Two Values All Societies Should Embrace

I'm in the midst of reading Craig Stephen Smith's Whiteman's Gospel. He identifies a value that is very dear to the culture of his people, the Native North American and one that is very dear to the Anglo-Saxon North American culture.

His people value the role of the elders of the community and their responsibility of passing down from one generation to the next their oral tradition.

The Anglo-Saxon North American culture places a very high value on formal education and the pursuit of degrees that qualify people for jobs, advancement and honor. Anglos pursue their traditions, values and culture through education and degrees.

What is interesting is that both values, that of the 'elders' and 'education' are both based on the desire for 'learning' and perhaps even 'wisdom'. If the Native American wants wisdom, he/she listens to the elders. If the Anglo-Saxon American wants wisdom, he/she pursues higher education.

But is one value right and the other wrong? Is one more important than the other? Does one have more benefits than the other? No and no and no.

Now think of a third culture and for the sake of argument, let's pretend it is the "cross-cultural" culture known as Na-xons. The Naxons embrace both the pursuit of education and value the insight and inputs of the elders in their communities. The first value gives them all the facts there are to learn at any point in time. The second teaches them how to view and utilize those facts wisely and in a manner that is conducive to the perpetuation of a good life on earth. In addition, one value can, as Smith suggests, be the 'complement' of the other. What education is weak in, can be provided by the elders and vice-versa.

Now, here's the challenge. What are we doing as parents, communities, the church, educational institutions, etc. to foster a Naxon approach to learning? What can we do? I'm open for suggestions and welcome your comments in the comment section below. Let's hear from as many as possible. Who knows we may change the system yet. If not, by giving it some thought, we may change how we view our grandchildren or how they view us.

-- Ken Godevenos, Epistoli, 091228

Join others following Ken on Twitter
Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

10 Things The World is Expecting in 2010 and Beyond

On Christmas Day 2009, Canada's National Post e-paper, had the following headline: Storm Clouds Ahead for America. In that article they make reference to a U.S. National Intelligence Council report on global trends presented to president-elect Obama about 20 days prior to his taking office. In that report, the experts looked ahead to the year 2025. And what do they see? In two words, "profound change". Here are the highlights:

1. U.S. economic and political clout will decline. So it should you might say, but consider who's clout will replace it and whether you really want that or not. The report concludes that the world may well become a more dangerous place (nothing new here). The National Post indicates that the U.S. lost US$40-trillion as a result of the 2008 global recession and brought its public debt to somewhere between 60-80% of its Gross Domestic Product (compared to about 42% prior to the hit). In 2009, it is predicted the U.S. deficit will grow even higher percentage-wise. Many countries are thinking of dropping the U.S. Dollar as a standard of comparison or as a medium of exchange for their own currencies.

2. Food, water and energy will be in short-supply worldwide. Expected you say, but can we deal with the local, national, and international conflicts that these shortages will give rise to? Why, because by 2025, mass migrations will start to occur from the areas where these shortages exist first to those areas that still have these resources. Then it will only be a matter of time, till they too will be in a shortage situation.

3. Most will give up on trying to terrorize the world, but those that stick with it will become more "deadly and dangerous thanks to new technology" according to the report. To me that means more surprises, with less chance of protection or prevention.

4. Now I really like this next one; read each word carefully: "The international system . . . will be almost unrecognizable by 2025" says the report. Think about that. What exactly are they predicting? Well for starters, China and India will become bigger if not the biggest players (with clout). I'm worried about China politically and India economically. This will all happen in a new "global economy" as compared to national economies now which impact other countries. By 2025, and I predict perhaps earlier, many countries of any significance will be part of a single economy whose actions are determined by a single body rather than each country's financial and political heads or governments. (Just look at what the G-8 and now the G-20 have been up to lately.) And if that's not enough, to be 'nice team players', all the world powers will make decisions that will dramatically transfer wealth and economic power from West to East. Please keep in mind that there is only so much wealth and economic power available to transfer, and when the East gets more, the West has less. That will change your standard of living and mine. Don't believe for a moment that the new order will produce more wealth for everyone. It won't. This process has been going on for several years now and the gap between rich and poor is growing, not lessening in North America. Eventually, the rich may be impacted as well, as more Easterners take over the running of the global economy.

5. The report also predicts a great (or should that be 'greater') "arc of instability" from Africa to Middle East to the Balkans, to the South and Central Americas. When instability occurs, one entity decides to flex its muscles, the other tries to defend itself or seeks protection. Third parties, with legitimate and/or illegitimate interests, get involved. Wars flourish, deaths occur, millions are spent by all sides. And worse still, world peace becomes elusive once more, or should I say, still.

6. Another prediction (and we've seen it already in the form of Pharmaceutical companies and their power when it comes to dealing with global viruses or insurance companies with respect to Health Care) is that the power or influence of non-governmental entities like businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and criminal networks will increase. They will do so in order to protect their interests and existence.

