About two decades ago my wife and I met Robin Williams when we saw the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. Williams, who played the role of Mrs. Doubtfire was outstanding. His winsome personality as an actor made us feel as though we met him personally.
Last week Robin Williams committed suicide. News of his death suddenly replaced the headlines of warfare around the world. “Mrs. Doubtfire” had been struggling with depression for several years and had previously beaten a dependency to alcohol and drugs in the seventies and eighties.
The actor was reported to have been downsizing his properties after two divorces left him in serious debt. In a 2013 interview with Parade Magazine, Williams said that divorce was expensive. He added that he used to joke that before the word “alimony” was invented, they were going to call it “all the money”.
Since his death, some of us are learning that Williams was a humble man. Just as he had an impact on the lives of his viewers, we had an impact on his life. One commentator observed that he was living off our laughs. In their grief, the family requested – “As he is remembered, it is our hope the focus will not be on Robin’s death, but on the countless moments of joy and laughter he gave to millions.”
From my research, I understand depression is a mood disorder in which overwhelming feelings of sadness, loss of pleasure, guilt, and hopelessness interfere with daily life. Everyone experiences some unhappiness, often as a result of a life change, either in the form of a setback or a loss, or simply, as everyday misery. The painful feelings that accompany these events are usually appropriate and temporary, and can even present an opportunity for personal growth and improvement.
However, when sadness persists and impairs daily life, it may indicate a depressive disorder. Severity, duration, and the presence of other symptoms are the factors that distinguish normal sadness from clinical disorder.
My wife who did her graduate thesis on depression, tells me that there are various types of depression. I understand that in major depression, at least five critical symptoms must occur nearly every day for a period of at least 2 weeks, and they must represent a change from previous behavior or mood. Depressed mood or loss of interest must be present.
All the causes of depression are not fully known. Scholars tell us depression is most likely due to a combination of genetic, biologic, and environmental factors. Many people with major depression also have an alcohol use disorder or drug abuse problems. Studies on the connections between alcohol dependence and depression have still not resolved whether one causes the other or if they both share some common biologic factor.
In commenting on Robin Williams, one commentator said, “when you’re a big celebrity, people are afraid to tell you the truth. People are afraid to tell you anything because you’re a source of income. I don’t know if that’s why people were afraid to dig deep with him or that he was just really good at covering his pain.”
One of Robin’s good friends, the CEO of the Laugh Factory, said, “He was always in character – you never saw the real Robin. I knew him 35 years, and I never knew him.” He made us laugh and we assumed that his life was one of similar laughter – that was not the case. He generated moments of joy in public but carried personal pain in private.
I understand depression is not rare in men. In fact, white men over the age of 85 have the highest rates of suicide of any group. Men may be more likely than women to mask their depression by using alcohol.
Researchers tell us depression is less reported in the male population, but this may be caused by male tendencies to deny symptoms, avoid seeking help, and masking emotional disorders with specific behaviors and vices.
Can depressed people be helped? Yes - depending on the severity of one’s depression, treatment will differ. In every case, treatment is intended to assist the depressed person to cope or respond better to the set of circumstances he or she may be facing. At times persons require medication and forms of therapy.
From treatments prescribed, it becomes obvious that wholesome living environments can significantly reduce depression. Such wholesome environments are strongly encouraged for persons who choose to make the Bible their guide.
For instance, it was Peter, the disciple of Jesus who said: “...cast all your anxiety on Him (Jesus) because He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7). The Scriptures are replete with admonitions, encouraging wholesome living. I trust you will find this to be true and not resort to disastrous options.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
Peace in Palestine?
For many Christians, peace in Palestine is impossible. They share the view that without Jesus, the Prince of Peace, peace in the Middle East is not possible. If that were the case then, why “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6)? Furthermore, was it not Paul who taught us to pray for “those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...”?
