Jurors took just five hours to find Rose Marks guilty of masterminding a $25 million fraud. Marks told clients of her psychic business that she could foresee the future, fix the past and even control the Internal Revenue Service.
The four-week trial in South Florida featured bizarre testimony from former clients, including best-selling romance novelist Jude Deveraux, who testified that Marks and her family exploited their vulnerabilities, and their religious and spiritual beliefs, to fleece them.
The jury found 62-year old Marks guilty on 14 charges, including fraud, filing false tax returns and money-laundering conspiracies. Bond was refused and Marks was imprisoned, pending sentencing on December 09. Prosecutors told South Florida Sentinel that Marks can face up to 20 years in prison.
Deveraux, who was swindled as much as $20 million, said she went to Marks to help her get out of an abusive marriage and continued seeing her for 17 years through a series of crises, including failed relationships, several miscarriages and the accidental death of her eight-year old grandson. Following the trial Deveraux said to a reporter concerning anyone in a similar vulnerable position, “Reach out to your friends, get professional help... don’t go to a psychic.”
Upon hearing the verdict, Marks’ family members were shocked to witness the demise of the family matriarch. One family member threw a Bible in the courtroom, yelling, “I hate this Bible...I don’t want this Bible anymore.”
That behavior would seem to suggest that the Bible played a role in the family’s psychic practices. I would really like to see where in the Bible the family found endorsement for their fraudulent practices. Unfortunately, the Marks’ family will not be the last group to use the Bible to fleece others.
Nostradamus (16th century French psychic), along with clairvoyants like Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce, mediums, spiritists, and others, often make remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy. Such levels of accuracy could not satisfy the standards set for biblical prophecy.
Some scholars believe approximately 2,500 predictive prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible. Each of these prophecies must satisfy a 100% standard of accuracy set in the Old Testament: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22).
Biblical predictive prophecy can be defined as “a declaration of future events, such as no human wisdom or forecast is sufficient to make - depending on a knowledge of the innumerable contingencies of human affairs, which belongs exclusively to the omniscience of God; so that from its very nature, prophecy must be divine revelation.”
Biblical prophecy must possess sufficient precision so as to be capable of verification by means of the fulfillment. Some Christian researchers believe some 75 to 80% of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, meeting the 100% standard of verification. People are named before birth, kingdoms are outlined before their historical existence and the outcome of battles have been announced before the wars began.
In interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Daniel predicted three kingdoms that would succeed Babylon over a period of hundreds of years. Today we can confirm from non-biblical history, that Daniel was accurate in describing the kingdoms of Medo-Persia, the Greeks and the Romans.
In the New Testament, Jesus predicted that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:2). Based on the date of the writing of Mark’s gospel, we know that Jesus’ prediction was documented before the Temple was actually destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. In other words, within 40 years His prediction was fulfilled to 100% accuracy.
Furthermore, unlike the Marks’ family, biblical prophecy was never intended for the benefit of the prophet. The actual meaning of a prophet is “one who speaks on God’s behalf.” In other words, the prophet never spoke on his own behalf and for his own benefit. Peter, a disciple of Jesus understood this when he wrote, “...that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).
For this reason, it is safe to conclude, even when the Bible is used, much of what is predicted today, does not meet the standard of 100% accuracy, and should not be considered to be biblical prophecy.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
“Bow...or Burn”
This headline, “Bow...or Burn,” smacks with arrogance. Actually, the words came from the lips of a Babylonian king, more than 2,500 years ago. The words were a part of an ultimatum given to three Jewish colleagues who refused to comply with the king’s order to give allegiance to a god, other than the God they worshiped.
The event, as recorded in Daniel 3, is a classic case study in civil disobedience. The appropriateness of the event for such a study is supported in the historical accuracy of what was recorded in the text.
Specific details like location, civil officers, musical instruments and names of people in royalty can be verified in non-biblical historical documents and archaeological discoveries in recent years. In addition, structures like huge idols and the use of furnaces for capital punishment can also be verified in other historical events.
For example, Herodotus [1.183] mentioned a similar image, forty feet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not the same image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura. In addition, Julius Oppert (1825-1905), the French-German Assyriologist/ Archaeologist believed the site he located in Dura, Babylon, with “a large brick square, forty-five feet on a side and twenty feet high” may have been the foundation for the ninety-foot high image referred to in Daniel 3.
It was at that site, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the Jewish exiles to “bow...or burn.” Despite the views held by some liberal scholars, the story is no “fairy tale” like Cinderella or Goldilocks and the Three Bears. We must deal with both the history and mystery of the story.
The history is simple. The Jews were captive to the Babylonians. Thousands of Jews were forced to leave their land and go into exile some 1,000 miles away. While in exile, the king of Babylon gave instructions that everyone must bow to the golden image he built. The effort may have been intended to unite the massive empire of nations Babylon inherited and conquered.