7. Organizations like, and especially, the United Nations will become more and more lame. That's already the case as the U.N. is now plagued with the veto power of just a few opposing members and with the lack of will to make a difference. With such organizations failing, with the rise of non-democratic states with clout, and the failure of democratic states to be able to influence areas of instability, the overall degree of democracy in the world will decrease greatly. The alternative may not be exactly what some of us are looking for.

9. As the U.S. shrinks in influence, it's economic state of the nation will get worse and then the U.S. will have to make serious decisions pitting domestic policy priorities vs. foreign policy ones. The implications for the rest of the world will be that the rising powers of China and India, along with their ideological partners, will be able to push the world around (true enough, perhaps like the States did for decades, but from a different frame of reference -- democracy being the end goal of the U.S. vs. totalitarianism or a form thereof of other key players).

10. And finally, the Revolutionary Age. What does that mean? Listen to Joshua Cooper Ramo in his book The Age of the Unthinkable. "What we face," he says, "isn't one single shift or revolution, like the end of World War Two or the collapse of the Soviet Union or a financial crisis, so much as an avalanche of ceaseless change. We are entering a revolutionary age." That can be very scary or it can be, as it is for me, just what the "Doctor" ordered if you believe in the existence of of Grand Designer Creator who is still very much in charge of the Universe and this world we live in.

But wait, there's more. Listen to Francis Fukuyama, a former U.S. State Department Director who 20 years ago said, "In watching the flow of events over the past decade or so, it is hard to avoid the feeling that something very fundamental has happened in world history . . .What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

Surprise. I don't think so. The complete opposite is about to happen, according to the report on the future, given to Obama. History is far from being ended. It is entering what the National Post refers to as "a dramatic new age of complex and unpredictable change" whose sheer "enormity and speed . . . have already overwhelmed much of the U.S. Intelligence Council's analysis." The report was basically written in 2008 prior to the big hit the U.S. experienced in its economy recently. While it predicted a slow loss in U.S. influence over 15 years, the recent crisis accelerated the schedule, even to the point that some believe that for the U.S. much of what was predicted for 2025 is already present, the rest can only make the present worse.

In summary, History is ending; transition has begun; and HIStory is about to be fulfilled. You can watch with fear and trembling trying desperately to save what you have or you can see it as the fulfillment of divine prophecy. It's your call how you see it, but either way, she's a coming!

-- Ken Godevenos, Presentalogist (telling you what you need to know for the future, now). Follow me on: http://www.twitter.com/pappou )

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

The New Atheism and Their Agenda

I read with interest about Robert Wright in this month's Foreign Policy magazine. Wright is an agnostic and the author of The Evolution of God. His main idea is that as civilizations get prosperous, they become more open-minded about things like God, I assume. Well, he's right on that score.

But Wright is not to be confused with that group of New Atheist promoters like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Instead Wright proposes that religion is indeed a force, but a force for ill. He predicts that ultimately religion will settle down and marry "modernity" based on the fact that us believers will come to our senses eventually given what is happening in the world, and we'll ignore messages that come from on high, that is, God.

But Wright has a very insightful take on the actual New Atheist group. He shared it in Foreign Policy, Special 2009 Issue. Here's what I gleaned from what he wrote:

1. New Atheism was launched as a "crusade against belief" started by Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris (Hitchens joined them later).
2. Their main short-goal (aimed at intellectuals) was not to turn believers into atheists. Instead, now get this, it was, according to Wright to "turn atheists into New Atheists -- fellow fire-breathing preachers of the anti-gospel. The point was to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers."

That's startling news, perhaps equivalent to the fact that scientists plan and actually manipulate data to prove their theory. [In fact, I've written elsewhere that Dawkins does just that -- ridicules unbelievers. I said he has the audacity to say evolution is a fact; his book proves it; no respectable scientist will deny it; and no one reading his book can close it without believing in evolution. Not so, Mr. Dawkins. But let's see how well the New Atheists' main short-term goal is really doing.

According to Wright, intellectuals who aren't religious or conservative, and some among the secular left, are starting to doubt the real goal of the New Atheists. They're seeing there's a difference between being "a progressive force" and ending up abetting fundamentalists and reactionaries here at home and around the world. How's that you say?

Well, Wright suggests, if you're pushing evolution in the public school, you try to appease conservative Christians by convincing them that their children won't be turned into atheists when they sit under such teaching (yeah right). A zealous promoter of Atheism who ridicules believers, like Dawkins, doesn't help the cause at all.

On the global stage, Wright argues that the idea of anything "Western" being linked to "aggressive atheism" [remember that's where Allah is cherished] doesn't go over too well in enticing the radical Islamists to buy in to our peace efforts.

