay married are at an increased risk of poverty, dependency, substance abuse, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, early unwed pregnancy, and a host of other destructive behaviors. When whole families and neighborhoods become dominated by fatherless homes, these risks increase even further.
Strong, intact families stabilize the state and decrease the need for costly and intrusive bureaucratic social agencies. Families provide for their vulnerable members, produce new citizens with virtues such as loyalty and generosity and engender concern for the common good.
Given the clear benefits of marriage, I believe the state should defend traditional marriage against the intrusion of alternative family structures that are incapable of producing comparable social outcomes. The public goods uniquely provided by traditional marriage are recognizable by reasonable persons, regardless of religious or secular worldviews.
The Witherspoon Institute, in its publication, Marriage and the Public Good, accurately states that “in virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage has served and continues to serve three important public purposes. First, marriage is the institution through which societies seek to organize the bearing and rearing of children.
Secondly, marriage provides direction, order and stability to adult sexual unions. Lastly, marriage civilizes men, furnishing them with a sense of purpose, norms and social status that orient their lives away from vice and toward virtue.”
Long before these studies, the Bible referred to marriage as honorable (Hebrews 13:4). In its original form, “honorable” implies, valuable, priceless, worthy of respect and deserving of esteem. For the last 43 years, I have found that to be true.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Steph Curry’s Jesus
Steph Curry and I have a few things in common. Apart from gender, we both love basketball, family and Jesus. In receiving the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award last year, Curry unapologetically said, “First and foremost I have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the talents to play this game, with the family to support me, day in, day out. I’m his humble servant right now and I can’t say enough how important my faith is to who I am and how I play the game.”
In responding to Curry’s faith, some bloggers expressed the view that the Jesus in whom he trusts, is more hype than history. In other words, Curry’s faith is based on a mythical figure, and not a real person. One blogger went as far as to suggest that other than the antique New Testament, no other ancient literature acknowledged the existence of Jesus.
Really? Let us first examine the kind of evidence we will need to verify the existence of Jesus apart from what is cited in the New Testament. Unlike some items in science, historical data cannot be repeated. Historians must appeal to different kinds of evidence to be able to validate historical data. Agreed, we do not have anything Jesus wrote, neither do we have any photographs others took.
In other words, physical evidence appears to be very rare. Actually, for almost 2,000 years we’ve gone without archaeological evidence of Jesus. Then we came across the first-century ossuary (bone box) of Jesus’ brother, James, the head of the Jerusalem church. The fragile limestone burial box bears the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”
According to the publishers of The Brother of Jesus by Shanks and Witherington, “the ossuary and its inscription are now regarded as authentic by top scholars in the field; they represent the first visual, tangible, scientific evidence of Jesus’ existence.” Another useful resource on the physical evidence of Jesus is in New York Times Bestseller, Bart Ehrman’s volume, Did Jesus Exist?
Like in the case of most ancient persons, historians look for information about the person and not from the person. Historians look for written sources, preferably sources that are relatively near the date of the person or event that they are describing.
It is important that the various sources corroborate with what each of the other sources has to say. In addition, it is important to know that the various sources are independent of one another and do not rely on each other for all of their information.
Unlike today, record keeping was rare when Jesus was around. Scholars believe the vast majority of people in the ancient world could not write. This explains why the Bible so often states, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Writing was done by hand and writing materials were very expensive.
However, it is important to understand that the absence of much written stuff and physical evidence, do not necessarily mean the non-existence of personalities like Jesus. Agreed, the situation becomes a bit more complicated when our modern-day understanding of a journalist was not imbedded among the disciples of Jesus.
However, Luke makes it clear in his opening verses that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from first were eyewitnesses...” (Luke 1:1-2). We do not know if those earlier writings to which Luke referred, were ever included in the New Testament canon.
What we do know, is that a number of non-Christian writers wrote about persons who knew and were greatly influenced by the life of Jesus. The first surviving reference to Jesus by a non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind appears in the writings of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE/AD).
Tacitus (55-117), another Roman historian is even more explicit in his Annals. A third Roman writer who referred briefly to Jesus and Christians is Seutonius (70-160). According to the late Professor Bruce Metzer, “the early non-Christian testimonies concerning Jesus, though scanty, are altogether sufficient to prove that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in Palestine during the early years of the first century. Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus.”