The Jewish colleagues refused to bow. Their response was clear, “we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (Daniel 3:18). These guys were convinced that the God they served was able to deliver them from any punishment imposed. Even if they were not delivered, their resolve was the same – we will not bow.
As promised, the king ordered that they be thrown in the furnace to burn. The king was even heard to say, let me see “what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands.” At that point, recapitulating was not an option.
Historians have a problem in recording what happened next. The men who would not bow could not burn. According to the biblical text, “...the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them” (Daniel 3:27). Although tempted to comment on this amazing miracle, as promised, I must instead address the defiance of the Jewish men to civil authorities.
Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down to the golden image is one of those rare instances when godliness is expressed by civil disobedience. There was no chance, as in Daniel 1, for the three Hebrews to please God and the king at the same time. What the king commanded was clearly condemned by the Old Testament Scriptures.
When placed in a position where one must either obey God or men, then one must obey God and disobey men. If obedience to one of man’s laws would result in our disobedience to one of God’s laws, we must obey God by disobeying men.
They quietly obeyed God by not bowing down; and then, without resistance, they accepted the king’s punishment. They left the rest to God. That kind of godly disobedience is far from inflammatory. It is the only kind of disobedience one finds in the Bible.
To date, the civil disobedience of our time is not primary, but secondary. In America, I am still to find a biblical precedent for disobeying legitimate laws because another law is unbiblical. Even when our obedience to God requires us to disobey a human law, there are proper ways to disobey. Daniel’s three friends disobeyed the command of Nebuchadnezzar, but they did so in a manner that did not undermine the bigger messages of godly order and civility.
Civil disobedience in apartheid South Africa and in America during the Civil Rights era leave us with some positive examples of civil disobedience. Interestingly, both situations were heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Slavery was somewhat different, in that the changes did not come about solely because of civil disobedience. However, despite the various interpretations by historians, it was the influence of Christian leaders that brought about changes.
Like in Babylon, whenever a government calls on its people to defy godly values and submit to godless values, it is time for civil disobedience.
The event, as recorded in Daniel 3, is a classic case study in civil disobedience. The appropriateness of the event for such a study is supported in the historical accuracy of what was recorded in the text.
Specific details like location, civil officers, musical instruments and names of people in royalty can be verified in non-biblical historical documents and archaeological discoveries in recent years. In addition, structures like huge idols and the use of furnaces for capital punishment can also be verified in other historical events.
For example, Herodotus [1.183] mentioned a similar image, forty feet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not the same image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura. In addition, Julius Oppert (1825-1905), the French-German Assyriologist/ Archaeologist believed the site he located in Dura, Babylon, with “a large brick square, forty-five feet on a side and twenty feet high” may have been the foundation for the ninety-foot high image referred to in Daniel 3.
It was at that site, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the Jewish exiles to “bow...or burn.” Despite the views held by some liberal scholars, the story is no “fairy tale” like Cinderella or Goldilocks and the Three Bears. We must deal with both the history and mystery of the story.
The history is simple. The Jews were captive to the Babylonians. Thousands of Jews were forced to leave their land and go into exile some 1,000 miles away. While in exile, the king of Babylon gave instructions that everyone must bow to the golden image he built. The effort may have been intended to unite the massive empire of nations Babylon inherited and conquered.
The Jewish colleagues refused to bow. Their response was clear, “we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (Daniel 3:18). These guys were convinced that the God they served was able to deliver them from any punishment imposed. Even if they were not delivered, their resolve was the same – we will not bow.
As promised, the king ordered that they be thrown in the furnace to burn. The king was even heard to say, let me see “what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands.” At that point, recapitulating was not an option.
Historians have a problem in recording what happened next. The men who would not bow could not burn. According to the biblical text, “...the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them” (Daniel 3:27). Although tempted to comment on this amazing miracle, as promised, I must instead address the defiance of the Jewish men to civil authorities.
Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down to the golden image is one of those rare instances when godliness is expressed by civil disobedience. There was no chance, as in Daniel 1, for the three Hebrews to please God and the king at the same time. What the king commanded was clearly condemned by the Old Testament Scriptures.
When placed in a position where one must either obey God or men, then one must obey God and disobey men. If obedience to one of man’s laws would result in our disobedience to one of God’s laws, we must obey God by disobeying men.
They quietly obeyed God by not bowing down; and then, without resistance, they accepted the king’s punishment. They left the rest to God. That kind of godly disobedience is far from inflammatory. It is the only kind of disobedience one finds in the Bible.
To date, the civil disobedience of our time is not primary, but secondary. In America, I am still to find a biblical precedent for disobeying legitimate laws because another law is unbiblical. Even when our obedience to God requires us to disobey a human law, there are proper ways to disobey. Daniel’s three friends disobeyed the command of Nebuchadnezzar, but they did so in a manner that did not undermine the bigger messages of godly order and civility.