Christians should always pursue peaceful options. Agreed, the Israeli-Palestinian scenario is very complex and at times appears to be an exercise in futility. However, we must not forget that the conflict first involves people and not land. For this reason, greater attempts must be made to foster ideas among people in cross-border activities.
Ron Pundak, in the Palestine-Israel Journal (Volume 18 No. 2 & 3, 2012) makes the point, “in order for peace to come about, decisions need to be made by state officials at the highest levels. But in order for it to be digested, accepted and implemented, grassroots activities must take place before, during and after an agreement.”
Such grassroots activities have been in place for many years. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one can find people-to-people peace building activities taking place in various forms and at various levels. Cases of dialog between non-official, yet influential individuals from both sides, continue to exist.
Because of our dependence on the media for information, we are often subject to the agenda of the media. That agenda focuses primarily on diplomatic conversations among politicians. That level of diplomacy is necessary but cannot be effective without strong grassroots activity.
In preparing this blog, I became so much more aware of ongoing attempts among academics, research groups and entrepreneurs – all determined to foster better relationships among Arabs and Jews. Through the dissemination of information and while making the public see that there is a realistic plan as well as a credible partner on both sides, the architects of grassroots efforts hope to change the political mindset of the people, who would then themselves pressure their political leaders to change.
For instance, some change can begin in the media. Joint educational programs for journalists or young leaders are one way of reaching the masses indirectly. Another is by establishing “values of peace” through meetings between school children, joint sporting events and the performing arts.
My research tells me that there is some dialog taking place between professionals. There is joint-discussion on topics of mutual interest like the environment, water and agriculture. Limited dialog is also taking place among doctors who jointly conduct breast cancer research, as well as other areas of medical science. While the participants in these activities mainly discuss professional matters, they still create an environment that is conducive to changing attitudes regarding each other and to the spreading of knowledge and ideas.
The most difficult area of dialog is religion. Both Jews and Arabs claim a common heritage in Abraham. As descendants of Abraham, Muslims believe the promises God made to Abraham, were intended for them. Jews disagree. They believe the promises were intended for the descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael, Abraham’s other son who became the father of the Arab world. The spirit of disagreement and conflict was seen very early in the history of both groups. Interestingly, it was said of Ishmael and his people, “and they lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (Genesis 25:18).
Hundreds of years later, Mohammad appears on the scene. He is born in Mecca and as an Arab has a cultural link to Ishmael/Abraham. However, when Mohammad was born, followers of Abraham’s monotheism in the Arab world were called Jews.
Even a cursory study of Islam, the religion practiced by most Arabs, will show that Mohammad was unable to convince Arabian Jews that he was a prophet sent from the God of Abraham. Actually, monotheism as practiced by Abraham, was far removed from what was practiced by Arabs.
Those religious differences brought about hostility between Islam and Judaism – and that hostility continues to be evident today. For example, in Islam’s Hadiths (Bukhari 52:177), “Allah's Apostle said, the Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’"
Muslims who adhere to that ideology contend that there should be no attempt at peace with Jews. This provides fuel for Hamas and other Muslims who resent Jews. Thankfully, all Muslims do not adhere to this ideology – with such Muslims, it is possible to live peacefully with Jews.
Christians should always pursue peaceful options. Agreed, the Israeli-Palestinian scenario is very complex and at times appears to be an exercise in futility. However, we must not forget that the conflict first involves people and not land. For this reason, greater attempts must be made to foster ideas among people in cross-border activities.
Ron Pundak, in the Palestine-Israel Journal (Volume 18 No. 2 & 3, 2012) makes the point, “in order for peace to come about, decisions need to be made by state officials at the highest levels. But in order for it to be digested, accepted and implemented, grassroots activities must take place before, during and after an agreement.”
Such grassroots activities have been in place for many years. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one can find people-to-people peace building activities taking place in various forms and at various levels. Cases of dialog between non-official, yet influential individuals from both sides, continue to exist.