Wright believes that the New Atheism also proposes that "religion is not just factually wrong, but the root of evil." Wow, you didn't know that did you? By association, it is Believers in the world who are the source of evil according to the New Atheists. That thinking, Wright suggests, would imply that if we could somehow remove the religious factor from the Israeli/Palestinian situation, we would soon be able to settle the differences involving the land involved in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute with perhaps a really good mediator. As long as religion plays a part, peace will be elusive according to the New Atheists, especially the likes of Sam Harris.

According to Robert Wright, all the great religions "have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility..." when their believers are not threatened or disrespected. He seems to imply that first comes the non-threatening and respect of a religion's adherents and they in turn become tolerant and civil. Think of that with respect to Christianity. The secular world today shows very little respect for Christianity and its believers. In many parts of the world, their lives are being threatened. In North America, our freedoms are evaporating. Yet, are true Christ-like, non-fanatical or dogmatic Christians intolerant or uncivil? I think not.

Yet, if Wright is correct, and certainly many would support him, it is possible that we're treated the way we are because the main picture that the world has of us is being delivered to them via the likes of the Crusaders of old, the Residential School masters, the fallen priests, and more consistently the radical fanatics that don't know when to stop.

And if that's the case, what can Christ-like Christians do? Wright started his piece in Foreign Policy by saying the New Atheist crusade is in trouble but not "because the citadels of faith are rolling back the tide of unbelief." But we should be. We should be showing the world that 'believing' makes sense. And we should be doing it with how we treat each other, how we treat those that are not in agreement with us, and how well we know our 'stuff'. At the same time, we need to know our rights and to pursue them legitimately.

Yes, the New Atheist movement may have a faulty goal, but make no mistake about it, while the intellectuals may have some problem with it, the majority of the rank and file in this world do not. They see it as a great opportunity to knock the holy people. In fact, I just realized that a major conservative national paper in Canada just started an on-line section called "Holy Post" to address religious issues. How sweet. Thanks but no thanks, for the sarcasm.

-- Ken B. Godevenos, Presentalogist (bringing you today's news that may well impact your tomorrow). Check us out at http://www.accordconslting.com and http://www.twitter.com/pappou . You can sign up for this blog elsewhere on this site.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Christianity Under Fire I

This is the first in a new series of blogs under the title Christianity Under Fire (CUF) – a term shared, I’m sure, by many other authors who feel that indeed our Faith is Under Fire. While we scour all sorts of media for our topics and examples, admittedly it’s very difficult to find such articles from liberal sources. And unfortunately, we have to sometimes rely more on the conservative media to get them to us. Although, in my opinion, they do cry “Wolf” a little too often, they are still providing accounts of situations that the mainstream media would rather you not know about.

Our first such CUF topic was an item written by Bob Unruh and posted by WorldNetDaily (WND) on June 19, 2009. It was called “City corrals Christians at weekend Arab fest; Judge won't let ministry deliver tracts on sidewalks”.

Here’s the bottom line: A federal judge allowed festival organizers in Dearborn, Michigan to ban a Christian ministry from handing out religious information on public sidewalks. Dearborn is 30 percent Muslim according to WND. The celebration of the city’s Arab International Festival followed later that weekend.

Judge Nancy Edmonds’ decision, however, did not intervene with the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Arabic Christian Perspective (ACP) group by both the Thomas More Law Center and the Becker Law Firm.

ACP workers and volunteers have attended the same festival five previous years without any disruption of the public peace. But this year Dearborn police warned ACP their people would not be allowed to walk the public sidewalks to hand out information and instead would be confined to a specific spot. Negotiations prior to the lawsuit being filed failed to resolve the issue. Why this year, why this group?

Here’s what the president of the Thomas More Law Center, Richard Thompson, had to say: "It's ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city's public sidewalks". Again why this year, why this group?

Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who argued for the Christians' rights before Edmonds said, "This case involves an important constitutional question regarding the government's ability to prohibit peaceful speech activities". I repeat, “why this year, why this group?”

Finally Mary Landroche, director of the city's department of public information, said the judge's ruling agreed the city had the right to establish rules for maintaining order. "[She – judge Edmonds] did agree with the city we have an interest in controlling the crowds," Landroche told WND. She added the city's rules are "content-neutral," but she could not provide information about any other group impacted by the change. She also said the city just decided the public sidewalks are "part of the festival grounds." You know what’s coming – “Why this year, why this group?”

All this took place because the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn filed a complaint saying “we do have to think about the safety of everyone” as the Detroit News quoted there spokesperson. The AACC in Dearborn also indicated there was "no problem" with the Christians being at the event. So, somebody please tell me, “Why this year, why this group?”