The earliest non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He was personally involved with some of the most important events that he narrated, especially in his eight-volume work, The Jewish Wars.
Interestingly, none of the non-Christian sources cited here is as reliable as the New Testament. There is more than enough evidence to believe that the Jesus in whom Steph Curry has placed his faith, actually lived on earth in the first century. Should one choose not to believe this, does not nullify Jesus’ existence, and our need to acknowledge Him as Lord of our lives.
In responding to Curry’s faith, some bloggers expressed the view that the Jesus in whom he trusts, is more hype than history. In other words, Curry’s faith is based on a mythical figure, and not a real person. One blogger went as far as to suggest that other than the antique New Testament, no other ancient literature acknowledged the existence of Jesus.
Really? Let us first examine the kind of evidence we will need to verify the existence of Jesus apart from what is cited in the New Testament. Unlike some items in science, historical data cannot be repeated. Historians must appeal to different kinds of evidence to be able to validate historical data. Agreed, we do not have anything Jesus wrote, neither do we have any photographs others took.
In other words, physical evidence appears to be very rare. Actually, for almost 2,000 years we’ve gone without archaeological evidence of Jesus. Then we came across the first-century ossuary (bone box) of Jesus’ brother, James, the head of the Jerusalem church. The fragile limestone burial box bears the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”
According to the publishers of The Brother of Jesus by Shanks and Witherington, “the ossuary and its inscription are now regarded as authentic by top scholars in the field; they represent the first visual, tangible, scientific evidence of Jesus’ existence.” Another useful resource on the physical evidence of Jesus is in New York Times Bestseller, Bart Ehrman’s volume, Did Jesus Exist?
Like in the case of most ancient persons, historians look for information about the person and not from the person. Historians look for written sources, preferably sources that are relatively near the date of the person or event that they are describing.
It is important that the various sources corroborate with what each of the other sources has to say. In addition, it is important to know that the various sources are independent of one another and do not rely on each other for all of their information.
Unlike today, record keeping was rare when Jesus was around. Scholars believe the vast majority of people in the ancient world could not write. This explains why the Bible so often states, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Writing was done by hand and writing materials were very expensive.
However, it is important to understand that the absence of much written stuff and physical evidence, do not necessarily mean the non-existence of personalities like Jesus. Agreed, the situation becomes a bit more complicated when our modern-day understanding of a journalist was not imbedded among the disciples of Jesus.
However, Luke makes it clear in his opening verses that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from first were eyewitnesses...” (Luke 1:1-2). We do not know if those earlier writings to which Luke referred, were ever included in the New Testament canon.
What we do know, is that a number of non-Christian writers wrote about persons who knew and were greatly influenced by the life of Jesus. The first surviving reference to Jesus by a non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind appears in the writings of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE/AD).
Tacitus (55-117), another Roman historian is even more explicit in his Annals. A third Roman writer who referred briefly to Jesus and Christians is Seutonius (70-160). According to the late Professor Bruce Metzer, “the early non-Christian testimonies concerning Jesus, though scanty, are altogether sufficient to prove that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in Palestine during the early years of the first century. Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus.”
The earliest non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He was personally involved with some of the most important events that he narrated, especially in his eight-volume work, The Jewish Wars.
Interestingly, none of the non-Christian sources cited here is as reliable as the New Testament. There is more than enough evidence to believe that the Jesus in whom Steph Curry has placed his faith, actually lived on earth in the first century. Should one choose not to believe this, does not nullify Jesus’ existence, and our need to acknowledge Him as Lord of our lives.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Good Friday?
A number of studies confirm that crucifixion is one of the worst forms of capital punishment in history. The only thing worse than crucifixion was what the British called, Hanged, Drawn and Quartered. This barbaric act was introduced in 1351 and was used for men convicted of high treason.
It is believed that crucifixion began among the Persians. Alexander the Great introduced the practice to Egypt and Carthage, and the Romans appear to have learned of it from the Carthaginians. Although the Romans did not invent crucifixion, they perfected it as a form of torture and capital punishment.
