Isaac in Gerar -- Genesis 26:1-6

Genesis 26:1-6: Now there was a famine in the land, besides the previous famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham. So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines. The LORD appeared to him and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." So Isaac lived in Gerar.

In this section we read of a famine in the land where Isaac and his family lived. The Bible is very careful to point out that this had happened before in the times of Abraham partly to distinguish the current famine from that one and perhaps partly to set the stage for Isaac’s actions that were in some ways learned from his father’s experience. In Genesis 12:10 we read about Abraham going down to Egypt in order to escape the famine in his own country. Likewise, Isaac goes to Gerar. This is a lodging place or town south of Gaza. Gerar, a Philistine town, had been mentioned previously in Scripture. In Genesis 10:19 we learn that this was were the Canaanites settled, Canaan being the son of Ham who was the son of Noah. In Genesis 20:1 we learn of Abraham and Sarah lying to Abimelech, the king at Gerar, about their relationship.

So Isaac journeys there and the land is still ruled by an Abimelech. This title implying “father king” was a common title given to the kings of the Philistines over a considerable period of time. Thus we do not know for certain from this passage that his father had dealt with the same identical person although that is a real possibility. It was there that the Lord appears to Isaac and tells him not to go to Egypt but instead to remain in a place that God will tell him. And then God proceeds to tell him to stay in Gerar and that God would be there with him and bless him. In fact, God, for the first time, goes so far as to share His covenant to Abraham with Isaac, personally. He tells him that He will give all these lands to him and his descendants. God restates His promise to Abraham and tells Isaac that He’ll bring it about for him. He reiterates the details of the Covenant He made with Abraham.

But most importantly, God explains why He will do all this for Isaac and his descendants. God lays it out very clearly, “…because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” Perhaps the only word that may need some explaining is the word ‘charge’ or in Hebrew mishmereth, which is translated as guard, function, obligation, service, watch; a keeping or preserving; an office or ceremonial function (as in the priesthood).

It seems to me that this is the foundational formula for success in the life of any child of God’s. We are to obey Him, serve Him by looking after what He has entrusted to us, and keeping His commandments, statutes, and laws that are still applicable to us in accordance with the work accomplished by His Son, Jesus Christ. That is a pretty complete formula in that it entails all of what we are to do.

The section ends by simply telling us that Isaac dwelled in Gerar. He could count on God to “establish” His oath that was made with his father. What a joy that must have been to realize that God’s favor on one’s life is partially due to the relationship that one’s father had with God. What an incentive that is for us who are parents as we live our lives today. The very thought of knowing that God may very well bless my daughters and son and my grandchildren partially on the basis of how well I obey Him, serve Him, and keep His commandments, is reason enough to do so. Finally, what a reason that provides for us to lead our children to a personal relationship with God in order that this blessing will continue in the generations that come after them. Besides our personal relationship with God, that is the greatest responsibility of any parent.

Follow 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.

A Birthright for Lentil Stew Genesis 25:29-34

Genesis 25:29-34: And when Jacob had cooked stew, Esau came in from the field and he was famished; and Esau said to Jacob, “Please let me have a swallow of that red stuff there, for I am famished.” Therefore his name was called Edom. But Jacob said, “First sell me your birthright.” And Esau said, “Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?” And Jacob said, “First swear to me”; so he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

We do not know what the relationship of Esau and Jacob was as they were growing up, given their different characteristics. I am sure that their household would be most exciting at times as the two young boys kidded, fought, argued with, supported, and avoided each other at different times. They eventually learned to co-exist and go about their own preferences and responsibilities.

One day Jacob had cooked a lentil (small bean common to Egypt and Syria as well as parts of modern Europe) stew that filled the air with a most inviting aroma. Esau on the other hand had been out in the field working or possibly hunting, and he was famished. From my own experience, I know that when one is famished, priorities and the value of certain things change drastically. Not only do dishes one would normally pass on become most desirous, but also one is willing to pay extraordinary prices for an item of food. A good example is paying an exorbitant price for a hot dog at the ballgame. Esau was in that situation on this particular day that Jacob had prepared lentils. Notice that Esau asks for “a swallow” of the soup. At first one may think he does not want very much, just one swallow. In fact, the transliteration of Hebrew word la’at implies ‘to swallow greedily, devour’. Esau was basically asking to devour Jacob’s lentil soup. The text continues to state that it was for this reason Esau became known as Edom, which literally means ‘I will praise him’, for Esau was prepared to highly praise his brother Jacob whose soup satisfied his hunger.