Civil disobedience in apartheid South Africa and in America during the Civil Rights era leave us with some positive examples of civil disobedience. Interestingly, both situations were heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Slavery was somewhat different, in that the changes did not come about solely because of civil disobedience. However, despite the various interpretations by historians, it was the influence of Christian leaders that brought about changes.
Like in Babylon, whenever a government calls on its people to defy godly values and submit to godless values, it is time for civil disobedience.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Who Is Intolerant?
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a Christian family-owned bakery was forced to go out of business a few days ago. The Oregan bakery chose to shut its doors following months of harassment by militant homosexual activists.
Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. The Kleins contend, because of their religious faith, the family could not take part in gay wedding events. Succinctly put, Aaron said, “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
Well, the lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television stations. Within days, militant homosexual groups launched protests and boycotts.
The protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the Kleins.
“That tipped the scales,” Klein said to a reporter. “The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists inundated us with phone calls and threats to kill the family. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
Sad to say, the Kleins are among the more recent to suffer this blatant display of intolerance. Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
Jack Phillips, a Denver baker, is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop.
In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.
A T-shirt company in Lexington, Kentucky, found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.
Whereas Christians are being targeted by intolerant gay bullies, other institutions are allowed to take principled and professional positions against the LGBT without reprisals. For instance, for more than thirty years there has been a federal ban on gays donating blood.
The plan was to stem the spread of HIV. Research confirms that gay men are disproportionately affected by AIDS and hepatitis B, both blood-borne diseases. While gays make up about 4% of the U.S. population, they account for some 50% of all patients living with HIV. The Centers for Disease Control estimate six out of ten new HIV patients are men who have had sex with men.
Despite these glaring statistics, there have been recent moves to lift the 30-year ban on gays donating blood. Interestingly, these recent moves to change federal policies have been civil and have been in process for about the last two years.
Why can’t similar civility be applied to Christians who are entitled to live in accordance with their faith and conscience? Let us revisit the Kleins in Oregon. How could they be accused of discrimination by the authorities when death threats from LGBT activists are being ignored by the same authorities?
Imagine, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced a few days ago that they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Kleins. Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbian customers.
According to the Commissioner, “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”
As Christians, we find ourselves in a culture that is hostile to our worldviews. As with slavery, we are expected to obey laws that are blatantly immoral. Although very difficult to swallow, we should not be surprised with such hostility. It is in times like these we need to remember that “the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds” (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. The Kleins contend, because of their religious faith, the family could not take part in gay wedding events. Succinctly put, Aaron said, “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
Well, the lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television stations. Within days, militant homosexual groups launched protests and boycotts.
The protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the Kleins.
“That tipped the scales,” Klein said to a reporter. “The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists inundated us with phone calls and threats to kill the family. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
Sad to say, the Kleins are among the more recent to suffer this blatant display of intolerance. Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
Jack Phillips, a Denver baker, is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop.
In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.
A T-shirt company in Lexington, Kentucky, found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.
Whereas Christians are being targeted by intolerant gay bullies, other institutions are allowed to take principled and professional positions against the LGBT without reprisals. For instance, for more than thirty years there has been a federal ban on gays donating blood.
The plan was to stem the spread of HIV. Research confirms that gay men are disproportionately affected by AIDS and hepatitis B, both blood-borne diseases. While gays make up about 4% of the U.S. population, they account for some 50% of all patients living with HIV. The Centers for Disease Control estimate six out of ten new HIV patients are men who have had sex with men.
Despite these glaring statistics, there have been recent moves to lift the 30-year ban on gays donating blood. Interestingly, these recent moves to change federal policies have been civil and have been in process for about the last two years.
Why can’t similar civility be applied to Christians who are entitled to live in accordance with their faith and conscience? Let us revisit the Kleins in Oregon. How could they be accused of discrimination by the authorities when death threats from LGBT activists are being ignored by the same authorities?
Imagine, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced a few days ago that they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Kleins. Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbian customers.
According to the Commissioner, “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”
As Christians, we find ourselves in a culture that is hostile to our worldviews. As with slavery, we are expected to obey laws that are blatantly immoral. Although very difficult to swallow, we should not be surprised with such hostility. It is in times like these we need to remember that “the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds” (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Monday, September 2, 2013
50 years
My daughter Candace and her husband Louis have four young children. As a former professional, mother and homeschooler she has a vested interest in the future that is laid for her children. I have asked her to be my guest for this week’s commentary.
To think back fifty years in this country is to think back to a time before I was born. Since then, I have lived outside of and within different parts of this great nation, each time gleaning racial experiences – good and bad.
I want to say we have come so far – desegregation of schools and places of employment, integrated neighborhoods and families, a black President in office, the list could go on and on.
