Jesus never celebrated Christmas – neither did any of His disciples. Actually, for more than 300 years after the birth of Jesus, no one celebrated Christmas. The few birthday ceremonies we have recorded in the Bible were celebrated in non-Jewish communities.
Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.
The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.
Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.
In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.
Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.
By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”
As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.
At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.
Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia.
Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.
In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.
Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!
In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.
For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.
(This commentary first appeared in December 2014)
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Happy Thanksgiving!
My family observed our first American Thanksgiving in 1991. A few months earlier, we began our studies in a northern suburb of Chicago. We learned rather quickly that in America, Thanksgiving was a time for families to get together.
An American family invited us to join them for that first celebration. For five years, we celebrated with them in St. Louis. The joyous times made the 300-mile journey very tolerable. Now, twenty-five years later, the friendships we maintain are just as meaningful as in those early years.
When our family-group of twenty gather this week, I will be aware that our celebration would not be anything like the first American Thanksgiving. The first observance of Thanksgiving in America was entirely religious in nature and involved no form of feasting. On Wednesday, December 4, 1619, a group of 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation on the James River in Virginia. The charter of the group required that the day of arrival be observed as a Day of Thanksgiving to God.
The celebration was probably derived from the harvest-home ceremonies originally held in England. Those were days reserved to thank God for plentiful crops and a bountiful harvest. Accordingly, this holiday still takes place late in the Fall Season, after crops have been gathered.
In 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first official Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.”
Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level. Much of the credit for the adoption of a later annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For 30 years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting president after president until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving.
Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. In 1941, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.
It is believed that the English idea of giving thanks for crops had its genesis among the Jews. In Leviticus 23:15-16, God commanded the Jews to count seven full weeks (49 days), beginning on the second day of Passover. The celebration was known by different names throughout the Bible. Among them were The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of the Fiftieth Day and the Day of Pentecost – from the Greek word pentecostes, meaning fiftieth.
Even with a cursory study of the Jewish, British and American practices of thanksgiving, a few common threads seem obvious. Each celebration was in keeping with harvest festivals and acknowledged God’s faithful provision.
In June Jews celebrate Shavuot – the biblical harvest festival. Normally, they spend hours studying the Torah, chant the Ten Commandments, read from the book of Ruth and decorate their homes and synagogues with roses and spices.
In America, it would seem as though the tradition of thanking God has been replaced by the eating of turkey. Some historians believe when colonists sat down to eat with native Indians, beef and fowl were on the menu. A letter written by pilgrim Edward Winslow confirmed this belief when he mentioned a turkey hunting trip before the meal.
Within modern times, the annual "pardoning" of White House turkeys is an interesting tradition that has captured the imagination of the public. It is often stated that President Lincoln’s 1863 clemency to a turkey was the origin for the pardoning ceremony. It is a rather trivial American tradition that the poultry industry looks forward to.
On a more serious note though, for what will you be giving thanks this week? As the patriarch at our Thanksgiving table, I will encourage my family to reflect on something within the last year. My list would very likely include my faith, health, family, church, career and upcoming retirement from pastoral ministry.
What would your list look like? What about saying thanks to at least five persons who had a positive impact on your life within the last year? Have fun. Happy Thanksgiving!
An American family invited us to join them for that first celebration. For five years, we celebrated with them in St. Louis. The joyous times made the 300-mile journey very tolerable. Now, twenty-five years later, the friendships we maintain are just as meaningful as in those early years.
When our family-group of twenty gather this week, I will be aware that our celebration would not be anything like the first American Thanksgiving. The first observance of Thanksgiving in America was entirely religious in nature and involved no form of feasting. On Wednesday, December 4, 1619, a group of 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation on the James River in Virginia. The charter of the group required that the day of arrival be observed as a Day of Thanksgiving to God.
The celebration was probably derived from the harvest-home ceremonies originally held in England. Those were days reserved to thank God for plentiful crops and a bountiful harvest. Accordingly, this holiday still takes place late in the Fall Season, after crops have been gathered.
In 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first official Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.”
Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level. Much of the credit for the adoption of a later annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For 30 years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting president after president until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving.
Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. In 1941, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.
It is believed that the English idea of giving thanks for crops had its genesis among the Jews. In Leviticus 23:15-16, God commanded the Jews to count seven full weeks (49 days), beginning on the second day of Passover. The celebration was known by different names throughout the Bible. Among them were The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of the Fiftieth Day and the Day of Pentecost – from the Greek word pentecostes, meaning fiftieth.
Even with a cursory study of the Jewish, British and American practices of thanksgiving, a few common threads seem obvious. Each celebration was in keeping with harvest festivals and acknowledged God’s faithful provision.
In June Jews celebrate Shavuot – the biblical harvest festival. Normally, they spend hours studying the Torah, chant the Ten Commandments, read from the book of Ruth and decorate their homes and synagogues with roses and spices.
In America, it would seem as though the tradition of thanking God has been replaced by the eating of turkey. Some historians believe when colonists sat down to eat with native Indians, beef and fowl were on the menu. A letter written by pilgrim Edward Winslow confirmed this belief when he mentioned a turkey hunting trip before the meal.
Within modern times, the annual "pardoning" of White House turkeys is an interesting tradition that has captured the imagination of the public. It is often stated that President Lincoln’s 1863 clemency to a turkey was the origin for the pardoning ceremony. It is a rather trivial American tradition that the poultry industry looks forward to.
On a more serious note though, for what will you be giving thanks this week? As the patriarch at our Thanksgiving table, I will encourage my family to reflect on something within the last year. My list would very likely include my faith, health, family, church, career and upcoming retirement from pastoral ministry.
What would your list look like? What about saying thanks to at least five persons who had a positive impact on your life within the last year? Have fun. Happy Thanksgiving!
Sunday, November 13, 2016
“We the People?”
The phrase “WE THE PEOPLE” is in the very first sentence of the United States Constitution. The entire phrase reads, “We the people of the United States...”. It would seem obvious that the phrase was referring to citizens of the United States.
To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”
What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.
In America, the power to govern comes from the people. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.
Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.
If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.
Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.
In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.
The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."
The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."
When interviewed, a student demonstrator at Arvada High School, said that “the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built upon."
That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.
The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.
To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”
What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.
In America, the power to govern comes from the people. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.
Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.
If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.
Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.
In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.
The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."
The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."
When interviewed, a student demonstrator at Arvada High School, said that “the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built upon."
That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.
The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Two Slivers of Hope
I am among the 82% of Americans who are disgusted with the current presidential campaign. Yes, I am eager for the campaign to end. I am sick of hearing quips like, “Clinton is a crook”, and “Trump is a creep”. One seasoned journalist described the campaign as “the most negative and ‘issue-less’ one of my career.”
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most unpopular presidential candidates in more than 30 years of ABC News/Washington Post polling. Among US adults, Hillary Clinton has a 56% unfavourability rating while Donald Trump has 63%. According to Gallup, Trump and Clinton are currently among the worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades.
Amid my political despair, I came across two slivers of hope. The first was my introduction to The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program – I wish it were mandatory for all political candidates to graduate from this great six-month program.
According to the program’s website, “The Presidential Leadership Scholars program is designed for leaders from diverse backgrounds who share a commitment to facing society’s greatest challenges.
The program looks for participants who have the desire and capacity to take their leadership strengths to a higher level in order to help their communities and emboldens them with the practical skills needed to drive solution-oriented action.”
The program draws on the strengths and leadership initiatives of four affiliated presidential centers. By including a bipartisan roster of presidential centers – two Republican and two Democratic – and by enjoying the engagement of former presidents from both parties, the program creates a rare opportunity to instill in students a brand of principled leadership that transcends diverse backgrounds.
This executive-style education series creates a life-long network for Scholars from the business, public service, nonprofit, and military sectors and fosters opportunities for leaders to emerge ready to offer solutions to pressing national problems.
The Presidential Leadership Scholars program aims to build a strong and diverse alumni network that can put the lessons of cooperation and collaborative problem-solving to use in a variety of sectors and inspire a new kind of leadership.