But Jacob who was more attune to assessing the opportunities of a situation given his thoughtful character realized that something could be gained in return for his lentil soup. The fact that he very quickly asked Esau to sell him his birthright suggests that Jacob had been reflecting long and hard on the fact that Esau, born just split seconds ahead of him, actually had the traditional ‘first-born birthright’ over him. What exactly that entailed we learn about later in scripture, but suffice it to say here that its privileges included becoming the family priest and ending up with a double portion of inheritance.

Esau was not at all bothered by this request. One would have thought his reply would be, “Are you out of your mind, Jacob? Do you think, as hungry as I am, your lentil soup, as good as it smells, is worth my giving up my inheritance? You have to be joking, Jacob.” Instead, Esau, perhaps fixated on his starving state, or not caring for his birthright, or simply not thinking, responded as follows: “Some day I am going to die anyway and what good will my birthright and its privileges be to me then?” There is nothing in the text to indicate whether Esau was referring to his potential imminent death from starvation or his eventual death as any other human being. I prefer the latter possibility for two reasons. First, Esau had not been long without food and secondly, it reflects the mind of one who lives for the moment rather than one who considers consequences of one’s action for the future.

One of the most important things every growing child must learn in order to succeed in life is the process by which he or she overcomes the desire for immediate gratification and replaces it with patience and thoughtful consideration of how a given decision will impact his or her life both now and in the future. That is learning that many people continue to have difficulty with well into their adult years, yet it is a critical one for the Christian.

Now Jacob heard Esau say that his birthright would not be any good to him once he died, but realized the statement only gave reason as to why Esau may consider his request without any evidence that he in fact would turn his birthright over for the soup he was about to eat. With that in mind, Jacob proceeds to get that assurance by asking Esau to swear to him that indeed his birthright was now Jacob’s. Esau complied and the birthright was sold to Jacob for some bread and his lentil soup.

This short episode ends with Esau eating and drinking what Jacob had to offer, and then rising and going on his way. But there’s an epilogue to this account. It is the same type of epilogue that can be added to any man or woman’s story after they have made a bad decision in a moment of weakness. Here it is simply stated as: “Thus Esau despised his birthright.” He wanted nothing to do with it. Perhaps because he saw no value in it and he was trying to justify his decision. It is also possible that he despised it for it represented a spiritual right as God’s priest for the family that he wanted nothing to do with. He was in essence rejecting his family’s spiritual inheritance. His character and his decisions confirmed God’s right choice of Jacob to rise in history as more powerful and ruling over his brother, Esau.


Follow 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.

Isaac and Rebekah Had Favorites Genesis 25:27-28

When the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the field; but Jacob was a peaceful man, living in tents. Now Isaac loved Esau, because he had a taste for game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.

As one may have thought, given Esau’s ruddy and robust appearance when he was born, he took a fancy to hunting and became very proficient in it. The Hebrew text yada implies that not only was he good at this but that he had studied and came to know it inside out, having perceived all aspects of it. Today, he probably would have hosted his own hunting show on television although the focus of the program would have been hunting for food rather than pleasure. He was likely the means by which the family was able to enjoy many good meals of game. The use of the word ‘field’ here may have one of at least four possible meanings, only one of which implies a ‘cultivated land’. The Hebrew word sadeh is also used to mean ‘a land that is a home to wild beasts’ and even a ‘plain type of land as opposed to mountains’.

Jacob on the other hand is reported to be a ‘peaceful’ man who lived in tents. It is not clear whether or not the text intended to imply that Esau was not peaceful. I think we can take it to mean that Esau was most restless and had to be out and about all the time, while Jacob was more content to stay at home, perhaps reflecting on life, listening to stories told by his elders, or helping his mother with the affairs of the home. Some Bible versions use the word ‘plain’ for the Hebrew tam rather than translate it ‘peaceful’. In either case, the word not only means an ordinary, quiet sort of man, but also implies a complete or perfect being, one who lacks nothing in physical strength, beauty, etc. It is used with reference to someone who is sound and wholesome, morally innocent, with integrity, and ethically pure.