But as far a step as we have made, I fear we have taken many steps backwards – and not for the popular reasons being floated out there in the blogosphere, in newsrooms or even at last week’s 50-year Memorial of 'The March on Washington' that took place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
In the past fifty years, we have stepped away from some of the fundamentals that Dr. King held dearly, choosing to excuse or embrace the demise of the black family; the 70% of black babies born out of wedlock; the 1,800 black babies killed daily through abortion; the almost 50% unemployment among black youth and a bloody summer that highlighted the continuing problem of black on black homicides.
I am not willing to sit back and play along with those claiming that Rev. Martin Luther King would be proud of our accomplishments today. Unlike those who flash the ‘Reverend’ title for political and monetary gain, Rev. Martin Luther King actually tried to live a life that sought to center around hard work, faith and family.
Dr. King’s mission taxed his marriage and family life, but of his wife he said “I am indebted to my wife Coretta, without whose love, sacrifices, and loyalty neither life nor work would bring fulfillment."
In addition to being the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church of Montgomery, Alabama, Dr. King completed his Ph.D. and was awarded his degree in 1955. King was only 25 years old.
At the age of 35, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to have receive the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over the prize money of $54,123 to the furtherance of the civil rights movement.
The ideals of faith, family and diligent work used to be encouraged in the black community at large. For all the accomplishments we have acquired as a community, I think Dr. King would ask – Is this really what we suffered for fifty years ago?
Jaime Foxx graced the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last Wednesday, naming our present civil rights leaders as Jay Z, Will Smith, Kanye West and others.
The list of invited speakers at the fifty-year Memorial Celebration of Dr. King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech did not include pioneers in some of the highest offices or areas of accomplishments by African Americans. The nation’s first black and first black female Secretaries of State were not invited to speak. The nation’s only black Senator was not invited to speak. The nation’s first and (at the time) youngest black neurosurgeon was not invited to speak. While entertainers of all sorts were well represented and tickled our ears with words of grandeur, I guess the former were all associated with the wrong side of the aisle (and by that I don’t mean the church aisle).
Sometimes I can only wonder – what kind of vision have we cast for our youth for the next fifty years?
We have strayed so far from the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that we no longer know what it means to judge a man by the caliber or content of his character, his labor or his legacy. Instead, we have bought into the culture that says the opposite: embrace racial and social lines above character, above goals, above ambition.
Fifty years ago The March on Washington was filled with people of all sorts: black, white; male, female; rich, poor; Republican, Democrat – they were willing and able to work together because above their comfort or agendas they found it important to be unified, not as one group above another, but as Americans under God.
The messages of today towards our children seem to shout of entitlements. But is that what the Bible encourages for us? As parents, my husband and I have been teaching our children the word diligent – a word that fueled the civil rights movement. Colossians 3:23 says “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” Such commitments lead to discipline, perseverance and character.
I have four children, and like Dr. King I still dream. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).
To think back fifty years in this country is to think back to a time before I was born. Since then, I have lived outside of and within different parts of this great nation, each time gleaning racial experiences – good and bad.
I want to say we have come so far – desegregation of schools and places of employment, integrated neighborhoods and families, a black President in office, the list could go on and on.
But as far a step as we have made, I fear we have taken many steps backwards – and not for the popular reasons being floated out there in the blogosphere, in newsrooms or even at last week’s 50-year Memorial of 'The March on Washington' that took place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
In the past fifty years, we have stepped away from some of the fundamentals that Dr. King held dearly, choosing to excuse or embrace the demise of the black family; the 70% of black babies born out of wedlock; the 1,800 black babies killed daily through abortion; the almost 50% unemployment among black youth and a bloody summer that highlighted the continuing problem of black on black homicides.
I am not willing to sit back and play along with those claiming that Rev. Martin Luther King would be proud of our accomplishments today. Unlike those who flash the ‘Reverend’ title for political and monetary gain, Rev. Martin Luther King actually tried to live a life that sought to center around hard work, faith and family.
Dr. King’s mission taxed his marriage and family life, but of his wife he said “I am indebted to my wife Coretta, without whose love, sacrifices, and loyalty neither life nor work would bring fulfillment."
In addition to being the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church of Montgomery, Alabama, Dr. King completed his Ph.D. and was awarded his degree in 1955. King was only 25 years old.
At the age of 35, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to have receive the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over the prize money of $54,123 to the furtherance of the civil rights movement.
The ideals of faith, family and diligent work used to be encouraged in the black community at large. For all the accomplishments we have acquired as a community, I think Dr. King would ask – Is this really what we suffered for fifty years ago?
Jaime Foxx graced the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last Wednesday, naming our present civil rights leaders as Jay Z, Will Smith, Kanye West and others.