Crucifixion was designed to produce a slow death, with maximum pain and suffering. Historians agree that it was one of the most disgraceful and cruel methods of execution and usually was reserved for slaves, foreigners and the vilest of criminals. For this reason, Roman law protected Roman citizens from crucifixion, except in the case of desertion by soldiers.
Prior to crucifixion, Roman law required victims to be flogged. The usual instrument for flogging was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths. For scourging, the victim was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The severity of the scourging was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death.
Although the severity of Jesus’ scourging was not mentioned in the gospels, Peter’s use of the word wounds, would suggest the result of harsh scourging (1 Peter 2:24). The Roman soldiers, amused that this weakened man had claimed to be a king, began to mock Jesus by placing a robe on His shoulders, a crown of thorns on His head, and wooden staff, as a scepter in His right hand.
According to an extensive study done in 1986 On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ, it is believed that the severe scourging, with its intense pain and appreciable blood loss, most probably left Jesus in a pre-shock state. The physical and mental abuse meted out by the Jews and the Romans, as well as the lack of food, water and sleep, contributed to Jesus’ generally weakened state.
After the scourging and the mocking, at about 9:00 o’clock on Friday morning, Jesus was so weak that He could not carry His cross for the 600 yard-trip to the place of crucifixion. Throughout this ordeal, the Roman soldiers and civilian crowd taunted Jesus.
At about 3:00 o’clock that Friday afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, bowed His head and died. Because of the Sabbath in a few hours, the Jews did not want His body to remain on the cross. In order to verify His death, one of the soldiers pierced the side of Jesus with an infantry spear. This piercing produced a sudden flow of blood and water.
How could such barbarity lead Christians to call this day Good Friday? The use of the adjective good does not describe the barbarity of crucifixion. Rather, it describes the outcome of what was intended to bring disgrace and shame.
Christians believe that the barbarity of the crucifixion was consistent with the severity of the punishment Jesus was undergoing. When one considers that that punishment was commensurate with the crime, one is prone to ask what crime could warrant such severe punishment.
According to the apostle Paul, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures/Hebrew Bible” (1 Corinthians 15:3). In another letter to the Corinthians, Paul contended, “God made Him/Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us...” (2 Corinthians 5:21. Even Peter, a close buddy of Jesus said, “Jesus Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree...” (1 Peter 2:24).
Jesus’ contemporaries knew that His cruel death was not because of wrongs He did – He was dying for others. Paul indicated that he got that information from the Hebrew Bible, written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Paul was very likely thinking of Isaiah who wrote, “But he (Christ) was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).
Paul was confident that the death of Jesus affected his way of life. His preaching focus was on the death of Christ. His lifestyle was shaped by his understanding and appropriating the death of Christ. In his letter to Christians from Galatia, he said, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).
Does the death of Jesus mean anything to you? Do you understand that He did not die because He was overpowered by the Romans? He died as a sacrifice and not as a victim – that is the message of Easter. And that is why it is appropriate to say Good Friday.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
THE CROSS: Embarrassing?
In his book, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala tells the story of a soloist at Brooklyn Tabernacle. She was invited to sing at a church and was told in advance, “We want to ask you not to sing any song that mentions the blood of Christ. People feel uncomfortable with that, and our goal here is to be user-friendly.”
Uncomfortable about the blood of Christ? Similar discomfort was experienced in the first century. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul noted that the cross was “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles...” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Today, many churches even find the frequent observance of the ordinance of communion to be a distraction in their up-beat worship services.
In her book, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ, Fleming Rutledge, contends that preaching on the cross has been sidelined. She believes that this is so because “people don’t want to hear about sin, suffering, evil or judgment.”
Instead, we want a happy Christianity. One without the consequences for sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The crucifixion invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on the cross.
Instead, we want a happy Christianity. One without the consequences for sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The crucifixion invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on the cross.
As an atheist, Christopher Hitchens could not accept this Christian doctrine. On one occasion he said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption – you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating.” Hitchens understood the message of the cross, but he was not prepared to embrace it.
The cross of Jesus Christ differentiates Christian faith from religion in general. Religion tells us what we must do in order to achieve forgiveness. Christianity insists that forgiveness has already been paid for on the cross. Paul contended, whereas Jews demanded miraculous signs and non-Jews (Greeks) looked for wisdom, he preached Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to non-Jews.
