According to Earthjustice, “each year, nearly a billion pounds of pesticides are sprayed in fields and orchards across America.” Much of this is sprayed during Termite Season – April to August. Ants are particularly susceptible to this menace demolition campaign. Simply put, ants are pests, kill them.
I fully understand the rationale, especially during these summer months. Even as I prepare this blog my family has ant killing pesticides appropriately placed in our South Florida home. However, there is something else about ants we often overlook.
Ants live everywhere. They are loosening and oxygenating soil, adding nutrients to the soil, controlling bug populations, transplanting seeds, pollinating plants and flowers, aiding in decomposition, moving and consuming organic and inorganic material on such a large scale that their impact may never be fully appreciated.
I am no myrmecologist (a scientist who studies ants); however, I have learned a few things about ants that can have a profound impact on human behavior. For instance, the work ethic of ants can put even the most ambitious person to shame.
All day long the ant labors in the hot desert, or a wet rain forest, or the cold tundra sniffing out his food and carrying back his load to the nest, no matter how far the journey or how difficult the terrain. Actually, the load an ant carries around all day can be up to 50 times his own body weight.
Ants are probably the most highly developed social insects. Scientists tell us “each colony of ants contains at least one queen. The workers, who are all sterile females, care for the queen, enlarge, repair and defend the nest, care for the young and gather food. Some workers perform only one job throughout their lives while others may change their tasks. The soldier ants are specialized workers whose function is to guard the nest.” In essence, ants possess amazing organizational skills.
The writer of the Book of Proverbs, invites his readers to learn from ants. At least five profound truths are unpacked from the biblical text. In the first place, the writer contends that ants are not lazy. The writer challenges “the sluggard” to go the ant and learn (Proverbs 6:6). Ants are energetic and full of life. They are aware of the fact that their life span is short and live with energy. Like the Psalmist, we too learn “to number our days aright, that we may gain hearts of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). If we can only live our lives, keeping in mind that life is like a vapor – very brief. Live life with enthusiasm, just like ants.
Proverbs also teaches that ants are self-motivated. They operate with “no commander, no overseer or no ruler.” Myrmecologists confirm this biblical truth – “ants form groups with no single leader, and no hierarchical organizational model.” Ants are driven by a desire to survive and the reality of their own limitations. The words of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy would seem to capture this emphasis, when he said, “Ask not what my country can do for me but what I can do for my country.”
In the third place, we must credit ants with being frugal. According to Proverbs, “they store their provision in summer and gather their food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:8). They know when to reap. They know when to put in storage. Ants know what to spend and what to save. In essence, they know how to balance time and resources. In other words, ants know the seasons of life and plan accordingly.
Not only do ants know opportunities, they also know their limitations. “Ants are creatures of little strength” says the writer of Proverbs (30:25). There are some ants that are one twenty-fifth of an inch. They are limited in size and strength. Their survival depends on community. As mentioned earlier, they are probably the most highly developed social insects. Together, they can strip an orange grove of leaves in one night. However, they cannot survive without community.
Another important credit to ants is the fact that they are wise. Proverbs actually says that “they are extremely wise” (Proverbs 30:24). They know how to apply knowledge – knowledge of seasons, their own physiology, their vulnerabilities and the value of community.
Although limited, they know how to use the resources available to them. Army ants may prey on reptiles, birds, or even small mammals. One Amazon species of ants cooperatively builds extensive traps from plant fiber. These traps have many holes and, when an insect steps on one, hundreds of ants inside use the openings to seize it with their jaws.
Honestly, ants are more than a menace – they are mentors, as they teach us to be frugal, wise, resilient and industrious.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Monday, July 21, 2014
AMERICA!
This summer marks 23 years since we landed at Miami International Airport. My family and I were heading for Chicago where I would pursue graduate studies at Trinity International University. I can still recall the drive to the Windy City. The long drive ensured that the five of us remained a close-knit group – that bonding was necessary for the cold winter years in the mid-west.
Our immigration status did not allow my wife to work and I was allowed to work only on campus for what I learned later was minimum wage. The money with which we travelled from Jamaica was finished in three months. I began my graduate program with no scholarships. With our first child in high school and the others at the junior high and elementary school levels, one could just imagine the magnitude of the fiscal challenges we faced.