Because of our dependence on the media for information, we are often subject to the agenda of the media. That agenda focuses primarily on diplomatic conversations among politicians. That level of diplomacy is necessary but cannot be effective without strong grassroots activity.
In preparing this blog, I became so much more aware of ongoing attempts among academics, research groups and entrepreneurs – all determined to foster better relationships among Arabs and Jews. Through the dissemination of information and while making the public see that there is a realistic plan as well as a credible partner on both sides, the architects of grassroots efforts hope to change the political mindset of the people, who would then themselves pressure their political leaders to change.
For instance, some change can begin in the media. Joint educational programs for journalists or young leaders are one way of reaching the masses indirectly. Another is by establishing “values of peace” through meetings between school children, joint sporting events and the performing arts.
My research tells me that there is some dialog taking place between professionals. There is joint-discussion on topics of mutual interest like the environment, water and agriculture. Limited dialog is also taking place among doctors who jointly conduct breast cancer research, as well as other areas of medical science. While the participants in these activities mainly discuss professional matters, they still create an environment that is conducive to changing attitudes regarding each other and to the spreading of knowledge and ideas.
The most difficult area of dialog is religion. Both Jews and Arabs claim a common heritage in Abraham. As descendants of Abraham, Muslims believe the promises God made to Abraham, were intended for them. Jews disagree. They believe the promises were intended for the descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael, Abraham’s other son who became the father of the Arab world. The spirit of disagreement and conflict was seen very early in the history of both groups. Interestingly, it was said of Ishmael and his people, “and they lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (Genesis 25:18).
Hundreds of years later, Mohammad appears on the scene. He is born in Mecca and as an Arab has a cultural link to Ishmael/Abraham. However, when Mohammad was born, followers of Abraham’s monotheism in the Arab world were called Jews.
Even a cursory study of Islam, the religion practiced by most Arabs, will show that Mohammad was unable to convince Arabian Jews that he was a prophet sent from the God of Abraham. Actually, monotheism as practiced by Abraham, was far removed from what was practiced by Arabs.
Those religious differences brought about hostility between Islam and Judaism – and that hostility continues to be evident today. For example, in Islam’s Hadiths (Bukhari 52:177), “Allah's Apostle said, the Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’"
Muslims who adhere to that ideology contend that there should be no attempt at peace with Jews. This provides fuel for Hamas and other Muslims who resent Jews. Thankfully, all Muslims do not adhere to this ideology – with such Muslims, it is possible to live peacefully with Jews.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Palestine and Palestinians
Palestine is not a country. Historically, it is a geographical region where Jewish and Arab people live. The term “Palestine” (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region. It is believed that the name was derived from the Philistines who invaded the area between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, before the Common Era.
The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area, under the sovereignty of their city-states, became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”
Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy - remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.
Interestingly, the term “Palestinian” was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The non-Jews of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus).
In early 1947, when the United Nations was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division. They argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.
Following the Six-Day-War (1967), there was a strategic change in language among Arabs. The term “Palestinian” was coined to lend legitimacy to claims for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This ploy was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, in a public interview with Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee. In this March 31, 1977 interview, with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhse’in said:
The revisionist narrative contends that Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state, illegally occupies Arab land and carries out genocide of an indigenous people that had stronger claim to the land than Israel itself.
That is the argument that fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is the rationale behind the preamble of Hamas’ Charter: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.
I am not suggesting that Israel should obliterate Hamas instead. I dislike war. As a Christian, I am encouraged to pursue peace. I am also encouraged to pray for persons in leadership – “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).
However, I recognize that governments have a responsibility to protect their people. The apostle Paul, in the context of governmental authority, referred to the barbaric Roman government as “God’s servant” (Romans 13:1-7). Similarly, Israel has a responsibility to protect and pursue peace for her people.
RECOMMENDED
“Why the Jews” and “Jerusalem” (earlier blogs)
The Fight for Jerusalem by Dore Gold
Why the Jews by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.
Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg
Video: The Middle East Problem
The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area, under the sovereignty of their city-states, became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”
Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy - remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.
Interestingly, the term “Palestinian” was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The non-Jews of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus).
In early 1947, when the United Nations was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division. They argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.
Following the Six-Day-War (1967), there was a strategic change in language among Arabs. The term “Palestinian” was coined to lend legitimacy to claims for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This ploy was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, in a public interview with Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee. In this March 31, 1977 interview, with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhse’in said:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."Wow! In the absence of sound history, we have come to believe revisionist history – a mythic narrative that teaches that Zionists, with the support of the British, have stolen Palestinian land, exiled the people, and initiated a reign of terror and ethnic cleansing.
The revisionist narrative contends that Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state, illegally occupies Arab land and carries out genocide of an indigenous people that had stronger claim to the land than Israel itself.
That is the argument that fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is the rationale behind the preamble of Hamas’ Charter: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.
I am not suggesting that Israel should obliterate Hamas instead. I dislike war. As a Christian, I am encouraged to pursue peace. I am also encouraged to pray for persons in leadership – “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).
However, I recognize that governments have a responsibility to protect their people. The apostle Paul, in the context of governmental authority, referred to the barbaric Roman government as “God’s servant” (Romans 13:1-7). Similarly, Israel has a responsibility to protect and pursue peace for her people.
RECOMMENDED
“Why the Jews” and “Jerusalem” (earlier blogs)
The Fight for Jerusalem by Dore Gold
Why the Jews by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.
Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg
Video: The Middle East Problem
Monday, July 28, 2014
Menace or Mentors
According to Earthjustice, “each year, nearly a billion pounds of pesticides are sprayed in fields and orchards across America.” Much of this is sprayed during Termite Season – April to August. Ants are particularly susceptible to this menace demolition campaign. Simply put, ants are pests, kill them.
I fully understand the rationale, especially during these summer months. Even as I prepare this blog my family has ant killing pesticides appropriately placed in our South Florida home. However, there is something else about ants we often overlook.
Ants live everywhere. They are loosening and oxygenating soil, adding nutrients to the soil, controlling bug populations, transplanting seeds, pollinating plants and flowers, aiding in decomposition, moving and consuming organic and inorganic material on such a large scale that their impact may never be fully appreciated.
I am no myrmecologist (a scientist who studies ants); however, I have learned a few things about ants that can have a profound impact on human behavior. For instance, the work ethic of ants can put even the most ambitious person to shame.
All day long the ant labors in the hot desert, or a wet rain forest, or the cold tundra sniffing out his food and carrying back his load to the nest, no matter how far the journey or how difficult the terrain. Actually, the load an ant carries around all day can be up to 50 times his own body weight.
Ants are probably the most highly developed social insects. Scientists tell us “each colony of ants contains at least one queen. The workers, who are all sterile females, care for the queen, enlarge, repair and defend the nest, care for the young and gather food. Some workers perform only one job throughout their lives while others may change their tasks. The soldier ants are specialized workers whose function is to guard the nest.” In essence, ants possess amazing organizational skills.
The writer of the Book of Proverbs, invites his readers to learn from ants. At least five profound truths are unpacked from the biblical text. In the first place, the writer contends that ants are not lazy. The writer challenges “the sluggard” to go the ant and learn (Proverbs 6:6). Ants are energetic and full of life. They are aware of the fact that their life span is short and live with energy. Like the Psalmist, we too learn “to number our days aright, that we may gain hearts of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). If we can only live our lives, keeping in mind that life is like a vapor – very brief. Live life with enthusiasm, just like ants.
Proverbs also teaches that ants are self-motivated. They operate with “no commander, no overseer or no ruler.” Myrmecologists confirm this biblical truth – “ants form groups with no single leader, and no hierarchical organizational model.” Ants are driven by a desire to survive and the reality of their own limitations. The words of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy would seem to capture this emphasis, when he said, “Ask not what my country can do for me but what I can do for my country.”
