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...”.

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.

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).

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.

PREJUDICE!

He was dark-skinned and of Indian decent. He sat alone on the four-seater couch in the waiting room of the doctor’s office. He appeared stoic, but was well-dressed and was obviously awaiting service. Within minutes the man was joined by a white-skinned family – father, mother and early teenage daughter.

There was just enough space for everyone to sit on the couch. The young lady showed discomfort having to sit next to the Indian gentleman. She exchanged seats with her mother. Even with that change, the father seemed uncomfortable. He then chose to stand, leaving a vacant seat between his wife and the dark-skinned gentleman. Although silent, the family’s body language was very loud.

The family appeared relieved when a nurse invited them to see the doctor with whom they had an appointed. It became increasing uncomfortable when the nurse extended a similar invitation to the gentleman. While in his office, the doctor recapped the delight his staff felt, following the successful kidney transplant of their daughter.

However, that joy was short-lived as the doctor introduced the Indian gentleman as the kidney-donor who saved the life of the teenage daughter. The tension and embarrassing looks were obvious as the gentleman acknowledged the doctor’s introduction.

That online video ably illustrated the heinousness and ridiculousness of prejudice – a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience. The word prejudice comes from the Latin word praejudicium - prae, meaning before and judicium, meaning judgment.

Prejudice usually implies an unfavorable prepossession and connotes a feeling rooted in suspicion, fear, or intolerance. It implies an unreasoned and unfair distortion of judgment in favor of or against a person or thing.

At the root of many of the national social problems we are facing at the moment is prejudice. Imagine someone feeling superior to another because of the color of their skin – how ridiculous.

In less than five minutes one can learn that variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. Skin color has absolutely nothing to do with superiority. The same thing is true of ethnicity, texture of hair or physical features.

That kind of ignorance is at the core of our social problems – our ignorance continues to breed prejudice. Racism is one of the outcomes of this ignorance. Like in our opening story, while living with the kidney of a dark-skinned person, you stupidly consider yourself superior to that person.

In addressing the Athenians in Acts 17, Paul stressed, “from one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).

Paul knew that the Athenians prided themselves on their heritage from the soil of their native Attica – but this pride was ill-founded. They needed to know that all mankind was one in origin – all created by God and all descended from one common ancestor. Such enlightenment removed all imagined justification for the belief that Greeks were innately superior to barbarians.

The late F.F. Bruce was correct, “neither in nature nor in grace – neither in the old creation nor in the new, is there any room for ideas of racial superiority.” Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites.

Hence, to ignore these truths is to act on a foundation of ignorance – and that feeds prejudice. For a while, step back and assess the carnage caused in America within the last week. Whereas some are blaming the availability others are blaming incendiary rhetoric from politicians.

Death of Marriage?

On June 23 my wife and I celebrated 43 years of marriage. Our celebrations included a 1200-mile road trip from Missouri to Florida. On the actual day of our anniversary, we awoke to a Jamaican breakfast, prepared by the woman who catered for our wedding in 1973 – how nostalgic!

However, much of that nostalgia fades in light of the growing decline of traditional marriage in America. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found a number of interesting trends in their most recent look at marriage in America. For one, the study found that after years of declining marriage rates, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has reached a historic high point.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, within the last ten years, homes headed by married couples increased by 7%. Within the same period, homes headed by unmarried couples increased by 72%.

According to Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, “the United States has been experiencing a “cultural retreat from marriage”. Factors like economics, education, careers and decline in religious interest contribute significantly to the decline in traditional marriage.

However, we need to ask ourselves, is traditional marriage significant enough to warrant defending? Some in human potential movements view marriage as a potential threat to individual fulfillment. Proponents of the new psychologies contend that marriage thwarts the highest forms of human needs – autonomy, independence, growth and creativity.

According to Waite and Gallagher, in their volume, The Case for Marriage, “the search for autonomy and independence as the highest good blossomed with the women’s movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as ‘slavery and legalized rape, tied up with a sense of dependency.’”

That assessment does not describe what my wife and I have experienced in marriage. Our advanced studies and experience have given us reason to believe that our marriage has been good for our children, their children and the wider community.

Valuable research confirms that by a broad range of indices, marriage is actually better for you. Married people live longer, are healthier, accumulate more wealth, feel more fulfillment in their lives, enjoy more satisfying sexual relationships, and have happier and more successful children, than persons who remain single, cohabit, or get divorced.

Civil society benefits from stable marriages. Marriage, and by extension, families, are themselves small societies. These societies establish the network of relatives and in-laws and sustain a key ingredient of the “social capital” that facilitates many kinds of beneficial civic associations and private groups.

The virtues acquired within the family – generosity, self-sacrifice, trust, self-discipline – are crucial in every domain of social life. Children who grow up in broken families often fail to acquire these elemental habits of character.