As a matter of fact, Paul argued that God’s power was evident in the cross of Christ. Whereas others depended on oratorical skills and philosophy to make an impact, for him, it was the cross of Christ that enshrined the power to make an impact.
To the Corinthians Paul said, “When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). He was convinced that what others considered foolishness, was God’s demonstration of power.
In essence, Paul was contending that our natural understanding of power was different from God’s. In addition, whereas we view death as coming to the end of the road, God viewed the death of Jesus as the beginning of new life. But why would God use the horrific death of Jesus on a cross to bring new life?
Paul provides two answers. The first, no one other than God could get the credit. Absolutely no one is able to bring new life from death – that is a demonstration of divine power. Paul’s second reason is that no one can boast about what he or she accomplished. In essence, new life in Christ cannot be acquired by any human effort. It is unmerited.
The Bible calls this grace – undeserved favor. In his letter to the Ephesians Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).
But couldn’t God have accomplished grace by some other means, probably, not as severe as the cross? The logic is simple – punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Because of the severity of sin, severe punishment was inevitable. Hence, the worst sinner could find God’s grace, because of the cross.
If we could have paid for our sin, then what would happen to those who could not afford to pay? Also, if we could have paid for our sin, we could boast about our ability to help ourselves. Now, such boasting is not possible, in that new life in Christ is a gift. Since it is free, one may ask, wouldn’t it then cheapen the gift? The question implies that my contribution increases the value of God’s gift.
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that any attempt to add to what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, nullifies the value of the gift – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)!
For this reason, I would argue like Paul, there is no user-friendly version of new life in Christ. Without the cross, we are presenting another gospel, not the one God offers to anyone who seeks it.
The 17th century hymn-writer Isaac Watts got it when he wrote: “Forbid it Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God; All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.”
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Carnival in Trinidad
A few days ago my wife and I hosted two brothers from Trinidad. They were both returning to their homes in the United States after participating in carnival in Trinidad. Our discussions included an analysis of carnival. We reflected on the history of the festival and its impact on the soul of the nation.
According to the National Library and Information System Authority, “carnival in Trinidad and Tobago is one of grandeur, color, revelry, rhythm, and gaiety. It is truly an all-inclusive national festival. It is by far the most spectacular event on the nation’s calendar.”
There is no theatrical event that can mobilize mass-participation in any Caribbean island as carnival in Trinidad and Tobago is able to do. It is believed that as many as 15% of the 1 ½ million residents, actively participate in carnival. Months of planning and competition culminate in two days of glitter and dance. The creativity reflected in costumes is unparalleled in the Caribbean. The rhythm of calypso music and the unique contribution of the steelpan combine to present one of the greatest theatrical shows on earth.
Apart from the opportunities to be creative, some believe, carnival brings emotional relief to many persons. According to Darryl Barrow (Caribbean Journal of Religious Studies), “There are many people who regard carnival as a good escape releaser. People have been experiencing stress, strain and certain inhibitions – carnival allows people to release their pent-up energies and desires.”
Interestingly, what Barrow sees as an asset in carnival, Ismith Khan, in The Obeah Man, sees as symptoms of deep-seated social malaise. There seems to be an underlying irony of the carnival spirit. Derek Walcott may well be alluding to this in his poem Mass Man. Here Walcott exposes carnival as a kind of sham behind which we may discover images of pain and despair.
While living in Trinidad, I heard much of this pain reflected in calypsos. Whereas one can choose to focus on calypso as a work of art, and glory in the calypsonian’s ability, the reality of what is communicated cannot be ignored. Pain is too often trivialized in order to solicit laughter. To use frivolity as a coping device for pain can be compared with using Band-Aid to relieve cancer.
The increasing use of alcohol during carnival may also be another coping device as well as a vital part of entertainment. This excessive use of alcohol is compounded by an upsurge of unwanted pregnancies and increasing incidents of sexually transmitted diseases.
In light of this, it is not enough to rejoice in the creative opportunities carnival brings and ignore the social price the nation is force to pay. When asked about this anomaly, one popular calypsonian told his interviewer that he was an entertainer and not a pastor. In essence, his role was to ensure laughter, not serious reflection.