In the third place, we must credit ants with being frugal. According to Proverbs, “they store their provision in summer and gather their food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:8). They know when to reap. They know when to put in storage. Ants know what to spend and what to save. In essence, they know how to balance time and resources. In other words, ants know the seasons of life and plan accordingly.
Not only do ants know opportunities, they also know their limitations. “Ants are creatures of little strength” says the writer of Proverbs (30:25). There are some ants that are one twenty-fifth of an inch. They are limited in size and strength. Their survival depends on community. As mentioned earlier, they are probably the most highly developed social insects. Together, they can strip an orange grove of leaves in one night. However, they cannot survive without community.
Another important credit to ants is the fact that they are wise. Proverbs actually says that “they are extremely wise” (Proverbs 30:24). They know how to apply knowledge – knowledge of seasons, their own physiology, their vulnerabilities and the value of community.
Although limited, they know how to use the resources available to them. Army ants may prey on reptiles, birds, or even small mammals. One Amazon species of ants cooperatively builds extensive traps from plant fiber. These traps have many holes and, when an insect steps on one, hundreds of ants inside use the openings to seize it with their jaws.
Honestly, ants are more than a menace – they are mentors, as they teach us to be frugal, wise, resilient and industrious.
I fully understand the rationale, especially during these summer months. Even as I prepare this blog my family has ant killing pesticides appropriately placed in our South Florida home. However, there is something else about ants we often overlook.
Ants live everywhere. They are loosening and oxygenating soil, adding nutrients to the soil, controlling bug populations, transplanting seeds, pollinating plants and flowers, aiding in decomposition, moving and consuming organic and inorganic material on such a large scale that their impact may never be fully appreciated.
I am no myrmecologist (a scientist who studies ants); however, I have learned a few things about ants that can have a profound impact on human behavior. For instance, the work ethic of ants can put even the most ambitious person to shame.
All day long the ant labors in the hot desert, or a wet rain forest, or the cold tundra sniffing out his food and carrying back his load to the nest, no matter how far the journey or how difficult the terrain. Actually, the load an ant carries around all day can be up to 50 times his own body weight.
Ants are probably the most highly developed social insects. Scientists tell us “each colony of ants contains at least one queen. The workers, who are all sterile females, care for the queen, enlarge, repair and defend the nest, care for the young and gather food. Some workers perform only one job throughout their lives while others may change their tasks. The soldier ants are specialized workers whose function is to guard the nest.” In essence, ants possess amazing organizational skills.
The writer of the Book of Proverbs, invites his readers to learn from ants. At least five profound truths are unpacked from the biblical text. In the first place, the writer contends that ants are not lazy. The writer challenges “the sluggard” to go the ant and learn (Proverbs 6:6). Ants are energetic and full of life. They are aware of the fact that their life span is short and live with energy. Like the Psalmist, we too learn “to number our days aright, that we may gain hearts of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). If we can only live our lives, keeping in mind that life is like a vapor – very brief. Live life with enthusiasm, just like ants.
Proverbs also teaches that ants are self-motivated. They operate with “no commander, no overseer or no ruler.” Myrmecologists confirm this biblical truth – “ants form groups with no single leader, and no hierarchical organizational model.” Ants are driven by a desire to survive and the reality of their own limitations. The words of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy would seem to capture this emphasis, when he said, “Ask not what my country can do for me but what I can do for my country.”
In the third place, we must credit ants with being frugal. According to Proverbs, “they store their provision in summer and gather their food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:8). They know when to reap. They know when to put in storage. Ants know what to spend and what to save. In essence, they know how to balance time and resources. In other words, ants know the seasons of life and plan accordingly.
Not only do ants know opportunities, they also know their limitations. “Ants are creatures of little strength” says the writer of Proverbs (30:25). There are some ants that are one twenty-fifth of an inch. They are limited in size and strength. Their survival depends on community. As mentioned earlier, they are probably the most highly developed social insects. Together, they can strip an orange grove of leaves in one night. However, they cannot survive without community.