The list of invited speakers at the fifty-year Memorial Celebration of Dr. King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech did not include pioneers in some of the highest offices or areas of accomplishments by African Americans. The nation’s first black and first black female Secretaries of State were not invited to speak. The nation’s only black Senator was not invited to speak. The nation’s first and (at the time) youngest black neurosurgeon was not invited to speak. While entertainers of all sorts were well represented and tickled our ears with words of grandeur, I guess the former were all associated with the wrong side of the aisle (and by that I don’t mean the church aisle).
Sometimes I can only wonder – what kind of vision have we cast for our youth for the next fifty years?
We have strayed so far from the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that we no longer know what it means to judge a man by the caliber or content of his character, his labor or his legacy. Instead, we have bought into the culture that says the opposite: embrace racial and social lines above character, above goals, above ambition.
Fifty years ago The March on Washington was filled with people of all sorts: black, white; male, female; rich, poor; Republican, Democrat – they were willing and able to work together because above their comfort or agendas they found it important to be unified, not as one group above another, but as Americans under God.
The messages of today towards our children seem to shout of entitlements. But is that what the Bible encourages for us? As parents, my husband and I have been teaching our children the word diligent – a word that fueled the civil rights movement. Colossians 3:23 says “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” Such commitments lead to discipline, perseverance and character.
I have four children, and like Dr. King I still dream. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.
I had just completed another lecture in the course, Religion in America. That day we viewed the film, “We Shall Not Be Moved.” The film chronicled the non-violent civil rights struggle of the fifties and sixties. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was portrayed as a pastor and civil rights leader.
The church hired Dr. King in 1954. After a time of internal tensions, church leaders said they were looking for a noncontroversial pastor who could help restore morale. Rather than accept an invitation to be with his Dad at a larger congregation in Georgia, Dr. King accepted the smaller and quieter church in Alabama. Such a setting afforded him the opportunity to complete his doctoral dissertation.
As King was establishing his pastorate, racial tensions were rising in Montgomery. About a year after his arrival, Montgomery seamstress Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to yield her seat on a bus to a white passenger. King began speaking out and leading peaceful protests. From the church, he helped ignite the Montgomery bus boycott.
King saw this as a natural extension of pastoring his people. Being a pastor for him included being a civil rights leader. It would therefore be correct to say that it was the African-American church that nurtured him and gave him the sense that God was a God of justice and mercy.
As Dr. King was pulled more and more into the national limelight, he became concerned that he was neglecting his responsibilities at the church. Often he did not have sufficient time to engage in counseling, to do funerals and weddings, to do the kind of administrative work that comes naturally with the pastoral role.
King resigned from the Dexter Avenue church in 1960 to devote more time to the civil rights cause. Even though he was now a leader at the national level, he wanted to maintain a pastoral role, so he became an associate pastor at his father’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of his “I Have a Dream” speech, we need to be reminded that the heart of Dr. King was not seen so much in that speech as much as in his writings – and more specifically his volume, Strength to Love. According to his late wife, Coretta Scott King, "If there is one book Martin has written that people consistently tell me has changed their lives, it is Strength to Love." This book best explains the central element of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence.
The book is a compilation of his sermons reflecting a biblical and passionate denunciation of racial prejudice and of the tangible injustice that springs from that phenomenon.
He was also critical of those sectors of the Christian world that have historically used the Bible and Christian theology as tools for promoting slavery and racial segregation. His criticism extended to Black churches that have “reduced Christianity to either a frenzied form of entertainment or a snobbish social club.”
At the end of the class I was approached by an African American student. He was stunned to learn that Dr. King was a real pastor. Although he had done a course in African American history in high school, Dr. King was always presented as a civil rights advocate.
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King also make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor.”
“The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”
Dr. King was twenty-five years of age and finishing his doctoral dissertation at Boston University when he was appointed to his first job as a local pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In a sense he was carrying on a family tradition. His father was a pastor. His grandfather had been a pastor. His great-grandfather had been a pastor.
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King also make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor.”
“The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”
Dr. King was twenty-five years of age and finishing his doctoral dissertation at Boston University when he was appointed to his first job as a local pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In a sense he was carrying on a family tradition. His father was a pastor. His grandfather had been a pastor. His great-grandfather had been a pastor.
The church hired Dr. King in 1954. After a time of internal tensions, church leaders said they were looking for a noncontroversial pastor who could help restore morale. Rather than accept an invitation to be with his Dad at a larger congregation in Georgia, Dr. King accepted the smaller and quieter church in Alabama. Such a setting afforded him the opportunity to complete his doctoral dissertation.
As King was establishing his pastorate, racial tensions were rising in Montgomery. About a year after his arrival, Montgomery seamstress Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to yield her seat on a bus to a white passenger. King began speaking out and leading peaceful protests. From the church, he helped ignite the Montgomery bus boycott.