Clearly these two twins were very different. We could safely assume that the phrase ‘kindred spirits’ could not be applied to them. And their parents noted their differences. Unfortunately, these differences formed the basis by which their parents identified preferences for one over the other. Isaac ‘loved’ Esau simply because he was more into hunting which we assume Isaac himself enjoyed. Today this could be equated to a parent who favors one male son over another if the former has a knack for hockey or some other sport while the other one is more comfortable with writing, music, or other art. Rebekah on the other hand, the text says, ‘loved’ Jacob.

The use of the word ‘loved’ to describe the feelings of both parents to their respective preferred child is most interesting. That a parent should love their child is natural and healthy and desirable. That a parent should love one child more than the other, as the context seems to imply, is none of those. In my own mind I have tried to explain this verse in some other way, but I cannot. Isaac’s choice was based primarily on the fact that his son Esau often satisfied his hunger for venison. Rebekah on the other hand may well have made her choice based on what God had told her about the youngest child’s future. In general, though, favoritism towards one child over another is not a way to parent properly. If one feels they must make such a choice, for whatever reason, it should reflect the choice we believe to the best of our ability God would have made (although I would never purport to assume we could think in any equivalent manner with God).

I also want to distinguish between loving someone and condoning their behavior. There comes a time when a child makes decisions and/or exhibits behaviors that are not in keeping with God’s desire for his/her life. When we detect evidence of this, it is appropriate for us not to condone their actions. We should, however, make that decision not based not on what we as parents think is right, but on what the Word of God clearly and unequivocally says. This is not an area where we disagree on matters of interpretation or cultural practices, but rather where there is clear-cut sin involved. In circumstances like that, I believe it is appropriate to indicate that we oppose such behavior. I am not convinced, however, that we can ever, even under those circumstances, stop loving our child. If that were the case, God would have stopped loving many of us years ago. We still have a responsibility to make countless efforts to help them get back on the right track, and at the very least, always keep the door unlocked for them to return.

Follow Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

SUBSCRIBE TO EPISTOLI AT THE TOP OF THIS BLOG.

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

Esau and Jacob Genesis 25:25-26

Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them.

When I come to think of it, I have not heard of two or more infants being carried by the same mother being born at exactly the same instant in time. One always has to come out of the mother’s womb first. And so it was in the case of Rebekah’s delivery of her children. One came out first and he was red, or as some versions state, ruddy. My understanding is that an infant is born red or ruddy when its blood is circulating well and is at the surface of his/her body. This seems to be a clear sign of a very robust child from day one. Rebekah’s first child was also very hairy and indeed looked like a garment or more precisely a cloak made of a fur or fine material when one considers the Hebrew translation. This boy was named Esau, a designation meaning hairy in Hebrew.

Right away he was followed by his younger brother who came out of Rebekah’s womb holding on to the heel of Esau. It was as if he was saying, “Hey, you can’t leave me in here; I’m right behind you and you can’t get away!” Isaac and Rebekah named him Jacob that is translated from the Hebrew to mean ‘heel holder’ or ‘supplanter’ according to Strong’s Bible Dictionary. A supplanter is someone who supersedes or replaces someone else. Interesting how these three things: what God predicted about the younger child, what the child was doing at birth holding on to his older brother’s heel, and his name all seem to be falling in line. How the story plays out is still to be discovered by us.

The Bible says Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to Esau and Jacob. We now return to our timeline (which started at creation) and insert the birth of these twins:

• 3311 Isaac, at age 40, marries Rebekah (Genesis 25:20)
• 3331 Isaac, at age 60, becomes father to Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:26)
• 3346 Abraham died at age 175 (Genesis 25:7,8)
• 3394 The death of Ishmael (based on his birth in 3257 and now Genesis 25:17)

The timeline helps us see that grandfather Abraham lived another fifteen years after his grandsons Esau and Jacob were born. I wonder what his influence until his death was on the boys who at that time were fifteen years old. Grandparents certainly have a great opportunity to influence the lives of their grandchildren, as they stay involved with them, regardless of age differences. There was 160 years difference between Abraham and the twins.

Follow Ken 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.