My wife and I knew the immigration rules, and we were not prepared to break them. We felt that our time in America was consistent with a divine call. We also felt that if God had opened a door for us, He would provide for us. Apart from the risk of being caught and the likely deportation that would follow, we knew if we played dishonestly, we would be robbing ourselves of the moral authority we needed to guide our children. In addition, we would be undermining the standards of integrity by which we sought to guide our lives.
God honored our stand and our status changed in a miraculous way – that’s another story. Our new immigration status enabled us to work. Although some of the jobs were very menial, the money earned affirmed our dignity and strong work ethic.
Not every family can share such stories about coming to America. It is believed that about 60% of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and1780s were brought here as indentured workers. However, while half the European migrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired.
Slaves were among this “never indentured” category. The first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.
Unlike our situation, many families were destroyed because of immigration practices in the United States. Sometimes the immigrating families must be blamed. The truth is, when we pursue financial gain at any cost, usually, our families are affected.
By now everyone is aware of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossing our Southern border that have created a national crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis for these children who have been sent by their families to travel thousands of miles on their own. Many are physically and sexually abused along the way, others never reach their destination. All too often, Border Patrol agents discover small, lifeless bodies washed up on the US side of the river that marks the border between Texas and Mexico.
All forms of migration affect family life – either for better or worse. As a nation, Israel never recovered when Assyria removed most of the men from the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. Today we still talk about the ten lost tribes and the bastardization of the Samaritans.
We as a nation, need to have a serious conversation about the impact of migration on family life. Some of our laws need adjusting to reflect an appreciation for stable family life. No nation can succeed without stability in the family.
As my wife and I prepare for U.S. citizenship, we have become so much more aware of the American experiment. Part of my personal preparation included reading Dr. Ben Carson’s book, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future. In addition, we viewed Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “America: Imagine a World Without Her.” We strongly recommend both resources.
Those resources reminded me of what the American experiment was all about as well as cautioned me about the threat of revisionist history to distort the value of that experiment. As someone who lectures in religion, it is frustrating to come across revisionist literature that attempts to undermine the role of religion in American history.
As a beneficiary of the American experiment I am eager to obtain citizenship. I want the privilege to vote – to influence the branches of government. I want to be sure that when I hear the words “we the people," those words include me.
When faced with the reality of living away from their homeland, God said to the Jews – “build houses and settle down...seek the peace and prosperity of the city ...pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Our immigration status did not allow my wife to work and I was allowed to work only on campus for what I learned later was minimum wage. The money with which we travelled from Jamaica was finished in three months. I began my graduate program with no scholarships. With our first child in high school and the others at the junior high and elementary school levels, one could just imagine the magnitude of the fiscal challenges we faced.
My wife and I knew the immigration rules, and we were not prepared to break them. We felt that our time in America was consistent with a divine call. We also felt that if God had opened a door for us, He would provide for us. Apart from the risk of being caught and the likely deportation that would follow, we knew if we played dishonestly, we would be robbing ourselves of the moral authority we needed to guide our children. In addition, we would be undermining the standards of integrity by which we sought to guide our lives.
God honored our stand and our status changed in a miraculous way – that’s another story. Our new immigration status enabled us to work. Although some of the jobs were very menial, the money earned affirmed our dignity and strong work ethic.
Not every family can share such stories about coming to America. It is believed that about 60% of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and1780s were brought here as indentured workers. However, while half the European migrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired.
Slaves were among this “never indentured” category. The first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.
Unlike our situation, many families were destroyed because of immigration practices in the United States. Sometimes the immigrating families must be blamed. The truth is, when we pursue financial gain at any cost, usually, our families are affected.
By now everyone is aware of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossing our Southern border that have created a national crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis for these children who have been sent by their families to travel thousands of miles on their own. Many are physically and sexually abused along the way, others never reach their destination. All too often, Border Patrol agents discover small, lifeless bodies washed up on the US side of the river that marks the border between Texas and Mexico.