And then according to the WND, the complaints cited a police statement that the Christians would be classified among "political parties and protesters," and would be limited to a single location. So, who made Christians a political party to be defeated or fought against? Who labeled us as ‘protesters’ in today’s sense of the word? I promise this is the last time I’ll ask it: “Why this year? Why this group? Why Christianity?”

Might it just have something to do with the fact that people of all kinds, of all faiths, of all nations, of all political agendas, etc., really sense a change in America that is becoming more and more evident since the big event in Washington on January 19th, 2009? Is it possible that Washington with what they say or don’t say, with what they do or what they leave undone, is signaling the fact that it is time to forget the “faith of our fathers” and accept “the faith of our brothers”? Time to forget Christianity and embrace other faiths, not the least of which is Islam? (Remember the trouble Jacob got into when he agreed to Laban’s idea of marriage.)

I remember back in the days when I worked in government. One of the big pressing issues at the time was the political agenda of the feminist movement. This movement knew that the time to make progress on all their causes was during the terms of liberal governments that were sympathetic to their goals. I see a clear parallel now in the United States. The country has a government that wants to embrace the world at the expense of what are clearly strong American values and belief systems – including those that espouse the family and Judeao-Christian tenets. If it continues in this course, I believe, its citizens will ultimately lose the very freedoms they celebrated last July 4th.

Anyway, that’s how this Presentologist sees it. In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking, scan the media for more CUFs, and don’t forget to follow me on Twitter

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Why Looks, Money, and Fame Just Don’t Cut It

Last May Newswise reported on a study that demonstrated an inverse relationship between good looks, lots of money, and the admiration of others on the one hand and one’s sense of happiness on the other. Really? Yes, really.

While pursuing goals generally has a positive impact, this is not true for all goals according to the study’s author Edward Deci, professor of psychology and the Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of Rochester. Chief among the goals that don’t result in positively contributing to a satisfying life are those of attaining wealth and fame.

The research paper appeared in the June issue of the Journal of Research in Personality (you can get all the details about methodology there). Here’s the bottom line of what it found while tracking 147 alumni from two universities during their second year after graduation. The study confirmed that the more committed an individual is to a goal, the greater the likelihood of success. But unlike previous findings, this analysis showed that getting what one wants is not always healthy. This is contrary to the historical psychology theory that says if you value goals and attain them, wellness will follow. That’s not the case if you consider the content of the goals according to lead author Christopher Niemiec, a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University.

He says the study shows reaching materialistic and image-related milestones actually contributes to ill-being; despite their accomplishments, individuals experience more negative emotions like shame and anger and more physical symptoms of anxiety such as headaches, stomachaches, and loss of energy. Wow. The wisdom found in the Old Testament book of Proverbs wasn’t wrong after all. But wait, there’s more, the authors go on to say that by contrast, individuals who value personal growth, close relationships, community involvement, and physical health are more satisfied as they meet success in those areas. This latter group experiences a deeper sense of well-being, more positive feelings toward themselves, richer connections with others, and fewer physical signs of stress. Wow. Again the Old Testament Solomon and the New Testament Jesus had it exactly right.

Of course, the researchers feel their findings support the Self-Determination Theory developed by Deci and Richard Ryan which states that well-being depends in large part on meeting one’s basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In their opinion, “intrinsic aspirations seem (Niemiec’s word) to be more closely related to the self, to what’s inside the self, rather than to what’s outside the self.” Well, we’ll take issue with that another day. For now, let’s be thankful for their finding that striving for wealth and praise does little to satisfy deep human requirements.

The authors also suggest that for this younger set of career people, time devoted to extrinsic pursuits, like working long hours, often crowds out opportunities for psychologically nourishing experiences, such as relaxing with friends and family or pursuing a personal passion. They say craving money and adoration can lead to a preoccupation with “keeping up with the Joneses”. And what’s wrong with that? Well, behind this striving to ‘keep up’ are upward social comparisons that breed feelings of inadequacy and jealousy. Really. Solomon and Jesus both hinted at this, but you’ll have to find that out for yourself as you dig into their works.

Finally, the researchers indicate that the benefits of caring relationships and hard-earned skills are lasting while the thrill of extrinsic accomplishments fade quickly. As they would ask, “do you still rave about your last salary raise or promotion?” I hardly think so.

My advice – get smart, and pursue what really counts in life. Anyway, that’s how this presentologist sees it. In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking and don’t forget to follow me on www.twitter.com/pappou .

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

For Men (& the Women Who Love Them)…Please Reduce Your Colorectal Cancer Risk

Three months ago Newswise communicated the findings of a simple UK study reported in The European Journal of Cancer Prevention, published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry. Here’s the bottom line:

The study led by Professor. Donald Maxwell Parkin of Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics, and Statistics, London, identified five lifestyle factors that researchers believe would reduce colorectal cancer in UK men substantially (26% overall including 31.5% in men and 18.4% in women) over the next two decades plus. Here are the lifestyle changes that make the difference as reported by Newswise:

• Consumption of red and processed meat - no more than 80 or 90 grams per day.
• Consumption of fruit, vegetables, and fiber - at least five portions per day.
• Exercise - at least 30 minutes on 5 or more days per week.
• Alcohol consumption - no more than 21 units per week for men, 15 units for women.
• Overweight and obesity - reduced to rates of 20 years ago.