Another important credit to ants is the fact that they are wise. Proverbs actually says that “they are extremely wise” (Proverbs 30:24). They know how to apply knowledge – knowledge of seasons, their own physiology, their vulnerabilities and the value of community.
Although limited, they know how to use the resources available to them. Army ants may prey on reptiles, birds, or even small mammals. One Amazon species of ants cooperatively builds extensive traps from plant fiber. These traps have many holes and, when an insect steps on one, hundreds of ants inside use the openings to seize it with their jaws.
Honestly, ants are more than a menace – they are mentors, as they teach us to be frugal, wise, resilient and industrious.
Monday, July 21, 2014
AMERICA!
This summer marks 23 years since we landed at Miami International Airport. My family and I were heading for Chicago where I would pursue graduate studies at Trinity International University. I can still recall the drive to the Windy City. The long drive ensured that the five of us remained a close-knit group – that bonding was necessary for the cold winter years in the mid-west.
Our immigration status did not allow my wife to work and I was allowed to work only on campus for what I learned later was minimum wage. The money with which we travelled from Jamaica was finished in three months. I began my graduate program with no scholarships. With our first child in high school and the others at the junior high and elementary school levels, one could just imagine the magnitude of the fiscal challenges we faced.
My wife and I knew the immigration rules, and we were not prepared to break them. We felt that our time in America was consistent with a divine call. We also felt that if God had opened a door for us, He would provide for us. Apart from the risk of being caught and the likely deportation that would follow, we knew if we played dishonestly, we would be robbing ourselves of the moral authority we needed to guide our children. In addition, we would be undermining the standards of integrity by which we sought to guide our lives.
God honored our stand and our status changed in a miraculous way – that’s another story. Our new immigration status enabled us to work. Although some of the jobs were very menial, the money earned affirmed our dignity and strong work ethic.
Not every family can share such stories about coming to America. It is believed that about 60% of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and1780s were brought here as indentured workers. However, while half the European migrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired.
Slaves were among this “never indentured” category. The first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.
Unlike our situation, many families were destroyed because of immigration practices in the United States. Sometimes the immigrating families must be blamed. The truth is, when we pursue financial gain at any cost, usually, our families are affected.
By now everyone is aware of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossing our Southern border that have created a national crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis for these children who have been sent by their families to travel thousands of miles on their own. Many are physically and sexually abused along the way, others never reach their destination. All too often, Border Patrol agents discover small, lifeless bodies washed up on the US side of the river that marks the border between Texas and Mexico.
All forms of migration affect family life – either for better or worse. As a nation, Israel never recovered when Assyria removed most of the men from the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. Today we still talk about the ten lost tribes and the bastardization of the Samaritans.
We as a nation, need to have a serious conversation about the impact of migration on family life. Some of our laws need adjusting to reflect an appreciation for stable family life. No nation can succeed without stability in the family.
As my wife and I prepare for U.S. citizenship, we have become so much more aware of the American experiment. Part of my personal preparation included reading Dr. Ben Carson’s book, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future. In addition, we viewed Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “America: Imagine a World Without Her.” We strongly recommend both resources.
Those resources reminded me of what the American experiment was all about as well as cautioned me about the threat of revisionist history to distort the value of that experiment. As someone who lectures in religion, it is frustrating to come across revisionist literature that attempts to undermine the role of religion in American history.
As a beneficiary of the American experiment I am eager to obtain citizenship. I want the privilege to vote – to influence the branches of government. I want to be sure that when I hear the words “we the people," those words include me.
When faced with the reality of living away from their homeland, God said to the Jews – “build houses and settle down...seek the peace and prosperity of the city ...pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Our immigration status did not allow my wife to work and I was allowed to work only on campus for what I learned later was minimum wage. The money with which we travelled from Jamaica was finished in three months. I began my graduate program with no scholarships. With our first child in high school and the others at the junior high and elementary school levels, one could just imagine the magnitude of the fiscal challenges we faced.