I would hope that with this non-partisan professional program, America would never again have to nominate the cadre of political candidates we see in this 2016 cycle. Among alumni from this program, it is most unlikely to hear descriptions like crook and creep.
My second sliver of hope came during my studies, in preparation for preaching this weekend. I will be unpacking one of the key verses from the Old Testament book of Daniel. Daniel and his people were in captivity in Babylon. Unlike America, Babylon was a despotic autocracy.
It was in that ungodly and cruel context the theme of the book of Daniel emerged – “the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone He wishes” (Daniel 5:21). It was in that context some of the clearest biblical statements of courage and fortitude emerged.
The prophet Jeremiah was addressing exiles in that context when he wrote, “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).
Like Babylon, America is religiously diverse, but not committed to the God of Abraham. We are becoming more interested in eclectic spirituality than in pursuing a biblical worldview – a system that affirms God as sovereign. Or, as expressed in my sermon topic for this weekend: “God Is In Charge Here”! Looking at America today through these lenses, gives me hope.
In his book, The Handwriting on the Wall, David Jeremiah contends, “Christians should be the calmest people on earth. We have no right to run around this world in frenzied activity, staying up and walking the floor at night, wondering what is going to happen. God in heaven rules the kingdoms of men.”
So be calm. By Tuesday, November 8, 2016 we will know who will be in the White House in January. However, prior to and after that time, our God will still be reigning “over the kingdoms of men...”.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most unpopular presidential candidates in more than 30 years of ABC News/Washington Post polling. Among US adults, Hillary Clinton has a 56% unfavourability rating while Donald Trump has 63%. According to Gallup, Trump and Clinton are currently among the worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades.
Amid my political despair, I came across two slivers of hope. The first was my introduction to The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program – I wish it were mandatory for all political candidates to graduate from this great six-month program.
According to the program’s website, “The Presidential Leadership Scholars program is designed for leaders from diverse backgrounds who share a commitment to facing society’s greatest challenges.
The program looks for participants who have the desire and capacity to take their leadership strengths to a higher level in order to help their communities and emboldens them with the practical skills needed to drive solution-oriented action.”
The program draws on the strengths and leadership initiatives of four affiliated presidential centers. By including a bipartisan roster of presidential centers – two Republican and two Democratic – and by enjoying the engagement of former presidents from both parties, the program creates a rare opportunity to instill in students a brand of principled leadership that transcends diverse backgrounds.
This executive-style education series creates a life-long network for Scholars from the business, public service, nonprofit, and military sectors and fosters opportunities for leaders to emerge ready to offer solutions to pressing national problems.
The Presidential Leadership Scholars program aims to build a strong and diverse alumni network that can put the lessons of cooperation and collaborative problem-solving to use in a variety of sectors and inspire a new kind of leadership.
I would hope that with this non-partisan professional program, America would never again have to nominate the cadre of political candidates we see in this 2016 cycle. Among alumni from this program, it is most unlikely to hear descriptions like crook and creep.
My second sliver of hope came during my studies, in preparation for preaching this weekend. I will be unpacking one of the key verses from the Old Testament book of Daniel. Daniel and his people were in captivity in Babylon. Unlike America, Babylon was a despotic autocracy.
It was in that ungodly and cruel context the theme of the book of Daniel emerged – “the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone He wishes” (Daniel 5:21). It was in that context some of the clearest biblical statements of courage and fortitude emerged.
The prophet Jeremiah was addressing exiles in that context when he wrote, “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).
Like Babylon, America is religiously diverse, but not committed to the God of Abraham. We are becoming more interested in eclectic spirituality than in pursuing a biblical worldview – a system that affirms God as sovereign. Or, as expressed in my sermon topic for this weekend: “God Is In Charge Here”! Looking at America today through these lenses, gives me hope.
In his book, The Handwriting on the Wall, David Jeremiah contends, “Christians should be the calmest people on earth. We have no right to run around this world in frenzied activity, staying up and walking the floor at night, wondering what is going to happen. God in heaven rules the kingdoms of men.”