The greatest reductions would be in those age 50 or older. However, the proportional reduction in risk would be larger at younger ages.

Colorectal cancer is a major problem in not only the UK, but also in Canada and the United States. I know, I had it and maybe still do. When first discovered, the doctors wanted to surgically remove a good portion of my colon and reconnect me – assuming they could do it successfully, but without any guarantees. When they said this was to prevent future recurrence, I opted to go for the drastic life-changes above. Two of my three specialists were skeptical that would make any difference. It did. Six months later during my second colonoscopy, they only found a normal polyp and removed that easily. Next month I go in for my regular six-month colonoscopy (I guess if they can’t operate, they’ll see to it that they keep me visiting twice a year which is better than an operation as far as I’m concerned.)

For me, it was a matter of faith – they told me they thought I was 95% cured when they removed the cancerous polyp. I told them 5% probability of not being cured is not sufficient reason to cut me up. They reluctantly agreed when I told them that they themselves learned that ‘just noticeable difference’ in statistics was about 15% and that I believed my faith in God covers me 100%, not just 95%.

For you, your reasons may be different as to why you should try to reduce your risk of cancer. But whatever they are, just do it. Sure, I miss the steak and the pork chops and the hamburgers – but there are great alternatives out there and I still enjoy my fish, especially small ones. Life could be a lot worse.

By the way, there’s a new video on YouTube that is getting a lot of attention – it’s about Ted Blair and his cancer experience. Well worth it if you have cancer or if someone you love has it. You can catch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQqPNl87RIM .

Anyway, that’s how this presentologist sees it. In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking and don’t forget to follow me on www.twitter.com/pappou .

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Why Religious People Don’t Want to Die

Back in March 2009, Newswise reported that a new study of terminally ill cancer patients who draw on religion to cope with their illness are more likely to receive intensive, life-prolonging medical care as death approaches –– treatment, by the way, that often entails a lower quality of life in patients’ final days. The study was by researchers at Dana-Faber Cancer Institute (a comprehensive cancer centre and an affiliate of Harvard Medical School). Earlier studies had shown that more religious patients often seek aggressive end-of-life treatment and this study shows they actually get it.

We also know from other research that religion and spirituality do provide great comfort and support for those actually dying due to a terminal illness.

The latest research contributed two basic findings: positive religious ‘copers’ had three times the odds of actually receiving life-prolonging care in the final week of life and they also were less likely to have completed living wills or do-not-resuscitate orders in advance.

So, here are my questions: Why is it that religious people (and by that we must include evangelicals and/or born-again Christians) prefer not to have to deal with death even when it is inevitable? Why do they not help make matters easier, especially for their families, by agreeing in advance to instructions that would make aggressive treatment less prominent just prior to the end of their lives? Why do their family members, even if they know their dying loved one has received eternal salvation, continue to seek and endorse such aggressive treatment to keep them alive? And why does this group do that to the extent that there is such a strong significant difference between them and the non-religious people? These are hard questions that we often do not think about. Yet the research data suggests we do just that. I don’t know about you, but it makes me wonder if there is some element of hypocrisy between what we say we believe and what we actually do. [Don’t respond to that – I may not like hearing the truth, but then again….]

I lost my mother at age 64 from an angina attack. She was in a coma. The doctors had asked what my dad and I wanted done. We replied, “Watch for any signs of improvement, take moderate measures, do not let her suffer unnecessarily, and if necessary, let her go.” Mom died that night. Nearly three decades later, I lost my father, in his early 90’s, to cancer. Again, we had the same choice and our family was around his bedside as we watched him die, struggling. The doctors had explained that if they pursued aggressive treatment measures, we would be delaying the inevitable by a day or two, not much more. As much as we loved him, we had to let him go. Those experiences, first of seeing my mom in a coma with all sorts of tubes going into and coming out of her body, and then watching my dad gasp for his last few breaths of air as he tried to reach out with his hands, pleading the doctors present for help, helped me form my current views concerning man’s desire to cling on to life.

It was in those moments, and it continues to be today (whenever I think about this topic) that “the rubber of my actions hit the road of the faith I had chosen”. If I believed then and believe now in the power of the resurrection and life after death, which I did and do – then I had/have no reason whatsoever to delay what God has ordained.