Ash Wednesday, the day following two days of carnival, is no laughing matter. The abandoned costumes, piles of debris and inebriated bodies, paint a picture of gloom, so unlike the picture of laughter that prevailed hours earlier. When added to the cases of marital unfaithfulness, unwanted pregnancies and sordid list of social evils, one is left to ask - is this the price a small nation should pay for joy?
This quest for joy is not limited to carnival in the twin-island republic. Similar festivals in Latin American countries pursue the same outcomes. Both in Trinidad & Tobago and in Latin America, there is a strong Roman Catholic association with carnival.
The festival is routinely celebrated on the eve of Lent – a period characterized by prayers and much abstinence. It would seem then, that the observance of carnival was intended to serve as a last fling, before the holy season of reflection. In Catholic tradition, Ash Wednesday is one of the most popular and important holy days in the liturgical calendar. The practice includes the wearing of ashes on the head.
The events of Ash Wednesday would suggest that participating in carnival is sinful and therefore requires forgiveness and penitence. But is this religious ritual enough to bring about forgiveness?
Some evangelicals would contend that a personal faith in Christ often leads to a disinterest in carnival. Stories of conversion from former carnival enthusiasts would seem to suggest that their conversion resulted in new interests and different expressions of joy.
Some believe this new way of living is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians. He said, “... anyone united with the Messiah (Jesus) gets a fresh start, is created new. The old life is gone; a new life burgeons! Look at it!” (The Message 2 Cor. 5:17).
The absence of carnival from the Christian worldview, leaves one with the need to find more appropriate ways to express joy. Ways that do not require alcohol to sustain or stimulate joy. Ways that will utilize creativity, melody, movement and glitter. Honestly, we’ve got some work to do.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
During Lent – Do You Fast or Diet?
There is a difference between fasting and dieting. Both involve food restrictions, but their objectives are vastly different.
Wikipedia describes dieting as “the practice of eating food in a regulated and supervised fashion to decrease, maintain, or increase body weight.” In other words, dieting is a conscious control or a restriction of the diet in order to achieve physical outcomes.
Whereas both dieting and fasting are voluntary, starving is not. Starving is the most extreme form of malnutrition. Starvation is more the absence of food, as opposed to a conscious decision to avoid eating for a specific period of time.
Fasting is quite different from dieting and most definitely, starvation. Fasting is primarily a willing abstinence or reduction from certain or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time. Unlike dieting, the purpose of fasting is spiritual transformation.
Based on a recent analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2007 to 2012, it was estimated that 67.6 million Americans were obese, and 65.2 million Americans overweight - many are concerned about the volume of food we eat. However, although necessary, addressing concerns of obesity is not fasting. Fasting is intended to bring about spiritual transformation.
In the process of seeking spiritual transformation, fasting triggers other benefits. According to Sarah Knapton, a science correspondent with the London Telegraph, “Fasting for as little as three days can regenerate the entire immune system, even in the elderly, scientists have found in a breakthrough described as remarkable.”
New research is suggesting that intentionally depriving the body of food can kick-start stem cells into producing new white blood cells, which fight off infection. Scientists at the University of Southern California say the discovery could be particularly beneficial for people suffering from damaged immune systems, such as cancer patients on chemotherapy.
Such benefits however, are only perks, when compared with the spiritual transformation that accrues from fasting. Fasting is possibly the most powerful spiritual discipline of all Christian disciplines.
Fasting was an expected discipline in both the Old and New Testament eras. For example, Moses fasted at least two recorded forty-day periods. Jesus fasted 40 days and reminded His followers to fast, "when you fast," not "if you fast".
Fasting is a biblical way to truly humble oneself in the sight of God. King David was correct when he said, "I humble myself through fasting" (Psalm 35:13). Through fasting, one acknowledges and submits to another, bigger than oneself. Even as a king, David found it necessary to acknowledge a greater authority.
In essence, fasting is an external demonstration of an internal spirit of brokenness. That attitude of brokenness is fertile ground for divine transformation. It was the same King David who stated in another Psalm, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psalm 51:17).
It is therefore obvious why fasting and prayer go hand in hand. They are the only two disciplines that trigger the blessing promised to God’s people in 2 Chronicles 7:14. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
In our self-absorbed and narcissistic culture, to talk about brokenness before God is radical. To fast in our post-modern culture is a statement against conceit and egotism. It is to live with a plan of depriving oneself of something of value for something of greater value.