All forms of migration affect family life – either for better or worse. As a nation, Israel never recovered when Assyria removed most of the men from the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. Today we still talk about the ten lost tribes and the bastardization of the Samaritans.
We as a nation, need to have a serious conversation about the impact of migration on family life. Some of our laws need adjusting to reflect an appreciation for stable family life. No nation can succeed without stability in the family.
As my wife and I prepare for U.S. citizenship, we have become so much more aware of the American experiment. Part of my personal preparation included reading Dr. Ben Carson’s book, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future. In addition, we viewed Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “America: Imagine a World Without Her.” We strongly recommend both resources.
Those resources reminded me of what the American experiment was all about as well as cautioned me about the threat of revisionist history to distort the value of that experiment. As someone who lectures in religion, it is frustrating to come across revisionist literature that attempts to undermine the role of religion in American history.
As a beneficiary of the American experiment I am eager to obtain citizenship. I want the privilege to vote – to influence the branches of government. I want to be sure that when I hear the words “we the people," those words include me.
When faced with the reality of living away from their homeland, God said to the Jews – “build houses and settle down...seek the peace and prosperity of the city ...pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Bisexual or Convert?
Recently I was reading the story of a woman who converted to Christianity. She was gay and discontinued the practice upon converting. Today she is happily married with four children. In responding to the story, one columnist suggested that she did not abandon homosexuality because of her conversion. Rather, she was living out her bisexual preference.
According the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, “bisexuality is the potential to feel sexually attracted to and engage in sensual or sexual relationships with people of either sex." Interestingly, there are several theories about different models of bisexual behavior. J. R. Little is a psychologist whose extensive research identified at least 13 types of bisexuality.
However, none of Professor Little’s categories defined the experience of former leftist lesbian professor Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Did Professor Butterfield transition to heterosexuality because she was bisexual, or because of conversion?
As a professor of English and Women’s Studies at Syracuse University, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, Dr. Butterfield cared about morality, justice and compassion. In her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she says, “I used my post (as a professor) to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: AIDS activism, children’s health and literacy and our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few.”
“I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track – the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, in 1997 I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers.”
According to Dr. Butterfield, “the article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk – one for hate mail, and the other for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind of inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire – How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.”
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview... Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
“With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen...He did not mock me. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward – surely this will be good for my research.”
“Something else happened. Ken, his wife Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.”
Dr. Butterfield started reading the Bible. “I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations...I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired...It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in.”
Then, “one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked...Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess...the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother”.”
Dr. Butterfield’s story reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians. He was itemizing specific negative behaviors with which they were identified. With clarity he stated, “...and that is what some of you were, but you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). This statement was not a description of bisexualism. Like Dr. Butterfield’s story, it was a statement of conversion and its effect on behavior.
According the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, “bisexuality is the potential to feel sexually attracted to and engage in sensual or sexual relationships with people of either sex." Interestingly, there are several theories about different models of bisexual behavior. J. R. Little is a psychologist whose extensive research identified at least 13 types of bisexuality.
However, none of Professor Little’s categories defined the experience of former leftist lesbian professor Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Did Professor Butterfield transition to heterosexuality because she was bisexual, or because of conversion?
As a professor of English and Women’s Studies at Syracuse University, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, Dr. Butterfield cared about morality, justice and compassion. In her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she says, “I used my post (as a professor) to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: AIDS activism, children’s health and literacy and our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few.”
“I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track – the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, in 1997 I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers.”
According to Dr. Butterfield, “the article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk – one for hate mail, and the other for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind of inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire – How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.”
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview... Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
“With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen...He did not mock me. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward – surely this will be good for my research.”
“Something else happened. Ken, his wife Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.”
Dr. Butterfield started reading the Bible. “I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations...I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired...It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in.”
Then, “one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked...Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess...the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother”.”
Dr. Butterfield’s story reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians. He was itemizing specific negative behaviors with which they were identified. With clarity he stated, “...and that is what some of you were, but you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). This statement was not a description of bisexualism. Like Dr. Butterfield’s story, it was a statement of conversion and its effect on behavior.
Monday, January 20, 2014
MLK TAUGHT US The Power of Meekness
Some people believe the words power and meekness should never appear in the same sentence. Such persons would very likely describe meekness as weakness. That view of meekness is false and the life of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. illustrates that.