Having said that I know that there are others who would strongly disagree. I know there are others who may tell me exactly why they would do all they could to stay alive themselves and/or to keep their loved ones alive, under similar circumstances. There may even be some who can identify some scripture that may help all of us in this matter. Admittedly, I have never been in the situation of having to make such a decision where a child or a grandchild is involved (and I pray I never have to). I’m particularly interested in hearing about those situations too because I believe I can learn a lot from others who have gone through that valley.

I would love to hear from parents, from doctors, from pastors, from anyone who has some thoughts on this topic. You’ve read how I see it – now, it’s your turn to tell me how you see it. Leave us a comment now.

Please join our website list for automatic notifications of new blogs or comments on topics that concern the Church today. You can also follow me on Twitter at Twitter and get notifications that way.

Order my new book, Human Resources for the Church: Applying Corporate Practices In a Spiritual Setting at Accord Consulting.

In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Do Our Churches Need Body Guards?

On March 9, 2009, CNN ran a story titled “Churches Need Security Plans, Experts Say”. This was in response to the story of an attacker who, the day before, had walked into a church in Illinois and began firing. The pastor was killed. There were also reports that the church had security plans in place. Although two men subdued the gunman involved, clearly the plans weren’t sufficient. In the last year or so the Christian Security Network (CSN) has been around more and more churches are getting help in this area and some tragedies have been averted. CSN also keeps track of security events in churches around the country (in January and February 2009 alone, over 140 acts of violence to churches were tracked by the Network). CNN reports that CSN spoke of one incident that an unknown visitor overdressed for the warm weather and acting odd was taken aside and questioned by church officials only to discover he had two machetes tied to his back. His excuse? The devil had told him to cut the pastor’s head off. With the rise of drug use (America has all but given up the battle against drugs according to Foreign Policy magazine and the visible evidence around the country) as well as the increase of mental illness due to depression, economics, loss of job, family breakdowns, etc., this type of incident is bound to rise. Executive Pastors and those in charge of church facilities would be wise to check out CSN’s services to its members.

As recent as May 20, 2009 the FBI and New York police busted four locals who had planned to blow up two synagogues in the Bronx, not to mention shooting another plane out of the sky. CNN reported that the suspects were three U.S.-born citizens and one immigrant. Three of the four had converted to Islam in jail and were angry that Muslims were dying in Afghanistan. To top it all off, they saw the Jews as the cause of all of America’s problems.

So, do our churches need bodyguards, visible or discrete, and, with or without, armed weapons? [According to CNN, a bill to allow concealed weapons in churches didn’t get past the state’s Senate committee in February.] Last I checked schools have armed guards in some parts of the continent. And if we think we need them in our churches, how do we balance our need for a secure place to worship and still be a place of worship, open to all? More people need a place of comfort these days than ever before, but do we make them go through a security machine as if they were about to travel by plane just to get in? If not, how do we help provide the sense of security many others need that taking one’s family to church is not considered a potentially dangerous activity?

I’d like to hear your take on this pastors and worshipers? What do you think? Provide your comments below.

Please join our website list for automatic notifications of new blogs or comments on topics that concern the Church today. You can also follow me on Twitter and get notifications that way.

Order my new book, Human Resources for the Church: Applying Corporate Practices In a Spiritual Setting

Until next time, keep on ortho-thinking!

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Why Some Ideologies Attract True Followers

The well-known author, Solzhenitsyn, in explaining why many of Shakespeare’s villains only murder a small number of people rather than become mass murderers, indicates it is because of the their lack of ideology. More recently, historian Jamie Glazov in his book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror suggests that wherever "believers" in a religion that purports to save others gather, there is an appetite for revolution. I must admit that as a carnal human being, I understand exactly what he may have in mind. As a Christian believer, I find myself often empathizing and totally understanding Peter as he drew his sword to cut off the ear of one of the High Priest’s slaves just before the arrest and trial of Jesus (John 18:10). I understand that is not Christ’s approach to resolving issues.

But Glazov should be heard a little further. He points out “The less brutal an ideology is, the less interest the average believer has in it.” In fact, those following Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot always grew significantly in number when the leaders mass murders peaked, according to Glazov.

Barbara Kay, writing in the April 22nd edition of the National Post points out something interesting about the left’s infatuation with Islam replacing communism as its driving ideology. She indicates following Marxism meant pursuing a utopia of many enlightened ideas. But why is the Western leftist now courting Islam? Kay seems to say this is very puzzling for the West is atheistic (well, certainly the leftist West is), sexually egalitarian, and obsessed with social justice. Islamists, she contends, are theistic (Allah is their god), patriarchal (not sexually egalitarian at all) and shariah-bound (which pursues cultural justice more than social justice). [The preceding and following bracketed parts are all mine.]

As if to answer Kay’s well thought out questions, Glazov takes us on what Kay calls “the believer’s totalitarian journey”. In a moment we’ll see how all this relates to the Christian, but for now, please stay with me.