King saw this as a natural extension of pastoring his people. Being a pastor for him included being a civil rights leader. It would therefore be correct to say that it was the African-American church that nurtured him and gave him the sense that God was a God of justice and mercy.
As Dr. King was pulled more and more into the national limelight, he became concerned that he was neglecting his responsibilities at the church. Often he did not have sufficient time to engage in counseling, to do funerals and weddings, to do the kind of administrative work that comes naturally with the pastoral role.
King resigned from the Dexter Avenue church in 1960 to devote more time to the civil rights cause. Even though he was now a leader at the national level, he wanted to maintain a pastoral role, so he became an associate pastor at his father’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of his “I Have a Dream” speech, we need to be reminded that the heart of Dr. King was not seen so much in that speech as much as in his writings – and more specifically his volume, Strength to Love. According to his late wife, Coretta Scott King, "If there is one book Martin has written that people consistently tell me has changed their lives, it is Strength to Love." This book best explains the central element of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence.
The book is a compilation of his sermons reflecting a biblical and passionate denunciation of racial prejudice and of the tangible injustice that springs from that phenomenon.
He was also critical of those sectors of the Christian world that have historically used the Bible and Christian theology as tools for promoting slavery and racial segregation. His criticism extended to Black churches that have “reduced Christianity to either a frenzied form of entertainment or a snobbish social club.”
Why aren’t we told about the heart of this pastor during this season of remembrance? Interestingly, it was during the extemporaneous moments of his “I Have a Dream” speech, his pastoral passion became most visible as he cited references from the Minor Prophets to justify his theses of justice and mercy.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Fellow-Christians in Egypt are in Trouble
Across Egypt, at least sixty churches have been targeted by Muslim extremists, along with Christian schools, homes, businesses and even an orphanage. Some Christian homes and businesses have received leaflets warning them to leave or face reprisals.
According to Catholic World Report, Muslim extremists torched a Franciscan school and then paraded three nuns on the street like “prisoners of war”. Also, a Bible Society of Egypt statement posted online Wednesday reported the "complete burning and destruction" of its bookshops in southern Egypt.
Egypt's Christian minority has been the target of a number of attacks in recent years. The bombing of a major church in Alexandria in January 2011 killed 21 persons and sparked worldwide condemnation.
The situation has only become worse since Egypt's popular revolution overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
In the past two-and-a-half years, Christians in Egypt have witnessed more deaths than in the last twenty years. Interestingly, Christians have been in Egypt since the first century and were, for centuries, the majority. Some 90% of Coptic (Egyptian) Christians still live in the country, making up the largest Christian community in the Middle East.
These Egyptian Christians were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood because they were widely seen as being supportive of the military that kicked the Muslim Brotherhood administration out of power. Actually, Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, the leader of Egypt’s largest Christian denomination, publically supported the move.
Paul Sedra, an associate professor of history at Simon Fraser University, believes that the violence is an extension of an ongoing demonization campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians.
According to Professor Sedra, “since the Muslim Brotherhood has been deposed from power, they have engaged in explicitly sectarian appeals that have aimed to vilify Copts as their chief antagonists in Egypt.” When Islamists are loathed to attack the state directly, they often settle for attacking Copts, because they are an easy target.”
One would expect that Muslims, who are not extreme in their worldview, would display outrage against the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, there is a deafening silence:
The REAL Muslim Brotherhood (8.14.13)
When I heard that the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) was planning to hold a Million Muslim March in Washington D.C., I honestly thought the objective was to take a stand against what was happening in Egypt. I thought, since they did not march when Muslim extremists showed their anti-American position after 911, AMPAC was now covering lost ground.
I was wrong. The Million Muslim March has nothing to do with protesting about what is happening in Egypt, or what happened by Muslim extremists in Benghazi last year. Instead, they are using the 911 anniversary date to demand that the free speech rights of American Muslims be protected.
This is how the event is described on AMPAC’s website – “we are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our first amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign... Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 911 commission report to the American people.”
AMPAC distances itself from the events of 911. As a matter of fact, the current leader of AMPAC believes the events of 911 were conspiracies involving Israel. Hence, according to AMPAC, there is no need to condemn something for which Islam is not even tacitly responsible.
Thankfully, Egyptian Christians are choosing to react differently from others in history who were provoked and attacked by Muslims. Rather than resort to “crusader tactics,” today’s Egyptians are choosing instead “to pray for those who hate you.”
Some have returned to the charred house of worship, with their pastor vowing the violence suffered by his flock will make them better Christians. This will teach us to be better Christians," said Pastor Sameh Ibrahim. In that community, some fourteen churches were reportedly attacked in recent days.
For Christians, revenge is not an option. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul said we must “hate what is evil.” In addition he says, “do not repay anyone evil for evil...do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).