From his sermons and his life, Dr. King attempted to demonstrate a biblical understanding of meekness. He believed the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were prescriptive and not merely descriptive. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
Dr. King understood that Jesus was using language, familiar to His listeners. They knew that meekness was used in the context of trainers who brought wild stallions under control. Although stallions symbolized sheer “horse” power, they could be tamed to behave as gentle animals. Hence, when one thought of meekness, one thought of power under control.
Today, horse power under control is used by physical and occupational therapists. These specialists practice hippotherapy, incorporating the movement of horses into the total care plan of their patients. In essence, controlled power can perform a different kind of powerful service.
While addressing a packed hall at the University of California – Berkley on June 4, 1957, Dr. King chose as his topic: The Power of Nonviolence. Here is a summary of his presentation:
- Non-violence is not a method of cowardice. He stressed that the non-violent resister was just as opposed to evil as the violent resister. However, non-violence should not be confused with stagnant passivity and deadening complacency.
- Non-violence does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but seeks to win his friendship and understanding. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community.
- A boycott is never an end within itself but merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor. The end is reconciliation and redemption.
- The nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than the individual who happens to be caught up in the system. For Dr. King, the struggle was between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
Dr. King’s display of meekness was honed by his Christian worldview of love - a love that sought nothing in return. He loved his enemies, not because they were likable, but because God loved them. He loved the person who disliked blacks but loathed the system that perpetuated hatred for others.
Dr. King was convinced that only through love one was able to really conquer injustice and violence. He felt the ultimate weakness of violence was a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it was seeking to destroy - instead of diminishing evil, violence multiplied evil.
According to Dr. King, “through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”
Today’s celebration of the birth of Dr. King provides a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the life of a pastor who knew God and sought to live-out his understanding of biblical principles.
Dr. King responded well to a rich heritage of pastoral influences. Hear his words: “I am...the son of a Baptist preacher, the grandson of a Baptist preacher and the great grandson of a Baptist preacher. The Church is my life and I have given my life to the Church.”
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor. The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”
Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Monday, January 6, 2014
JERUSALEM!
My prediction for 2014 – the city of Jerusalem will be in the news more than any other city in the world. At the moment, Secretary of State John Kerry is on his tenth visit to Jerusalem since assuming office one year ago. Kerry has visited Jerusalem more than any other foreign city since taking office.
What really is so significant about Jerusalem? In his book, The Fight for Jerusalem, Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, makes the point: “No city is more important to the peace of the world than Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times and captured and recaptured 44 times in its long history. Probably film producer Anthony Bourdain was correct when he said, “Jerusalem is easily the most contentious piece of real estate in the world.”
History confirms that King David subdued the Jebusites, the city's Canaanite founders, more than 3,000 years ago. Later, the Babylonians and Romans routed the Jews and Jerusalem. Muslims booted the Byzantines. Christian Crusaders mauled Muslims and were, in turn, tossed out by the Tartars.
The Ottomans followed, then Britain, then Jordan, before finally, in 1967, the city came nearly full circle when Israel annexed East Jerusalem. That sparked another cycle of violence, this time between Israelis and Palestinians.
Unlike many major cities of the world, Jerusalem is not known for any major river or coastline. The city, just about 45 square miles, with some 800,000 people, is actually situated in the heart of the Judean Mountains and is built on a hilltop. It is about the size of the city of Salem in Oregon, which borrowed its name from the biblical idea of peace.
There are no natural resources, no unifying language or attractions that would make the city of Jerusalem particularly popular. Then, what attracts an average of 3.5 million tourists to the city every year? The answer is simple – religion.
Jerusalem is home to some of the holiest sites of the world’s three major religions. The Temple Mount is the most sensitive location. A hilltop platform complex, the thirty-five acre Temple Mount is the former Mount Moriah of 2 Chronicles 3:1. There, the first Temple, built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
The Second Temple was constructed on the same site in 515 BCE, until the Romans demolished it in 70 CE. Despite this history, the Temple Mount is now largely off-limits for organized Jewish prayer. Jewish prayer is instead conducted at the Western Wall, a retaining wall from the Second Temple, located adjacent to and just below the Temple Mount. Although this history is clearly verified in various forms, some revisionists are choosing to deny the history and ultimately Israel’s right to the area.