My wife and I knew the immigration rules, and we were not prepared to break them. We felt that our time in America was consistent with a divine call. We also felt that if God had opened a door for us, He would provide for us. Apart from the risk of being caught and the likely deportation that would follow, we knew if we played dishonestly, we would be robbing ourselves of the moral authority we needed to guide our children. In addition, we would be undermining the standards of integrity by which we sought to guide our lives.
God honored our stand and our status changed in a miraculous way – that’s another story. Our new immigration status enabled us to work. Although some of the jobs were very menial, the money earned affirmed our dignity and strong work ethic.
Not every family can share such stories about coming to America. It is believed that about 60% of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and1780s were brought here as indentured workers. However, while half the European migrants to the 13 colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired.
Slaves were among this “never indentured” category. The first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.
Unlike our situation, many families were destroyed because of immigration practices in the United States. Sometimes the immigrating families must be blamed. The truth is, when we pursue financial gain at any cost, usually, our families are affected.
By now everyone is aware of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossing our Southern border that have created a national crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis for these children who have been sent by their families to travel thousands of miles on their own. Many are physically and sexually abused along the way, others never reach their destination. All too often, Border Patrol agents discover small, lifeless bodies washed up on the US side of the river that marks the border between Texas and Mexico.
All forms of migration affect family life – either for better or worse. As a nation, Israel never recovered when Assyria removed most of the men from the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. Today we still talk about the ten lost tribes and the bastardization of the Samaritans.
We as a nation, need to have a serious conversation about the impact of migration on family life. Some of our laws need adjusting to reflect an appreciation for stable family life. No nation can succeed without stability in the family.
As my wife and I prepare for U.S. citizenship, we have become so much more aware of the American experiment. Part of my personal preparation included reading Dr. Ben Carson’s book, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future. In addition, we viewed Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “America: Imagine a World Without Her.” We strongly recommend both resources.
Those resources reminded me of what the American experiment was all about as well as cautioned me about the threat of revisionist history to distort the value of that experiment. As someone who lectures in religion, it is frustrating to come across revisionist literature that attempts to undermine the role of religion in American history.
As a beneficiary of the American experiment I am eager to obtain citizenship. I want the privilege to vote – to influence the branches of government. I want to be sure that when I hear the words “we the people," those words include me.
When faced with the reality of living away from their homeland, God said to the Jews – “build houses and settle down...seek the peace and prosperity of the city ...pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Bisexual or Convert?
Recently I was reading the story of a woman who converted to Christianity. She was gay and discontinued the practice upon converting. Today she is happily married with four children. In responding to the story, one columnist suggested that she did not abandon homosexuality because of her conversion. Rather, she was living out her bisexual preference.
According the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, “bisexuality is the potential to feel sexually attracted to and engage in sensual or sexual relationships with people of either sex." Interestingly, there are several theories about different models of bisexual behavior. J. R. Little is a psychologist whose extensive research identified at least 13 types of bisexuality.
However, none of Professor Little’s categories defined the experience of former leftist lesbian professor Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Did Professor Butterfield transition to heterosexuality because she was bisexual, or because of conversion?
As a professor of English and Women’s Studies at Syracuse University, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, Dr. Butterfield cared about morality, justice and compassion. In her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she says, “I used my post (as a professor) to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: AIDS activism, children’s health and literacy and our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few.”
“I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track – the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, in 1997 I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers.”
According to Dr. Butterfield, “the article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk – one for hate mail, and the other for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind of inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire – How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.”
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview... Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
“With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen...He did not mock me. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward – surely this will be good for my research.”
“Something else happened. Ken, his wife Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.”
Dr. Butterfield started reading the Bible. “I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations...I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired...It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in.”