Two Nations

Genesis 25:22-24: But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it is so, why then am I this way?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.” When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

I do not know exactly why the author of Genesis used the phrase “struggled together within her” to express the physical feelings that Rebekah was having while she carried her twins. The actual Hebrew word is ratsats and it indicates that a sense of crushing was involved. Perhaps the twins were large and Rebekah small, causing her to feel each movement of one of them as ‘crushing’ against the other. In any case, the action and perhaps the pain associated with such movement over the pregnancy were sufficient to cause Rebekah to wonder why she was experiencing this conflict within her body.

Oftentimes things happen to us and we wonder why we are feeling the way we are. Many of us just keep on wondering. Some of us ask our friends while others take the next step and visit doctors and other specialists, but not Rebekah. She knew God had created her and all that was within her. She likely knew the twins were an answer to Isaac’s prayer. With those facts, Rebekah first inquires about her condition “of the Lord”. And God answers her. If we are truly seeking His answers, He does address our concerns.

God tells Rebekah that the two children in her womb represent two nations from which will come two peoples. One of them will be stronger than the other; and the older child and nation stemming from it will serve the younger child and peoples stemming from it. How does a young mother deal with such words from the Lord? Although the Bible does not tell us how Rebekah reacted, we can be sure it was with some anxiety as to what all that would look like in the years ahead. Sometimes we ask God a question and He gives us an answer that we only partly comprehend. The rest requires patience and trust, as well as, the necessary obedience.

Rebekah waited until it was time for her to deliver and sure enough, she gave birth to twins.

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

Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage and Your Health

Newswise recently reported yet another interesting study. Bottom line is that divorce and widowhood have a lasting, detrimental impact on health, even after one ties the knot again. The study found that married people that were previously divorced show worse health on all dimensions, over those married and never divorced. And worse still, those divorced or widowed who don’t remarry are even worse off. University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite co-authored the study with Mary Elizabeth Hughes, Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The subjects were 8,652 people aged 51 to 61. This is the first study to examine both marital transitions and marital status on a wide range of health dimensions, according to Newswise.

Previous research has shown that the transition to marriage tends to immediately improve the health benefit ‘stock’ for both men and women – men because they start to live and eat healthier, women because their financial well-being generally improves. This continues to be the case throughout marriage for most couples. But divorce or widowhood undermines these benefits and a drop in our ‘health stock’ is experienced after either occurs. The authors cite drop in income and increased stress over a number of issues including shared child care as reasons.

Other findings include:

• Divorced or widowed people have 20 percent more chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer than married people. They also have 23 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble climbing stairs or walking a block.

• People who never married have 12 percent more mobility limitations and 13 percent more depressive symptoms, but report no difference in the number of chronic health conditions from married people.

• People who remarried have 12 percent more chronic conditions and 19 percent more mobility limitations, but no more depressive symptoms, than those who are continuously married.

Here’s how the authors explain the findings? Prof. Waite says the impacts of marriage, divorce and remarriage on health are based on the ways in which the various illnesses develop and heal. She says, with my comments in brackets, “Some health situations, like depression, seem to respond both quickly and strongly [negatively after divorce or widowhood; positively after remarriage] to changes in current conditions. In contrast, conditions such as diabetes and heart disease develop slowly over a substantial period and show the impact of past experiences, which is why health [as compared to mood] is undermined by divorce or widowhood, even when a person remarries.”

Okay, that explains it, but here’s what I think is really more important, all else being equal of course:

1. Marriage on its own is good for you – health stock improves both after one’s initial marriage or any subsequent marriages.
2. Divorce is generally bad for you – health stock stays impaired even after remarriage.
3. Divorce has a bigger negative impact on your health than marriage has a positive one.
4. Remarriage does not eliminate all the negative impact.

Thank you professors Waite and Hughes, but wait a minute – haven’t I read that somewhere else before this study was ever thought of? I’m sure I did. Seems to me my pastors have been teaching these lessons from the Good Book for years. Oh well, some people will never believe something unless a PhD. gets to say it. And sometimes, not even then.

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.

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.