Children, whose parents fail to get and stay married are at an increased risk of poverty, dependency, substance abuse, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, early unwed pregnancy, and a host of other destructive behaviors. When whole families and neighborhoods become dominated by fatherless homes, these risks increase even further.

Strong, intact families stabilize the state and decrease the need for costly and intrusive bureaucratic social agencies. Families provide for their vulnerable members, produce new citizens with virtues such as loyalty and generosity and engender concern for the common good.

Given the clear benefits of marriage, I believe the state should defend traditional marriage against the intrusion of alternative family structures that are incapable of producing comparable social outcomes. The public goods uniquely provided by traditional marriage are recognizable by reasonable persons, regardless of religious or secular worldviews.

The Witherspoon Institute, in its publication, Marriage and the Public Good, accurately states that “in virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage has served and continues to serve three important public purposes. First, marriage is the institution through which societies seek to organize the bearing and rearing of children.

Secondly, marriage provides direction, order and stability to adult sexual unions. Lastly, marriage civilizes men, furnishing them with a sense of purpose, norms and social status that orient their lives away from vice and toward virtue.”

Long before these studies, the Bible referred to marriage as honorable (Hebrews 13:4). In its original form, “honorable” implies, valuable, priceless, worthy of respect and deserving of esteem. For the last 43 years, I have found that to be true.

Steph Curry’s Jesus

Steph Curry and I have a few things in common. Apart from gender, we both love basketball, family and Jesus. In receiving the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award last year, Curry unapologetically said, “First and foremost I have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the talents to play this game, with the family to support me, day in, day out. I’m his humble servant right now and I can’t say enough how important my faith is to who I am and how I play the game.”

In responding to Curry’s faith, some bloggers expressed the view that the Jesus in whom he trusts, is more hype than history. In other words, Curry’s faith is based on a mythical figure, and not a real person. One blogger went as far as to suggest that other than the antique New Testament, no other ancient literature acknowledged the existence of Jesus.

Really? Let us first examine the kind of evidence we will need to verify the existence of Jesus apart from what is cited in the New Testament. Unlike some items in science, historical data cannot be repeated. Historians must appeal to different kinds of evidence to be able to validate historical data. Agreed, we do not have anything Jesus wrote, neither do we have any photographs others took.

In other words, physical evidence appears to be very rare. Actually, for almost 2,000 years we’ve gone without archaeological evidence of Jesus. Then we came across the first-century ossuary (bone box) of Jesus’ brother, James, the head of the Jerusalem church. The fragile limestone burial box bears the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

According to the publishers of The Brother of Jesus by Shanks and Witherington, “the ossuary and its inscription are now regarded as authentic by top scholars in the field; they represent the first visual, tangible, scientific evidence of Jesus’ existence.” Another useful resource on the physical evidence of Jesus is in New York Times Bestseller, Bart Ehrman’s volume, Did Jesus Exist?

Like in the case of most ancient persons, historians look for information about the person and not from the person. Historians look for written sources, preferably sources that are relatively near the date of the person or event that they are describing.

It is important that the various sources corroborate with what each of the other sources has to say. In addition, it is important to know that the various sources are independent of one another and do not rely on each other for all of their information.

Unlike today, record keeping was rare when Jesus was around. Scholars believe the vast majority of people in the ancient world could not write. This explains why the Bible so often states, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Writing was done by hand and writing materials were very expensive.  

However, it is important to understand that the absence of much written stuff and physical evidence, do not necessarily mean the non-existence of personalities like Jesus. Agreed, the situation becomes a bit more complicated when our modern-day understanding of a journalist was not imbedded among the disciples of Jesus.

However, Luke makes it clear in his opening verses that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from first were eyewitnesses...” (Luke 1:1-2). We do not know if those earlier writings to which Luke referred, were ever included in the New Testament canon.

What we do know, is that a number of non-Christian writers wrote about persons who knew and were greatly influenced by the life of Jesus. The first surviving reference to Jesus by a non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind appears in the writings of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE/AD).

Tacitus (55-117), another Roman historian is even more explicit in his Annals. A third Roman writer who referred briefly to Jesus and Christians is Seutonius (70-160). According to the late Professor Bruce Metzer, “the early non-Christian testimonies concerning Jesus, though scanty, are altogether sufficient to prove that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in Palestine during the early years of the first century. Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus.”

The earliest non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He was personally involved with some of the most important events that he narrated, especially in his eight-volume work, The Jewish Wars.

Interestingly, none of the non-Christian sources cited here is as reliable as the New Testament. There is more than enough evidence to believe that the Jesus in whom Steph Curry has placed his faith, actually lived on earth in the first century. Should one choose not to believe this, does not nullify Jesus’ existence, and our need to acknowledge Him as Lord of our lives.