So be calm. By Tuesday, November 8, 2016 we will know who will be in the White House in January. However, prior to and after that time, our God will still be reigning “over the kingdoms of men...”.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
I Intend to Vote!
Upon becoming a citizen of the United States, I knew I would earn the right to vote - that right I cherish. Especially now, considering that some 70% of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. My vote might just make the difference to stem this downward trend.
Agreed, the political climate is toxic. However, that toxicity is because of the personalities in the presidential race and not because of the issues at stake. To ignore the issues and focus almost exclusively on leadership traits is a distraction. From a recent survey, the American Psychological Association concluded that more than 50% of American adults view the 2016 election cycle as “a very or somewhat” significant source of stress.
Interestingly, the stress is not only among Americans. Stress and curiosity go beyond foreign policy and security. American policies on trade, immigration, the environment and even health care often carry implications for other nations.
I can make a difference and I intend to do so on Tuesday, November 8. However, as I prayerfully prepare myself to vote, I know that I cannot limit my thinking to the two presidential candidates. As far as I am concerned, both candidates lack the moral authority to lead America. To date, the variety of salacious disclosures will make it very difficult for either candidate to lead with integrity.
However, as I prepare to vote, I will be forced to vote for the candidate who best represents the positions which are important to me. I will vote for the candidate who supports the appointment of justices and judges who respect constitutional limits and the authority of states.
I am aware that the next president may select as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. These justices will decide on cultural issues that will affect me, my children and my grandchildren. Both presidential candidates have indicated the kind of persons they would like to serve on the Supreme Court – there is a stark ideological difference. In addition, the next president will appoint district and appellate judges throughout the nation.
As a person of color, I am very concerned that on average, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. Did you know that, annually, abortion among black Americans causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Regardless of color, every life is sacred, and I will be voting for a presidential candidate that is sensitive to this concern.
My faith defines me and the Bill of Rights protects my right to practice my faith. I want to live according to the dictates of my conscience. I have no problem living in a religiously diverse culture. I want to be sure that all faith-based institutions are protected from government discrimination. Whichever presidential candidate protects these rights will get my vote.
The institution of marriage, defined as a union between a man and a woman, has served every culture for millennia. Both social scientists and theologians will agree that “the institution of marriage is the relationship that best provides for the most favorable exercise of human sexuality, the overall well-being of adults, and the proper socialization of children.” Agreed, other familial relationships meet similar needs. However, lifelong, monogamous marriage is the best option.
If the above is true, then why demonize this option? Researcher Glen Stanton is correct, “Marriage has no close rival. It stands independently above any other option: singleness, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage.” I am eager to vote for a candidate who shares my passion.
When my family and I came to this country 25 years ago, our privileges were limited by our overseas student status. I was determined to live within the immigration limits placed on us. I had a moral obligation to model to my children that we were a law-abiding family. In addition, I had a biblical obligation to display consistency in all areas of my life. We were deprived of luxuries, but maintained our integrity.
I want other immigrants to have a similar appreciation for the laws of the land. It was good to hear the officer say at my citizenship interview, “We are sorry it took so long, but welcome to America.” I plan to vote for a presidential candidate who respects the process of law and order when it comes to immigration. Everyone wins when we play clean. You now know why I intend to vote on November 8.
Agreed, the political climate is toxic. However, that toxicity is because of the personalities in the presidential race and not because of the issues at stake. To ignore the issues and focus almost exclusively on leadership traits is a distraction. From a recent survey, the American Psychological Association concluded that more than 50% of American adults view the 2016 election cycle as “a very or somewhat” significant source of stress.
Interestingly, the stress is not only among Americans. Stress and curiosity go beyond foreign policy and security. American policies on trade, immigration, the environment and even health care often carry implications for other nations.
I can make a difference and I intend to do so on Tuesday, November 8. However, as I prayerfully prepare myself to vote, I know that I cannot limit my thinking to the two presidential candidates. As far as I am concerned, both candidates lack the moral authority to lead America. To date, the variety of salacious disclosures will make it very difficult for either candidate to lead with integrity.