In Glazov’s experience and observation, most believers in anything that looks like an ideological cause, normally start out with “an acute sense of alienation from (their) own society (and associated faiths, beliefs, religions, etc.),” says Kay. Even though they are secularists, they still seek some kind of redemption in their lives and are easily drawn to something like the “seculiar shariah” that comes along in the Islamic faith. There, suggests Kay, they don’t have to worry about being estranged from society as individuals, because individualism doesn’t exist.

This kind of believer isn’t really after truth, she says. He/she is more interested in a movement they can “submit” to. And, to get into this new ‘vast community’ that will adopt this ‘cultural orphan’ Kay says, he/she is willing to sever any of his ‘emotional ties’ to his rejected society or culture [or in my thinking, give up his/her independent thinking and rationality].

Of course, the new society the believer joins is not just satisfied with his/her joining it, but requires the new recruit to actually blame his/her old society for all the ills of the world. And by the way, don’t even think about quitting the new community – you’re dead meat. Doesn’t it make sense, Kay hints, that under these conditions the new recruit stops thinking? When asked to take certain actions as part of his/her responsibilities that most of us would find rife with logical or moral problems, the new recruit blindly misses them. For example, Kay suggests blindness to suffocation of free speech, arbitrary imprisonment, terror bombings, stonings, etc. Perhaps, I would add, even female genital mutilation and rape, as punishment.

Okay, so we figured out how the leftist orphan feels and thinks as he/she joins this newfound adoptive agency called Islamism. But what does all this have to do with Christians? Good question. The answer is several things.

First, I think we, as informed Christians, need to be aware of how the Devil works. More specifically, we need to be aware of what attracts men (and some women) to movements that are outside their original society. Secondly, we need to be aware, once they get inside their new movement, of how they think and behave in relation to truth, illogical thinking, or injustice in certain aspects of life. I say this because we cannot neglect the fact that we too are being accused of not pursuing justice in other parts of human life, in their view.

Thirdly, is there anything in the process of their slowly becoming disillusioned with their own society and being drawn to an alternative society that we can learn from? For example:
a. Can we learn from the fact that ‘true followers’ are more interested in a movement they can ‘submit to’ rather than search for the truth. Now don’t get me wrong, Jesus Christ is the Truth and the Truth makes us free. But perhaps we have been more interested in presenting the Christian faith as one having the small-t ‘truth’ rather than more diligently promoting the concept of total submission to Him as Truth.
b. Since true followers are prepared and want to give up their independence in order to join a new ideological community with a cause, how can we encourage Christ followers to keep their independent thinking among us but at the same time be prepared to fight for the cause of Christ? It appears to me that our independence in thinking creates more and more factions amongst us to the point where we are ‘divided and conquered’ by the Enemy.
c. Do we demand enough of our new recruits? How many times have you heard pastors say from the pulpit when preaching on tithing, for example, “the majority of you are getting a free lunch”? Many people accept Christ, get baptized, join the local church, and then sit back in their pews demanding to be entertained or at best, fed. Having observed many organizations in my lifetime, I must admit that no other type of organization consistently carries as much dead weight as the local church.

I have avoided talking a lot about how some religious bodies have great expectations and requirements of their members. The reason I did this is that they also tend to be those groups that have adopted doctrine that is not conducive to what most of us believe is scripturally based. For example, Jehovah Witnesses’ expect their members to either do so much door-to-door canvassing each week or stand at the corner holding up their Awake magazine. Failure to comply is heavily frowned upon, or used to be. Mormons are expected to give everything up for two years and serve as missionary elders. I’m not suggesting we become like that, but I think we let the ‘service’ baby slip right out of the ‘faith’ bathtub. Pardon my awkward analogy. I believe we need to rethink what it costs ‘church-wise’ to be a true follower of Jesus Christ (because the local church is indeed what God ordained to be the means He would use to reach the world for Him – there is no back-up plan). I think it is time for us to expect more of our members now. Instead, we seem to have taken the easier road of letting Christ do the pruning later.

At least that’s the way I see it. You may choose to differ. If so, please comment.

Please join our website list for automatic notifications of new blogs or comments. You may also follow me on Twitter.

Order my new book, Human Resources for the Church: Applying Corporate Practices In a Spiritual Setting.

Until next time, keep on ortho-thinking!

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

God Spare Us From Religions That Make the Laws of the Land

I read with interest the report of journalist Saeed Shah in Islamabad dated February 16, 2009. The headline simply read “Pakistan Makes Deal To Enforce Islamic Law In Northwest Region”.

Let me give you the background: Pakistan, forced by Taliban militants, has agreed to officially enforce Islamic (sharia) Law in parts of its country. In exchange the militants will agree to a ceasefire there. The country’s president insists the Taliban are “trying to take over the state” and warned against the deal. Up to now, the U.S. has strongly opposed any attempt by Pakistan to negotiate with the Taliban. The area involved is not wild or remote or tribal but heavily overrun by Taliban and al-Queda.