Exposing the Hypocrisy of Leftist/Liberal Feminism

I recently had the opportunity to read a book excerpt from Jamie Glazov’s book entitled United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, published by WND Books, 2009. The excerpt was in the April 22, 2009 issue of the National Post. You can check out Glazov’s credentials on Wikipedia or other internet sources. Here is the bottom line as I see it:

Glazov talks about Islamic gender apartheid as being marked with ‘honor’ killings, mandatory veiling, forced segregation, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and rape as punishment. He goes on to postulate that one would assume most feminists would find such things horrible, causing violent feelings of extreme loathing. Yet, he says leftist feminists have remained silent when it comes to what is happening to their sisters in Islamic countries. He sees what these feminists are doing as a perfect process of self-deception complete with all three necessary stages – denial, excuse, and justification.

While they screamed, and continue to scream, “inequality” with respect to how women are treated in their own countries, these feminists seem to be denying the existence of any injustice towards women in Muslim countries. They simply seem to act like sisters participating in a ‘sworn to silence’ retreat at a convent. They may as well be denying the holocaust ever happened.

And why may that be? Well, for starters, the majority of these feminist liberals are Anti-American and everything America (and we in Canada) stand for. But unfortunately that in itself is not satisfying. So, if you’re going to be Anti-American, you have a lot more fun being pro-something. Again the majority of these feminists end up being pro those that are America’s enemies – and most recently, that has been a number of countries that, rightly or wrongly, seem to represent the Islamic world. If you’re going to be pro-Islamic, you can’t possibly be seen to be against what Islamic nations allow men to do to their women.

The problem is more complex, however, for the liberal feminist. How do you really balance: anti-Americanism and pro-Islamism, while at the same time desperately trying to hold on to the traditional trademark of a liberal feminist – the victimization of women. If the female victimization occurs as it is known to occur in Islamic countries, then feminists would need to face the fact that perhaps what goes on in western societies, yes with their capitalism and various degrees of imperialism, is not all that bad. And in fact, may indeed be, relatively speaking, a much better deal for women compared to what is going on in nations of Islam. We couldn’t have those kinds of admissions, now could we?

So what does Glazov think the liberal feminists are thinking? Well, it goes like this: Feminists believe it is better to let women suffer as we described above than to have to admit that western cultures are superior, having something to teach those anti-American nations.

But surely, these feminists have to accept the documented evidence of how women are treated in some Islamic nations? Glazov agrees, but he suggests that when faced with such evidence, liberal feminists then move to stage two of the self-deception process, that of ‘excuse’ or ‘men are violent towards women because the devil made them do it’. One example, according to Glazov goes something like this: leftist feminists admit that Palestinian men are abusive, but only because of the oppression and humiliation they experience under Israeli ‘occupation’”. My, wouldn’t Freud have liked that!

Taken one step further, men in Middle East societies who were ‘traumatized’ under some form of colonial rule in their past, have no choice but to traumatize their own women. Really now? I can think of several western countries (many parts of Europe during the two major world wars) and even one Middle Eastern one (Israel) that have suffered a lot of trauma who never ended up traumatizing their women. Sorry, blaming imperialism and western capitalism in some cases as the cause of female abuse just doesn’t cut it for me. But to the liberal feminists, it’s more important to oppose capitalism than to protest against what women are subject to in some eastern societies.

Glazov also points out a politically driven double standard. Liberal feminists argue that no one can really say what is right and wrong in a given culture when it comes to enforced veiling and ‘honor’ killings. But when it comes to how Hollywood objectifies the female body, they forget about the role of culture and depict such actions as immoral, emblematic of capitalism, patriarchal, heterosexist, and homophobic attempt to marginalize women to powerlessness. There may be an element of truth to that, but the hypocrisy in the two positions is unacceptable.

Is it possible that by essentially justifying the Islamic horror with respect to the treatment of women, liberal feminists are aligning themselves with the Taliban and others not just because they are anti-American and want to support America’s enemies, but because they secretly like what the Islamists are doing? Let me explain. They secretly like the burka because by forcing women to wear it, eastern men facilitate a liberal feminist’s belief that under no circumstances should men appreciate women’s bodies for their beauty or sexual appeal. Glazov suggests that is why many leftist feminists “de-feminize” and “de-beautify” themselves. The Taliban and others, by forcing women to cover up, are indeed helping the liberal feminists accomplish in eastern societies what they yearn for in their own western society. [Of course, they forget that even the Taliban have their women uncover in the privacy of their own home.] While the burka and other such enforcements are very helpful to the liberal feminist movement, is the cost involved, paid for by the women in eastern countries, really worth it?