Whereas fasting from food is not necessarily for everyone, other deprivations could realize similar outcomes. As the late Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, “Fasting should really be made to include abstinence from anything which is legitimate in and of itself for the sake of some special spiritual purpose.”
What benefits do you hope to derive from fasting during this Lenten season? Remember, if the benefits you derive are only physical, you are not fasting, you are on diet. Fasting brings about spiritual transformation. That transformation becomes evident in our relationship with God and attitude to others.
It is therefore obvious why fasting and prayer go hand in hand. They are the only two disciplines that trigger the blessing promised to God’s people in 2 Chronicles 7:14. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
In our self-absorbed and narcissistic culture, to talk about brokenness before God is radical. To fast in our post-modern culture is a statement against conceit and egotism. It is to live with a plan of depriving oneself of something of value for something of greater value.
Whereas fasting from food is not necessarily for everyone, other deprivations could realize similar outcomes. As the late Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, “Fasting should really be made to include abstinence from anything which is legitimate in and of itself for the sake of some special spiritual purpose.”
What benefits do you hope to derive from fasting during this Lenten season? Remember, if the benefits you derive are only physical, you are not fasting, you are on diet. Fasting brings about spiritual transformation. That transformation becomes evident in our relationship with God and attitude to others.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Steve Harvey
Steve is a comedian, but the mistake he made at the recent Miss Universe competition was no joke. The 58-year old host of the hugely popular US game show, Family Feud, initially named runner-up Miss Colombia as the winner, instead of Miss Philippines. He then returned to the stage minutes later to apologize and correct his blunder before an estimated global audience of six million viewers on the December 20 live event.
According to Steve Harvey, “I said the name that was on the card. When I walked off, everything was cool … and then, after that, all hell broke loose. All I heard was people saying, 'That's the wrong name,'" he continued. "And all I hear is confusion backstage. Now I'm standing here in the wing, so what I did was, 'I got to go fix it.''"
"Did I make a mistake? Yes, I did, wholeheartedly," Harvey admitted. "And at this point in the game, I'm not in the finger-pointing business and rolling people under the bus. So, I did what I was trained to do by my father … You make a mistake and you own up to it. And I tried to fix it, I tried to fix it right there."
Since then, the comedian has been the butt of jokes from all quarters. He was scoffed at on social media, particularly by supporters of Miss Colombia.
As if his initial blunder was not enough, Harvey tweeted a follow-up apology which compounded the embarrassing flub. In the tweet, Harvey apologized to Miss Philippians – a book of the New Testament, instead of Miss Philippines. Ouch!
Agreed, Steve Harvey was wrong. However, he was very right about the way he handled it. He acknowledged his error and apologized. What a refreshing difference from the blame game response, so prevalent in our society. Some persons felt Steve’s admission would lead to his downfall.
Interestingly, it did not. The organizers of the Miss Universe pageant have already booked him to host the annual event in 2016. The organizers felt it was human error and Steve’s reaction was honorable.
What Steve Harvey’s mistake can teach us is that failure is an inevitable part of success. Successful people did not get that way by not making mistakes. It was their reaction to failure that often resulted in their success. They did not allow a crisis to go to waste. They used failure as the backdoor to success.
In 1953, a fledgling company called Rocket Chemical Company and its staff of three set out to create a line of rust-prevention solvents and degreasers for use in the aerospace industry.
Working in a small lab in San Diego, California, it took them 40 attempts to get the water displacing formula worked out. But they must have been really good, because the original secret formula for WD-40® -which stands for Water Displacement perfected on the 40th try—is still in use today. A product that failed 39 times, realized sales totaling $383 million in its fiscal year, ended last August.
In his book, Failing Forward – Turning Mistakes Into Stepping Stones for Success, John Maxwell makes the point that he knows of only one factor that separates those who consistently shine from those who don’t: “the difference between average people and achieving people is their perception of and response to failure.”
Steve Harvey wants another chance “to host the pageant…so he can restore integrity to his name and pride in the pageant. According to Entertainment Tonight, Steve signed a multi-year deal with the Miss Universe organizers. Hopefully, fans will see much more of the gracious and affable comedian.