The Temple Mount is also the third holiest site to Muslims. It is now home to two major Islamic shrines. The first of these, the Dome of the Rock, built in the late seventh century, houses the rock from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven. The second site is the al-Aqsa Mosque, the largest mosque in Jerusalem, completed in the eighth century.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands relatively close to the Temple Mount. The church was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century at Golgotha, the site where it is believed, Jesus was crucified.
So what you may ask - what if three religions want to make claim to the city of Jerusalem? What does that have to do with the prominence of Jerusalem in the news for 2014? Part of that answer has to do with the prominence of religious news from the Middle East and Jerusalem in particular during 2014.
The three major religions of the world, often referred to as the Abrahamic faiths, believe a messiah-like figure will play a major role in bringing about peace in Jerusalem. According to Islam, a messianic figure known as the Mahdi, will appear and establish his headquarters in Jerusalem. Jesus (Isa) will also appear and with the Mahdi, wage war against the Antichrist.
Based on Zechariah 12:2-3, Jews contend that Jerusalem will play a role in end-time prophecy. Among other things, the Prophet Zechariah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.”
When asked to comment on the timing of His return, Jesus said, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20-24).
In essence, the major religions believe that both Jerusalem and a messianic figure will play major roles in the future of the world. Is it just possible, that the present turmoil is indicative of apocalyptic activity? In our quest for peace, I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore that point of view.
What really is so significant about Jerusalem? In his book, The Fight for Jerusalem, Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, makes the point: “No city is more important to the peace of the world than Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times and captured and recaptured 44 times in its long history. Probably film producer Anthony Bourdain was correct when he said, “Jerusalem is easily the most contentious piece of real estate in the world.”
History confirms that King David subdued the Jebusites, the city's Canaanite founders, more than 3,000 years ago. Later, the Babylonians and Romans routed the Jews and Jerusalem. Muslims booted the Byzantines. Christian Crusaders mauled Muslims and were, in turn, tossed out by the Tartars.
The Ottomans followed, then Britain, then Jordan, before finally, in 1967, the city came nearly full circle when Israel annexed East Jerusalem. That sparked another cycle of violence, this time between Israelis and Palestinians.
Unlike many major cities of the world, Jerusalem is not known for any major river or coastline. The city, just about 45 square miles, with some 800,000 people, is actually situated in the heart of the Judean Mountains and is built on a hilltop. It is about the size of the city of Salem in Oregon, which borrowed its name from the biblical idea of peace.
There are no natural resources, no unifying language or attractions that would make the city of Jerusalem particularly popular. Then, what attracts an average of 3.5 million tourists to the city every year? The answer is simple – religion.
Jerusalem is home to some of the holiest sites of the world’s three major religions. The Temple Mount is the most sensitive location. A hilltop platform complex, the thirty-five acre Temple Mount is the former Mount Moriah of 2 Chronicles 3:1. There, the first Temple, built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
The Second Temple was constructed on the same site in 515 BCE, until the Romans demolished it in 70 CE. Despite this history, the Temple Mount is now largely off-limits for organized Jewish prayer. Jewish prayer is instead conducted at the Western Wall, a retaining wall from the Second Temple, located adjacent to and just below the Temple Mount. Although this history is clearly verified in various forms, some revisionists are choosing to deny the history and ultimately Israel’s right to the area.
The Temple Mount is also the third holiest site to Muslims. It is now home to two major Islamic shrines. The first of these, the Dome of the Rock, built in the late seventh century, houses the rock from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven. The second site is the al-Aqsa Mosque, the largest mosque in Jerusalem, completed in the eighth century.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands relatively close to the Temple Mount. The church was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century at Golgotha, the site where it is believed, Jesus was crucified.
So what you may ask - what if three religions want to make claim to the city of Jerusalem? What does that have to do with the prominence of Jerusalem in the news for 2014? Part of that answer has to do with the prominence of religious news from the Middle East and Jerusalem in particular during 2014.