As our brothers and sisters in Egypt seek to live out true Christianity, let us pray that God would grant to them courage and hope, so that their faith would not crumble under pressure.
According to Catholic World Report, Muslim extremists torched a Franciscan school and then paraded three nuns on the street like “prisoners of war”. Also, a Bible Society of Egypt statement posted online Wednesday reported the "complete burning and destruction" of its bookshops in southern Egypt.
Egypt's Christian minority has been the target of a number of attacks in recent years. The bombing of a major church in Alexandria in January 2011 killed 21 persons and sparked worldwide condemnation.
The situation has only become worse since Egypt's popular revolution overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
In the past two-and-a-half years, Christians in Egypt have witnessed more deaths than in the last twenty years. Interestingly, Christians have been in Egypt since the first century and were, for centuries, the majority. Some 90% of Coptic (Egyptian) Christians still live in the country, making up the largest Christian community in the Middle East.
These Egyptian Christians were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood because they were widely seen as being supportive of the military that kicked the Muslim Brotherhood administration out of power. Actually, Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, the leader of Egypt’s largest Christian denomination, publically supported the move.
Paul Sedra, an associate professor of history at Simon Fraser University, believes that the violence is an extension of an ongoing demonization campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians.
According to Professor Sedra, “since the Muslim Brotherhood has been deposed from power, they have engaged in explicitly sectarian appeals that have aimed to vilify Copts as their chief antagonists in Egypt.” When Islamists are loathed to attack the state directly, they often settle for attacking Copts, because they are an easy target.”
One would expect that Muslims, who are not extreme in their worldview, would display outrage against the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, there is a deafening silence:
The REAL Muslim Brotherhood (8.14.13)
When I heard that the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) was planning to hold a Million Muslim March in Washington D.C., I honestly thought the objective was to take a stand against what was happening in Egypt. I thought, since they did not march when Muslim extremists showed their anti-American position after 911, AMPAC was now covering lost ground.
I was wrong. The Million Muslim March has nothing to do with protesting about what is happening in Egypt, or what happened by Muslim extremists in Benghazi last year. Instead, they are using the 911 anniversary date to demand that the free speech rights of American Muslims be protected.
This is how the event is described on AMPAC’s website – “we are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our first amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign... Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 911 commission report to the American people.”
AMPAC distances itself from the events of 911. As a matter of fact, the current leader of AMPAC believes the events of 911 were conspiracies involving Israel. Hence, according to AMPAC, there is no need to condemn something for which Islam is not even tacitly responsible.
Thankfully, Egyptian Christians are choosing to react differently from others in history who were provoked and attacked by Muslims. Rather than resort to “crusader tactics,” today’s Egyptians are choosing instead “to pray for those who hate you.”
Some have returned to the charred house of worship, with their pastor vowing the violence suffered by his flock will make them better Christians. This will teach us to be better Christians," said Pastor Sameh Ibrahim. In that community, some fourteen churches were reportedly attacked in recent days.
For Christians, revenge is not an option. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul said we must “hate what is evil.” In addition he says, “do not repay anyone evil for evil...do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).
As our brothers and sisters in Egypt seek to live out true Christianity, let us pray that God would grant to them courage and hope, so that their faith would not crumble under pressure.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Should Dads Get Paternity Leave?
As a helicopter pilot in the Royal Air Force, Prince William was the first senior member of the royal family to take paternity leave. Following the recent birth of his son, Prince George, he took two weeks leave with pay, a benefit to which he was entitled.
According to Ken Matos, director of research at the Families and Work Institute, a New York City-based nonprofit organization, the decision of Prince William sends a powerful message to the public. “Not only does it seem like William genuinely wants to be a present father, the royal couple knows that everything they do is aspirational.” It is possible that Prince William may be trying to set an example for fathers to take advantage of any paternity leave their company offers.
While the U.S. does not federally mandate paid paternity leave - as is practiced in England, increasingly companies are moving to offer men more time off with pay. For instance, earlier this year Yahoo extended its parental-leave policy to provide up to eight weeks of fully paid leave for both mothers and fathers.
In the United States, the only mandate for parental leave is the Family Medical Leave Act, which ensures that men and women receive twelve weeks of job-protected unpaid leave. Paternity leave isn't even an option for most American workers. According to a story published in Forbes recently, only 13% of American employers offer paternity leave.
I am an advocate for fathers getting paternity leave, when responsibly administered. Just by perusing David Popenoe’s classic on Life Without Father, one cannot help but be convinced that fathers need to spend more time with their children.
Popenoe contends that “even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections with peers.”
In addition, these children also are less likely to get in trouble at home, school, or in the neighborhood. Infants who receive high levels of affection from their fathers (e.g., babies whose fathers respond quickly to their cries and who play together) are more securely attached; that is, they can explore their environment comfortably when a parent is nearby and can readily accept comfort from their parent after a brief separation. A number of studies suggest they also are more sociable and popular with other children throughout early childhood.