According to Moody Church pastor, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, “many Christians who consider themselves failures in this life are great successes in God’s eyes. Likewise, those who consider themselves successful, even models for others to follow, may be sadly surprised when they arrive in heaven.”
Lutzer further contends in his book, Failure: The Backdoor to Success, “that understanding the biblical perspective of failure is the first step toward successful living. Failure, no matter what the circumstances, can bring you into spiritual victory and blessing.”
That is rather encouraging to know at the start of a new year. We all desire victory and blessing, but often fail to realize that these are sometimes preceded by failure. Without attempting to glamorize failure, we sometimes forget to acknowledge that failure often is a description of an event and not a way of life.
It was following his ugly failure, King David penned, “Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. Then I will teach transgressors your ways” (Psalm 51:12-13). Wow! David did not allow his crisis to go to waste.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Was Jesus White?
Usually around Christmas and Easter, many in the media feature something about Jesus. This year, many chose His appearance, based on a professional study done in 2001.
That study was attempting to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been. The study, sponsored by the British Broadcasting Corporation, France Three and Discovery Channel, used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel.
A face was co
nstructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.
The face that Neave constructed was a model of a Galilean man. If Jesus looked like that man, He would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.
In another study, the National Police in Italy created a digital image of what they believe Jesus Christ looked like as a young child, based on computer forensics and the world’s most famous relic, The Shroud of Turin.
Using the Shroud, the supposed burial cloth of Jesus, police investigators generated a photo-fit image from the negative facial image on the material. And from this they reversed the ageing process to create an image of a young Jesus, by reducing the size of the jaw, raising the chin and straightening the nose.
The technique effectively reverses the method that Italian police use to generate current likenesses of criminals, including senior mob bosses, for whom new photo-fit images are needed when they have been on the run for decades.
Like you, I am asking, why this insatiable interest in Jesus? Why not in Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus? Why not in Herod the Great? For centuries, scholars want to know more and more about Jesus. What is it about Jesus that generates this interest?
According to the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, “some people have made transformational changes in one department of human learning or in one aspect of human life. But Jesus Christ changed virtually every aspect of human life.” Exploring such claims would be much more profitable than trying to determine the appearance of Jesus.
That study was attempting to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been. The study, sponsored by the British Broadcasting Corporation, France Three and Discovery Channel, used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel.
A face was co
nstructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.The face that Neave constructed was a model of a Galilean man. If Jesus looked like that man, He would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.
In another study, the National Police in Italy created a digital image of what they believe Jesus Christ looked like as a young child, based on computer forensics and the world’s most famous relic, The Shroud of Turin.
Using the Shroud, the supposed burial cloth of Jesus, police investigators generated a photo-fit image from the negative facial image on the material. And from this they reversed the ageing process to create an image of a young Jesus, by reducing the size of the jaw, raising the chin and straightening the nose.
The technique effectively reverses the method that Italian police use to generate current likenesses of criminals, including senior mob bosses, for whom new photo-fit images are needed when they have been on the run for decades.
Like you, I am asking, why this insatiable interest in Jesus? Why not in Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus? Why not in Herod the Great? For centuries, scholars want to know more and more about Jesus. What is it about Jesus that generates this interest?
According to the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, “some people have made transformational changes in one department of human learning or in one aspect of human life. But Jesus Christ changed virtually every aspect of human life.” Exploring such claims would be much more profitable than trying to determine the appearance of Jesus.
The influence of Jesus on the world is immeasurable. Dr. James Allan Francis put it so well in his famous narrative – One Solitary Life.
He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until he was thirty when public opinion
turned against him
He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never travelled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but himself
His friends ran away
One of them denied him
He was turned over to his enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, his executioners gambled
for his clothing
The only property he had on earth
When he was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend
Nineteen centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure
of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that one solitary life.
Since His death and resurrection, the followers of Jesus have made more changes for good than any other movement or system in history. Space would not allow me to expand on the Christian influence on the history of health-care, university education, abolition of slavery, modern science, civil liberties, capitalism and free enterprise.
When asked to arrest Jesus, the Temple guards replied to the chief priests and Pharisees: “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” Now, after almost 2,000 years, that statement is still true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)