The three major religions of the world, often referred to as the Abrahamic faiths, believe a messiah-like figure will play a major role in bringing about peace in Jerusalem. According to Islam, a messianic figure known as the Mahdi, will appear and establish his headquarters in Jerusalem. Jesus (Isa) will also appear and with the Mahdi, wage war against the Antichrist.
Based on Zechariah 12:2-3, Jews contend that Jerusalem will play a role in end-time prophecy. Among other things, the Prophet Zechariah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.”
When asked to comment on the timing of His return, Jesus said, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20-24).
In essence, the major religions believe that both Jerusalem and a messianic figure will play major roles in the future of the world. Is it just possible, that the present turmoil is indicative of apocalyptic activity? In our quest for peace, I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore that point of view.
Monday, December 30, 2013
I Agree With President Obama
A few days ago comedian Steve Harvey and President Obama had a non-political interview at the White House. It was refreshing to see the President in a non-combative mood.
In discussing his family, the President said he trusts his daughters to have good judgment when it comes to men. “What I’ve told them before is, as long as that young man is showing you respect, and is kind to you, then I’m not going to be hovering over every second. But, I’m counting on you to have the self-respect to make sure that anybody who you’re going out with comes correct. And hopefully they’ve seen how I treat Michelle.”
Mr. President, I strongly agree with you. Actually, I am so much more sensitive to the President’s desire for his daughters as I write this commentary from the home of my daughter in Nashville, hundreds of miles away from my home. My wife and I feel so honored to be hosted by a young woman who we love, very much like the President loves his own daughters, Malia (15 years old) and Sasha (12).
The President’s desire to want the very best for his daughters is most evident. He is concerned about their security. In the interview with Harvey, he quipped that he ran for a second term partly to keep his teenage daughters under constant supervision. “I’ve got men with guns following them around all the time. Hey, this is the main reason I ran for re-election - you know I’m gonna have ‘em covered for most of high school.”
In addition, the President would hope that any suitors would have “seen how I treat Michelle.” The President believes he models a loving relationship before his daughters. Actually, one of the best gifts we as parents can give to our children is the display of a loving relationship.
When parents spend time with each other, nurturing their relationship, resolving conflicts, investing in one another in practical ways, and enjoying one another, children see that they truly love and value one another. This security will increase the peace and joy in the home.
In this and in previous interviews, President Obama naturally refers to potential suitors for his daughters as “young men who show respect and kindness.” Here again, the President must be congratulated on his desire to see his daughters engage in relationships that are natural and are best for their development.
In expressing his desire for what’s best for his daughters, the President was expressing a sensitivity to issues of gender. One’s gender identity is the sense of one’s self as male or female. Gender role refers to the behaviors and desires to act in certain ways that are viewed as masculine and feminine in a particular culture. His position is consistent with history, with nature and science.
The President’s desire for what is best for his daughters is not readily accepted by some social scientists in today’s culture. Such scholars believe our culture labels behaviors as masculine and feminine, “but these behaviors are not necessarily a direct component of gender or gender identity.”
For me, gender and the accompanying behaviors are not determined by society. Gender is a biological, not a sociological construct. The President spoke with logical clarity, so unlike the ambiguity that’s apparent in gender experiments. Under the guise of accommodating bisexualism, some in our culture are confused and vacillate in affirming their own masculinity or femininity. I believe Malia and Sasha are in good hands if their parents continue to expect behaviors that are consistent with their femininity.
The President is correct to want heterosexual relationships for his daughters. Such relationships have always been about bringing men and women together in permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationships.
In their volume, Marriage on Trial, Stanton and Maier make the point: “No human society-not one-has ever embraced homosexual marriage. It is not a part of the tradition of any human culture” (page 22). Such unions have never been regarded as a normal, morally equal part of any society. Non heterosexual unions have been tolerated in some cultures, however, it is historically accurate to say that they have never been taken to be morally equivalent to natural marriage.
So, the President is on the right side of history to want natural relationships for his daughters. The President’s desire for his daughters is seeking to regulate sexuality, bringing gender balance to their relationships and offspring. This arrangement is consistent with the biblical position on family. Different genders allow for complementarity, a critical and historically proven component of healthy families.