I don't have the answer to the Middle East crisis, or to how we can make America and the West lovable again, or how to stop both economic exploitation of women in the West and physical abuse of women in the East. But as a Christian, I know many men and women who found Jesus's teachings on the man-woman and husband-wife issues most liberating, allowing both sexes to find fulfillment in their unique roles, together.

At least that’s the way I see it (with both Glazov’s and the Bible's help). Until next time, keeping on thinking.

p.s. Welcome to my new follower -- MichaelJoseph. I hope many check out your thoughts and your cause. I hope many others join you in following my blog.

p.p.s. you can follow me (code name: pappou) 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.

What A Man (or Woman) Wants from God

I had occasion recently to look at three separate portions of Scripture which I will call A (I Chronicles 4:10), B (2 Chronicles 7:13-18) and C (Matthew 7:7). They are reproduced for you below. Together they say a lot about us. In A, a man called Jabez calls on God to bless him and increase his material goods. He wants God's hand to be with him in whatever he pursues, so he will succeed. He also wants God's hand present for his safety and protection. In short, he wants to live without pain. And interestingly enough, God granted Jabez what he requested.

All we know about Jabez came from the previous verse (I Chronicles 4:9) which simply tells us "Jabez was more honorable than his brothers". Strong's Bible Dictionary, however, uses all the following interpretations of the word used here for honorable -- to be heavy, be weighty, be grievous, be hard, be rich, be honourable, be glorious, be burdensome, be honored. Not sure just which one applied to Jabez and why God granted his request so readily. What exactly may Jabez have been like to be so blessed? More importantly, what does it take to be successful in very difficult times that some of us are currently in? Some may be facing incredible personal challenges and difficulties. Others of us may be suffering collectively as a result of the economy. What does it take to succeed like Jabez in such times?

I believe that scripture portion B may give us a good idea as we listen to God speaking to Solomon, the son of David. God is basically telling Solomon what the secret of success, especially in adversity, is. But first let's talk about the adversity God refers to and compare that to what we may be going through. Here are God's examples:

1. drought (not having enough rain to grow crops to feed yourself and your family), or in today's lifestyle -- visiting the groceries stores to find nothing on the shelves -- that's adversity.
2. allowing locusts to eat up the land, so even if you had rain, nothing would grow, or in today's lifestyle -- allowing the immorality of man to destroy all that is good around us and within our families -- that's adversity.
3. pestilence (a fatal epidemic disease like the bubonic plague of old) to cripple or kill off your family, or in today's lifestyle -- Aids or Cancer or Mental Illness -- that's adversity.

God's formula for success will stand up to those levels of adversity and beyond. While some may be approaching that degree of adversity in their lives, the majority of us who believe we are suffering in North America today, are not playing anywhere near the same ballpark.

Now, here's the formula (even under extreme adversity -- which by the way, God Himself allows in order to deal with both the just and the unjust as they live their lives or for whatever personal reason He may choose -- for He IS God) -- here's the formula that will work for "His People" (condition number #1). We're talking about His people; those who know Him personally and have a personal relationship with Him. Yesterday, I was listening to a gospel song I had not heard before. It was about someone trying to enter heaven and finding out his name was not in the Book of Life. He argued he had been to Church, but admitted he had never knelt to pray. He had done some good things that he listed and felt his name should be there, but it wasn't. He had failed to accept Christ as personal Lord and Savior. In short, God was not able to include him in His "My People" that He refers to in passage B.

First comes the belonging to Him, then comes the obedience in four specific ways, for God says, if My People:
i. humble themselves (no more "I can do it myself; I know how to run a business; I know how to make money; I know how to succeed; I know how to get fit and healthy; etc."),
ii. pray (as a way of life, not as an obligation; continuously; believing He can; accepting if He doesn't wish to; but always giving Him the praise and glory regardless of His answer),
iii. seek My face (deeply searching to know Him and His will for us), and
iv. (the clincher) turn from their wicked ways (no exceptions; obedience to God has no loopholes).