Then, “one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked...Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess...the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother”.”
Dr. Butterfield’s story reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians. He was itemizing specific negative behaviors with which they were identified. With clarity he stated, “...and that is what some of you were, but you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). This statement was not a description of bisexualism. Like Dr. Butterfield’s story, it was a statement of conversion and its effect on behavior.
According the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, “bisexuality is the potential to feel sexually attracted to and engage in sensual or sexual relationships with people of either sex." Interestingly, there are several theories about different models of bisexual behavior. J. R. Little is a psychologist whose extensive research identified at least 13 types of bisexuality.
However, none of Professor Little’s categories defined the experience of former leftist lesbian professor Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Did Professor Butterfield transition to heterosexuality because she was bisexual, or because of conversion?
As a professor of English and Women’s Studies at Syracuse University, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, Dr. Butterfield cared about morality, justice and compassion. In her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she says, “I used my post (as a professor) to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: AIDS activism, children’s health and literacy and our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few.”
“I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track – the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, in 1997 I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers.”
According to Dr. Butterfield, “the article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk – one for hate mail, and the other for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind of inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire – How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.”
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview... Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
“With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen...He did not mock me. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward – surely this will be good for my research.”
“Something else happened. Ken, his wife Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.”
Dr. Butterfield started reading the Bible. “I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations...I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired...It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in.”
Then, “one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked...Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess...the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother”.”
Dr. Butterfield’s story reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians. He was itemizing specific negative behaviors with which they were identified. With clarity he stated, “...and that is what some of you were, but you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). This statement was not a description of bisexualism. Like Dr. Butterfield’s story, it was a statement of conversion and its effect on behavior.
Monday, January 20, 2014
MLK TAUGHT US The Power of Meekness
Some people believe the words power and meekness should never appear in the same sentence. Such persons would very likely describe meekness as weakness. That view of meekness is false and the life of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. illustrates that.
From his sermons and his life, Dr. King attempted to demonstrate a biblical understanding of meekness. He believed the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were prescriptive and not merely descriptive. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
Dr. King understood that Jesus was using language, familiar to His listeners. They knew that meekness was used in the context of trainers who brought wild stallions under control. Although stallions symbolized sheer “horse” power, they could be tamed to behave as gentle animals. Hence, when one thought of meekness, one thought of power under control.
Today, horse power under control is used by physical and occupational therapists. These specialists practice hippotherapy, incorporating the movement of horses into the total care plan of their patients. In essence, controlled power can perform a different kind of powerful service.
While addressing a packed hall at the University of California – Berkley on June 4, 1957, Dr. King chose as his topic: The Power of Nonviolence. Here is a summary of his presentation:
- Non-violence is not a method of cowardice. He stressed that the non-violent resister was just as opposed to evil as the violent resister. However, non-violence should not be confused with stagnant passivity and deadening complacency.
- Non-violence does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but seeks to win his friendship and understanding. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community.
- A boycott is never an end within itself but merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor. The end is reconciliation and redemption.
- The nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than the individual who happens to be caught up in the system. For Dr. King, the struggle was between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
Dr. King’s display of meekness was honed by his Christian worldview of love - a love that sought nothing in return. He loved his enemies, not because they were likable, but because God loved them. He loved the person who disliked blacks but loathed the system that perpetuated hatred for others.
Dr. King was convinced that only through love one was able to really conquer injustice and violence. He felt the ultimate weakness of violence was a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it was seeking to destroy - instead of diminishing evil, violence multiplied evil.
According to Dr. King, “through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”
Today’s celebration of the birth of Dr. King provides a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the life of a pastor who knew God and sought to live-out his understanding of biblical principles.
Dr. King responded well to a rich heritage of pastoral influences. Hear his words: “I am...the son of a Baptist preacher, the grandson of a Baptist preacher and the great grandson of a Baptist preacher. The Church is my life and I have given my life to the Church.”
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor. The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”
Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)