However, as I prepare to vote, I will be forced to vote for the candidate who best represents the positions which are important to me. I will vote for the candidate who supports the appointment of justices and judges who respect constitutional limits and the authority of states.
I am aware that the next president may select as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. These justices will decide on cultural issues that will affect me, my children and my grandchildren. Both presidential candidates have indicated the kind of persons they would like to serve on the Supreme Court – there is a stark ideological difference. In addition, the next president will appoint district and appellate judges throughout the nation.
As a person of color, I am very concerned that on average, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. Did you know that, annually, abortion among black Americans causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Regardless of color, every life is sacred, and I will be voting for a presidential candidate that is sensitive to this concern.
My faith defines me and the Bill of Rights protects my right to practice my faith. I want to live according to the dictates of my conscience. I have no problem living in a religiously diverse culture. I want to be sure that all faith-based institutions are protected from government discrimination. Whichever presidential candidate protects these rights will get my vote.
The institution of marriage, defined as a union between a man and a woman, has served every culture for millennia. Both social scientists and theologians will agree that “the institution of marriage is the relationship that best provides for the most favorable exercise of human sexuality, the overall well-being of adults, and the proper socialization of children.” Agreed, other familial relationships meet similar needs. However, lifelong, monogamous marriage is the best option.
If the above is true, then why demonize this option? Researcher Glen Stanton is correct, “Marriage has no close rival. It stands independently above any other option: singleness, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage.” I am eager to vote for a candidate who shares my passion.
When my family and I came to this country 25 years ago, our privileges were limited by our overseas student status. I was determined to live within the immigration limits placed on us. I had a moral obligation to model to my children that we were a law-abiding family. In addition, I had a biblical obligation to display consistency in all areas of my life. We were deprived of luxuries, but maintained our integrity.
I want other immigrants to have a similar appreciation for the laws of the land. It was good to hear the officer say at my citizenship interview, “We are sorry it took so long, but welcome to America.” I plan to vote for a presidential candidate who respects the process of law and order when it comes to immigration. Everyone wins when we play clean. You now know why I intend to vote on November 8.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Dr. Usain Bolt!
John F. Kennedy Airport’s Terminal Eight was evacuated Sunday night after apparent gunshots were reported. After an initial investigation, police discovered that it was not gunfire that startled frightened travelers. It was actually clapping and banging after Usain Bolt’s history-making sprint that caused the ruckus.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the initial call came in at 9:30 p.m., which is about a minute after Bolt won his 100-meter race, securing a gold medal. There were no injuries reported, though the Federal Airport Authority placed a ground stop at the airport.
Bolt made history Sunday, becoming the first sprinter to win the 100-meter race in three straight Olympic games. It does not matter that his 9.80-second winning time was not his best time at that distance. He won, and that is all that matters.
For me, Bolt is more than a sporting hero; he is by far a cultural icon. He represents a cause – probable many causes. On the Olympic podium he received a gold medal, however, outside of the stadium he will continue to be crowned as a champion of the little man. In his homeland Jamaica, he is already known as Dr. the Honorable Ambassador Usain St. Leo Bolt, OJ (Order of Jam.).
Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness has labelled Usain Bolt’s third consecutive Olympic 100m victory as historic and legendary. According to a release from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), the nation’s political leader said Bolt’s indomitable spirit and focus, inspire not only Jamaicans but millions of people all over the world. "Bolt has etched his name as the greatest sprinter the world has ever seen. Jamaica is fortunate to have a son who inspires so many and ensures our country continues to be the sprint capital of the world.”
As we glory in Bolt’s victories and medals, we may want to remember that at the first Olympic Games back in 776 BCE, competitors did not receive medals. Instead, the top athletes were crowned with wreaths made of olive leaves. This tradition continued until the Romans abolished the Olympics around the year 400 CE. The revival of the Olympics dates from the late 19th century, with the first modern Games taking place in 1896. The awarding of medals arose around this time as well, though its roots lie in ancient Greek mythology.