One think-tank analyst there is calling this a surrender, arguing that “if you keep treating a community as something different from the rest of the country, it will isolate them.” A retired judge points out that now there will not be one law in the land and foresees further disintegration. “If you concede to this, you will go on conceding.”

The deal-maker for the militants is a local Islamic leader who once led hundreds of men to fight with the Taliban against the U.S.-led coalition. Pakistan freed him recently when democracy was restored, although the U.S. was against it doing so. (But hey, you’ll never hear the press drawing that to anybody’s attention as something the U.S. did right considering what’s happening now.)

The ‘signee’ for the government, the regional leader for the area, Hajji Adeel said the goal was “to speed up the justice system.” Of course, there is no proof that it will do that. Adeel’s real motive is revealed in his next statement, “If six months ago, sharia had started working…the intensity of the terror there would have been much less.” Whether or not that is true can be checked out six months from now. But the fact remains bullies and militants get their way because no one strong enough to defeat them is supported any longer. Where this may lead is anybody’s guess, but you can bet it ain’t going to be pretty. Not for the country, not for the non-Islamic inhabitants, and certainly not for the Islamic women who may end up being judged by sharia. Already in this region the Taliban have been enforcing their brutal version of Islamic Law that includes public floggings and summary execution. That’s their ultimate goal, not just “observer” status in the courtroom.

The Provincial Law Minister said, “It’s not that we are giving in to their demands, rather we are demanding of them to restore peace first.” You could have fooled many of us. Here’s the part I found most interesting. The way this will work is that Islamic “religious experts will sit in on the court alongside a regular judge to ensure that rulings are in compliance with Islam.” Wow, can you imagine that in the free world? Baptists and Pentecostals and Catholics and Jews sitting in “alongside a regular judge to ensure our rulings are in compliance with each of their faith’s belief systems.” Not a chance. Nor would the majority of us want that.

But in Pakistan and other countries where Islam has either an upper hand or a strong presence, it’s okay. Or is it? What if the so-called religious experts do not agree with the ruling? Then what? Can they overturn it? Will they just file a “dissenting report”? Will they scream and yell and bring out the militants again to get their way? No one knows, so, “no thanks”. I would rather go with rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. Let the courts of the land judge those that fall into their hands, including the Christians. But let us as Christians (and I’m sure the Jews would want to do likewise) settle our own differences within the Body.

Back in northern Pakistan, the militant deal-maker (who is not a Taliban by the way) has only managed to get a 10-day ceasefire from the Taliban during which they will consider whether or not the deal is a good one. Right. The deal-maker still has a lot of persuading to do.

The Pakistani president concedes that the future of the country is in grave danger from the Taliban, present in huge parts of the country. He said the Taliban are “trying to take over the state of Pakistan” and “we’re fighting for the survival” of Pakistan.

But of course in the West we actually debate long and hard over whether or not we should allow sharia law in various jurisdictions even without Taliban presence (at least that’s the case in parts of Canada, but I’m sure the U.S. won’t be too far behind – just think of the money that a full application of sharia law for all Muslims would save the Obama administration that could be diverted to more bailouts of wall street executives). No, in the West no one will admit that we’re “in grave danger” or that “we’re fighting for our survival”. That would be politically incorrect.

I am not against anybody’s law. I am against any religious law becoming the “law of the land.” Thank God that in North America we ‘lost’ that battle long ago.

At least that’s the way I see it. I’d welcome your comments.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Watch out as Obama revamps Faith-based office

The new American president is at it again. He keeps providing evidence that he just does not get it!

This time he wants to deal with the problems others have with faith-based initiatives by, I believe, ultimately removing any faith-based differences. In the media reports based of his recent National Prayer Breakfast announcement last Thursday, Obama indicated that his dream of eliminating our “differences” will not happen overnight.

Mr. President, in case you have not noticed, the very meaning of faith-based relies on differences between people of faith and no-faith, or ones with a certain faith versus another. All the historical leaders of major religions accepted that, but you seem to be having trouble with it.

There is believe that what’s really behind Obama’s comments and direction is the fact that many are objecting to some faith organizations helping those in need while receiving government grants are doing so by only hiring and utilizing those of like-faith. This, say the naysayers, is not right.

But legislator beware, this very direction may well eliminate the masses of volunteers who desire to happily work “within” their own faith-group, serving humanity. It is one thing to require charities to offer their services, especially those of a social nature, to all – as they should – but it is another thing to dictate to them ‘by whom’ they should do it. A state cannot rely on their help to do things more effectively and economically, even if it contributes to their operational costs, and demand things be done its way. Mr. Obama, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.