In discussing his family, the President said he trusts his daughters to have good judgment when it comes to men. “What I’ve told them before is, as long as that young man is showing you respect, and is kind to you, then I’m not going to be hovering over every second. But, I’m counting on you to have the self-respect to make sure that anybody who you’re going out with comes correct. And hopefully they’ve seen how I treat Michelle.”
Mr. President, I strongly agree with you. Actually, I am so much more sensitive to the President’s desire for his daughters as I write this commentary from the home of my daughter in Nashville, hundreds of miles away from my home. My wife and I feel so honored to be hosted by a young woman who we love, very much like the President loves his own daughters, Malia (15 years old) and Sasha (12).
The President’s desire to want the very best for his daughters is most evident. He is concerned about their security. In the interview with Harvey, he quipped that he ran for a second term partly to keep his teenage daughters under constant supervision. “I’ve got men with guns following them around all the time. Hey, this is the main reason I ran for re-election - you know I’m gonna have ‘em covered for most of high school.”
In addition, the President would hope that any suitors would have “seen how I treat Michelle.” The President believes he models a loving relationship before his daughters. Actually, one of the best gifts we as parents can give to our children is the display of a loving relationship.
When parents spend time with each other, nurturing their relationship, resolving conflicts, investing in one another in practical ways, and enjoying one another, children see that they truly love and value one another. This security will increase the peace and joy in the home.
In this and in previous interviews, President Obama naturally refers to potential suitors for his daughters as “young men who show respect and kindness.” Here again, the President must be congratulated on his desire to see his daughters engage in relationships that are natural and are best for their development.
In expressing his desire for what’s best for his daughters, the President was expressing a sensitivity to issues of gender. One’s gender identity is the sense of one’s self as male or female. Gender role refers to the behaviors and desires to act in certain ways that are viewed as masculine and feminine in a particular culture. His position is consistent with history, with nature and science.
The President’s desire for what is best for his daughters is not readily accepted by some social scientists in today’s culture. Such scholars believe our culture labels behaviors as masculine and feminine, “but these behaviors are not necessarily a direct component of gender or gender identity.”
For me, gender and the accompanying behaviors are not determined by society. Gender is a biological, not a sociological construct. The President spoke with logical clarity, so unlike the ambiguity that’s apparent in gender experiments. Under the guise of accommodating bisexualism, some in our culture are confused and vacillate in affirming their own masculinity or femininity. I believe Malia and Sasha are in good hands if their parents continue to expect behaviors that are consistent with their femininity.
The President is correct to want heterosexual relationships for his daughters. Such relationships have always been about bringing men and women together in permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationships.
In their volume, Marriage on Trial, Stanton and Maier make the point: “No human society-not one-has ever embraced homosexual marriage. It is not a part of the tradition of any human culture” (page 22). Such unions have never been regarded as a normal, morally equal part of any society. Non heterosexual unions have been tolerated in some cultures, however, it is historically accurate to say that they have never been taken to be morally equivalent to natural marriage.
So, the President is on the right side of history to want natural relationships for his daughters. The President’s desire for his daughters is seeking to regulate sexuality, bringing gender balance to their relationships and offspring. This arrangement is consistent with the biblical position on family. Different genders allow for complementarity, a critical and historically proven component of healthy families.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
VIRGIN BIRTH: No Big Thing?
Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. A Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to “big-up” the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
When one chooses to speculate on the immaculate conception of Mary, one loses sight of the depth and uniqueness of the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, to merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. And worse yet, to conclude that this remarkable story is a biblical attempt to glorify single-motherhood is tantamount to blasphemy.
Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
It is a joy to be back following another long but necessary hiatus. Thanks for your interest and concerns. Have a Blessed Christmas!
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to “big-up” the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
When one chooses to speculate on the immaculate conception of Mary, one loses sight of the depth and uniqueness of the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, to merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. And worse yet, to conclude that this remarkable story is a biblical attempt to glorify single-motherhood is tantamount to blasphemy.
Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
It is a joy to be back following another long but necessary hiatus. Thanks for your interest and concerns. Have a Blessed Christmas!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)