By the way, did you know that Olympic gold medals are not really made of gold? Each gold medal is made up of 92.5% silver and 1.34% gold. The remainder of the gold medal was made of copper. The value of the materials used in the gold medal is about $644.00. Whereas the silver medal was made up of about 92.5% silver, the bronze medal, was 97% copper.
Obviously, that was much more expensive than the awards that were given at the Isthmian Games in the first century. Paul referred to these Games in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
The Isthmian Games were celebrated every two years on the isthmus of Corinth. The prizes in these games were perishable wreaths. However, like our own Olympics, the games were events of patriotic pride. Athletes contested in track and field, horse and chariot racing, jumping, boxing, wrestling and throwing the discus and javelin. Compare that with Rio’s 306 events in 28 different sports.
Paul’s reference to the Isthmian Games was not intended to promote the games. Rather, he was using the games as a metaphor to teach about the discipline necessary to become winners. Paul was contending that the Corinthians were disciplining themselves in order to receive an award that would perish in a few days. In addition, winning was accompanied by a great sense of devotion to the state and to whichever god was being honored as patron of the games.
Paul saw the Christian life as a race. As participants, Christians should discipline themselves in the race of life. As athletes do, we must identify and eliminate all distractions. Distractions would include activities and behaviors that would affect victorious living. Just like athletes, Christians must be focused on the goal. Sometimes we forget that the goal is not the other athletes, who are also in the race.
It is at the end of the race winners are determined. Winners are determined not only by those who crossed the finish line, but also by those who ran according to the rules.
According to Paul, “…run in such a way as to get the prize”. In addition, the prize is not like the first century Isthmian wreath or the gold-plated Olympian goal medal. For the Christian, the prize is “a crown that will last forever”.
Both Paul and Bolt know the discipline required to earn a prize – one is gold-plated, the other is quite different. For this reason, Paul asserted, “I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Corinthians 9:27).
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said the initial call came in at 9:30 p.m., which is about a minute after Bolt won his 100-meter race, securing a gold medal. There were no injuries reported, though the Federal Airport Authority placed a ground stop at the airport.
Bolt made history Sunday, becoming the first sprinter to win the 100-meter race in three straight Olympic games. It does not matter that his 9.80-second winning time was not his best time at that distance. He won, and that is all that matters.
For me, Bolt is more than a sporting hero; he is by far a cultural icon. He represents a cause – probable many causes. On the Olympic podium he received a gold medal, however, outside of the stadium he will continue to be crowned as a champion of the little man. In his homeland Jamaica, he is already known as Dr. the Honorable Ambassador Usain St. Leo Bolt, OJ (Order of Jam.).
Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness has labelled Usain Bolt’s third consecutive Olympic 100m victory as historic and legendary. According to a release from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), the nation’s political leader said Bolt’s indomitable spirit and focus, inspire not only Jamaicans but millions of people all over the world. "Bolt has etched his name as the greatest sprinter the world has ever seen. Jamaica is fortunate to have a son who inspires so many and ensures our country continues to be the sprint capital of the world.”
As we glory in Bolt’s victories and medals, we may want to remember that at the first Olympic Games back in 776 BCE, competitors did not receive medals. Instead, the top athletes were crowned with wreaths made of olive leaves. This tradition continued until the Romans abolished the Olympics around the year 400 CE. The revival of the Olympics dates from the late 19th century, with the first modern Games taking place in 1896. The awarding of medals arose around this time as well, though its roots lie in ancient Greek mythology.
By the way, did you know that Olympic gold medals are not really made of gold? Each gold medal is made up of 92.5% silver and 1.34% gold. The remainder of the gold medal was made of copper. The value of the materials used in the gold medal is about $644.00. Whereas the silver medal was made up of about 92.5% silver, the bronze medal, was 97% copper.
Obviously, that was much more expensive than the awards that were given at the Isthmian Games in the first century. Paul referred to these Games in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
The Isthmian Games were celebrated every two years on the isthmus of Corinth. The prizes in these games were perishable wreaths. However, like our own Olympics, the games were events of patriotic pride. Athletes contested in track and field, horse and chariot racing, jumping, boxing, wrestling and throwing the discus and javelin. Compare that with Rio’s 306 events in 28 different sports.