One would expect that with such positive outcomes, many would welcome the idea of dads spending structured time with their children. Countries around the world, such as Sweden and Portugal, have mandated leave for fathers, but leave in America remains stubbornly short—if it is taken at all.
One study published in the Journal of Social Issues found that caregiving men get treated more disrespectfully at work than men who adhere to traditional gender roles. Maybe that's why, following the birth of a child, less than 5% of American dads took one month off, and 16% took no time at all, according to data released by the Center for Work and Family at Boston College.
Many men who openly identify with their parental role at work face pressure or resentment from co-workers. Recent research from the University of Toronto's Rottman School of Management found that men who are active caregivers get teased and insulted at work more than so-called traditional fathers and men without children. Active fathers are seen as distracted and less dedicated to their work. According to Jennifer Berdhal, the author of this study, “active fathers are accused of being wimpy or henpecked by their wives.”
When one combines the impact of these findings with the declining role of fathers in the wider society – no wonder our children are so directionless. Today’s children are victims of decades of social experiments in free sex, women’s liberation and divorce.
Interestingly, with the growth of biblical illiteracy, we are witnessing the decline and demise of social institutions. Frequently, the Psalms introduced God as the Father of the fatherless. The inference is clear – the absence of a father’s influence required divine intervention.
The problems posed by absent fathers in the days of the psalmists, are no different from today. Our social experiments to remove fathers from family life are doomed to fail. The apostle Paul was correct, “let God be true and everyman a liar” (Romans 3:4).
As far as I am concerned, paternity leave ensures that fathers can be clearly identified and be given opportunities to function responsibly in the interest of the child and the wider community.
According to Ken Matos, director of research at the Families and Work Institute, a New York City-based nonprofit organization, the decision of Prince William sends a powerful message to the public. “Not only does it seem like William genuinely wants to be a present father, the royal couple knows that everything they do is aspirational.” It is possible that Prince William may be trying to set an example for fathers to take advantage of any paternity leave their company offers.
While the U.S. does not federally mandate paid paternity leave - as is practiced in England, increasingly companies are moving to offer men more time off with pay. For instance, earlier this year Yahoo extended its parental-leave policy to provide up to eight weeks of fully paid leave for both mothers and fathers.
In the United States, the only mandate for parental leave is the Family Medical Leave Act, which ensures that men and women receive twelve weeks of job-protected unpaid leave. Paternity leave isn't even an option for most American workers. According to a story published in Forbes recently, only 13% of American employers offer paternity leave.
I am an advocate for fathers getting paternity leave, when responsibly administered. Just by perusing David Popenoe’s classic on Life Without Father, one cannot help but be convinced that fathers need to spend more time with their children.
Popenoe contends that “even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections with peers.”
In addition, these children also are less likely to get in trouble at home, school, or in the neighborhood. Infants who receive high levels of affection from their fathers (e.g., babies whose fathers respond quickly to their cries and who play together) are more securely attached; that is, they can explore their environment comfortably when a parent is nearby and can readily accept comfort from their parent after a brief separation. A number of studies suggest they also are more sociable and popular with other children throughout early childhood.
One would expect that with such positive outcomes, many would welcome the idea of dads spending structured time with their children. Countries around the world, such as Sweden and Portugal, have mandated leave for fathers, but leave in America remains stubbornly short—if it is taken at all.
One study published in the Journal of Social Issues found that caregiving men get treated more disrespectfully at work than men who adhere to traditional gender roles. Maybe that's why, following the birth of a child, less than 5% of American dads took one month off, and 16% took no time at all, according to data released by the Center for Work and Family at Boston College.
Many men who openly identify with their parental role at work face pressure or resentment from co-workers. Recent research from the University of Toronto's Rottman School of Management found that men who are active caregivers get teased and insulted at work more than so-called traditional fathers and men without children. Active fathers are seen as distracted and less dedicated to their work. According to Jennifer Berdhal, the author of this study, “active fathers are accused of being wimpy or henpecked by their wives.”
When one combines the impact of these findings with the declining role of fathers in the wider society – no wonder our children are so directionless. Today’s children are victims of decades of social experiments in free sex, women’s liberation and divorce.
Interestingly, with the growth of biblical illiteracy, we are witnessing the decline and demise of social institutions. Frequently, the Psalms introduced God as the Father of the fatherless. The inference is clear – the absence of a father’s influence required divine intervention.
The problems posed by absent fathers in the days of the psalmists, are no different from today. Our social experiments to remove fathers from family life are doomed to fail. The apostle Paul was correct, “let God be true and everyman a liar” (Romans 3:4).
As far as I am concerned, paternity leave ensures that fathers can be clearly identified and be given opportunities to function responsibly in the interest of the child and the wider community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)