Paul’s reference to the Isthmian Games was not intended to promote the games. Rather, he was using the games as a metaphor to teach about the discipline necessary to become winners. Paul was contending that the Corinthians were disciplining themselves in order to receive an award that would perish in a few days. In addition, winning was accompanied by a great sense of devotion to the state and to whichever god was being honored as patron of the games.
Paul saw the Christian life as a race. As participants, Christians should discipline themselves in the race of life. As athletes do, we must identify and eliminate all distractions. Distractions would include activities and behaviors that would affect victorious living. Just like athletes, Christians must be focused on the goal. Sometimes we forget that the goal is not the other athletes, who are also in the race.
It is at the end of the race winners are determined. Winners are determined not only by those who crossed the finish line, but also by those who ran according to the rules.
According to Paul, “…run in such a way as to get the prize”. In addition, the prize is not like the first century Isthmian wreath or the gold-plated Olympian goal medal. For the Christian, the prize is “a crown that will last forever”.
Both Paul and Bolt know the discipline required to earn a prize – one is gold-plated, the other is quite different. For this reason, Paul asserted, “I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Corinthians 9:27).
Friday, July 29, 2016
White Privilege
When we migrated to America twenty-five years ago, we were often told that we were not seen as being black. We understood then, that that was a statement of acceptance. Acceptance by others who determined that our conduct was not a threat to their way of living.
I believe those who affirmed us were genuine. They were unconscious of assuming and displaying a posture of privilege. On one occasion, I was visiting a woman who was dying in hospital. During that visit, my presence was questioned by a white nurse. The white husband of the dying woman sensed the racist tone in the nurse’s question. Although he was not being addressed, the husband answered – “He is our pastor.” With that, the nurse left the room.
In coming to my defense, that husband and two other white friends who were present, were utilizing their inherited privilege. Simply put, they were raised in a society that attached significance to their ethnicity. They tapped into that inherited right and defended me.
Those memories of life in Midwest America returned while watching a video someone sent me a few days ago. The story in the video was told by a black woman. She and her sister-in-law grew up together. Her sister-in-law was half white and half black with blue eyes, “whiter than most white folks.” Along with their spouses and children, they shared wonderful, multicultural family times.
Both women were in the check-out line at a neighborhood supermarket. Kathleen, the sister-in-law, checked her groceries first. The cashier who was a strawberry blond, freckled and extremely warm, engaged Kathleen in pleasant small talk. During the friendly exchange, Kathleen prepared and submitted a personal check for her groceries. “She picked up her groceries and waited for me a few feet away.”
“It was now my turn to be served. The pleasant demeanor that Kathleen got was gone. My groceries were checked and I got my check book ready to pay.” On submitting my check I was told that I needed two pieces of identification.”
My ten-year old daughter who was witnessing this ordeal began to cry. “Mommy, why is she doing this to us?” I am now trying to figure-out how best to react to this ordeal. Behind me are two elderly white women – I know I had to avoid becoming the typical “angry black woman.”
I chose to avoid conflict and submitted the two pieces of identification that the cashier requested. I could not imagine that this situation could get worse until the cashier pulled out the “bad checks book.” She wanted to see if I was listed among customers with a bounced-check record.
By this time, I am thoroughly humiliated and my daughter is sobbing with embarrassment. My sister-in-law Kathleen had seen enough. She intervened.
“Excuse me! Why are you doing this?” “What do you mean?” replied the cashier. “Why are you taking her through all of these procedures, why are you doing this?” “Well, this is our policy.” “This is not your policy - you did not do this to me.”
“Well, I know you,” said the cashier. “No! No! She has been living here for years. I have only lived here for three months,” said Kathleen. At this point the two white elderly ladies exclaimed, “Oh, we can’t believe what this cashier has done with this woman – this is totally unacceptable.”
On hearing the commotion, the manager walked over – “Is there a problem here?” “Oh yes,” replied Kathleen. “There is a problem here and this is what happened.”
Although Kathleen was half black and half white, she used her white privilege to point out an injustice. Her stand for justice influenced others around her. Kathleen knew, that because of her color, she inherited rights from society – in other words, white privilege. She used that right to educate and correct an injustice.
Like me, had this black woman reacted, she would have been perceived to be another angry black. It was the person with the assumed privilege to make the difference. However, to make such a difference, requires courage and an awareness that one's pigmentation does not make one superior.
Not until we continue to have authentic conversations and apply biblical truth to our discourse, would we begin to see things differently. When non-Jewish Christians were being treated as second-class believers, Paul insisted, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
Agreed, white privilege can be destructive, and more so among Christians. In Christ, Christians should celebrate ethnic differences and not use such differences as badges of privilege.
I believe those who affirmed us were genuine. They were unconscious of assuming and displaying a posture of privilege. On one occasion, I was visiting a woman who was dying in hospital. During that visit, my presence was questioned by a white nurse. The white husband of the dying woman sensed the racist tone in the nurse’s question. Although he was not being addressed, the husband answered – “He is our pastor.” With that, the nurse left the room.
In coming to my defense, that husband and two other white friends who were present, were utilizing their inherited privilege. Simply put, they were raised in a society that attached significance to their ethnicity. They tapped into that inherited right and defended me.
Those memories of life in Midwest America returned while watching a video someone sent me a few days ago. The story in the video was told by a black woman. She and her sister-in-law grew up together. Her sister-in-law was half white and half black with blue eyes, “whiter than most white folks.” Along with their spouses and children, they shared wonderful, multicultural family times.
Both women were in the check-out line at a neighborhood supermarket. Kathleen, the sister-in-law, checked her groceries first. The cashier who was a strawberry blond, freckled and extremely warm, engaged Kathleen in pleasant small talk. During the friendly exchange, Kathleen prepared and submitted a personal check for her groceries. “She picked up her groceries and waited for me a few feet away.”
“It was now my turn to be served. The pleasant demeanor that Kathleen got was gone. My groceries were checked and I got my check book ready to pay.” On submitting my check I was told that I needed two pieces of identification.”
My ten-year old daughter who was witnessing this ordeal began to cry. “Mommy, why is she doing this to us?” I am now trying to figure-out how best to react to this ordeal. Behind me are two elderly white women – I know I had to avoid becoming the typical “angry black woman.”
I chose to avoid conflict and submitted the two pieces of identification that the cashier requested. I could not imagine that this situation could get worse until the cashier pulled out the “bad checks book.” She wanted to see if I was listed among customers with a bounced-check record.
By this time, I am thoroughly humiliated and my daughter is sobbing with embarrassment. My sister-in-law Kathleen had seen enough. She intervened.
“Excuse me! Why are you doing this?” “What do you mean?” replied the cashier. “Why are you taking her through all of these procedures, why are you doing this?” “Well, this is our policy.” “This is not your policy - you did not do this to me.”
“Well, I know you,” said the cashier. “No! No! She has been living here for years. I have only lived here for three months,” said Kathleen. At this point the two white elderly ladies exclaimed, “Oh, we can’t believe what this cashier has done with this woman – this is totally unacceptable.”
On hearing the commotion, the manager walked over – “Is there a problem here?” “Oh yes,” replied Kathleen. “There is a problem here and this is what happened.”
Although Kathleen was half black and half white, she used her white privilege to point out an injustice. Her stand for justice influenced others around her. Kathleen knew, that because of her color, she inherited rights from society – in other words, white privilege. She used that right to educate and correct an injustice.
Like me, had this black woman reacted, she would have been perceived to be another angry black. It was the person with the assumed privilege to make the difference. However, to make such a difference, requires courage and an awareness that one's pigmentation does not make one superior.
Not until we continue to have authentic conversations and apply biblical truth to our discourse, would we begin to see things differently. When non-Jewish Christians were being treated as second-class believers, Paul insisted, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
Agreed, white privilege can be destructive, and more so among Christians. In Christ, Christians should celebrate ethnic differences and not use such differences as badges of privilege.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)