First we qualify, then we follow the rules. Then He comes through. He's going to hear you; He's going to forgive you your sin; He's going to heal your own personal land. And we better be doing some of that praying right in our churches. I know a lot of discussion goes on about who and what the church is these days. And I agree it is not a physical building. But it is a physical body of believers. So some of that praying (or a lot of it) better be done in the communion of that body of believers because God specifically says in 2 Chronicles 7:16 that is He particularly tuned in to prayer that occurs in His House; because that's the place He has chosen and consecrated to be used to glorify His name forever. And besides, that's where His eyes and His heart are and will be. You can't avoid the Church -- both the universal Body of Christ and the local body of believers. Don't stay home on Sundays unless you're dying of illness. There's no excuse no matter what your mind comes up with.

Then God speaks to Solomon about Solomon. "Okay, I'll hear my people if they humble themselves, pray, seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways. But you Solomon (and that goes for each of us), you "walk before Me; you do according to all that I commanded you; and you keep my Laws, and I will establish your throne, Solomon!" Or, "I WILL increase your territory, Jabez. I WILL bless you Ken, Mary, Sally, Fred. That's a promise."

And that promise was carried right through to the New Testament when we check passage C. If we ask, it will be given to us; if we seek, we will find; and if we knock, it will be opened to us. But you see, it's all part and parcel of passage B. Passage A is what we want. Passage B is what God expects and promises. Passage C reconfirms the arrangement for the 21st century.

Passage A
1Ch 4:10 Now Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, "Oh that You would bless me indeed and enlarge my border, and that Your hand might be with me, and that You would keep {me} from harm that {it} may not pain me!" And God granted him what he requested.

Passage B
2Ch 7:13 "If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people,
2Ch 7:14 and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
2Ch 7:15 "Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer {offered} in this place.
2Ch 7:16 "For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that My name may be there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually.
2Ch 7:17 "As for you, if you walk before Me as your father David walked, even to do according to all that I have commanded you, and will keep My statutes and My ordinances,
2Ch 7:18 then I will establish your royal throne as I covenanted with your father David, saying, 'You shall not lack a man {to be} ruler in Israel.'

Passage C
Mat 7:7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

Discover for yourself, if you already do not know, that God is in the business of saving the lost and blessing the found.

You can follow Ken Godevenos 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.

Easter Season's Greetings

Do you ever wonder why we only send Season's Greetings at Christmas? I received no valid explanation when I asked that question of others. So, at this Easter Season, I send you Easter Greetings.

It is Good Friday. I just returned from walking through two local malls in a coastal resort city of South Carolina. Both in the malls and driving from where I was staying to them and back, I saw no evidence anywhere of what, or better still, Who gave us cause to celebrate Easter in the first place. Even the billboards in front of churches were low key. There is no doubt that we are moving into a new post-modern era. Christendom as we know it is quickly slipping away in North America. In fact, some call this the post-Christian era. Will Mancini, in his book, Church Unique, even goes so far as to suggest it is anti-Christian. As Christians we have squandered our earthly inheritance just like the prodigal son. Put another way, we have lost our influence. Easter means nothing more than bunnies and chocolate eggs. Even the Easter bonnets have disappeared in many places. Christian parents are struggling to focus their children on its true meaning.

Okay world, we admit it. We have failed. But please don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, we've done a lot of things we should not have, and we've failed to do things we should have done. We've pursued goals and objectives under the banner of the Church that had no place being associated with the Church. We've fought with each other in the Church and left a bad taste in the mouths of those that observed us from outside the church. Even, inside the Church, many who found themselves involved in the differences we never resolved, leaving them as 'unfinished business', were also disillusioned. Yet, to be fair, for many, we have been the means by which they were introduced to the God they sought and shown how to find peace with Him. In the name of Christ, various of our brothers and sisters have done much to help humanity. While I can give you hundreds of names of Christians over the decades that fit this category, I only need to mention one to get my point across -- Mother Teresa. Enough said.

But here's the rub. God does exist even if we don't choose to recognize Him. And furthermore, He has chosen the Church, with all its warts, as His official representative. So if we're not succeeding in our mission, it's not God's fault. It's our fault. He has no other plan to complete His personal mission for the world and He does not intend to go back to the drawing board. Some of us in the Body recognize that. We recognize that we need to change. And we're also doing all we can to change how the world views us. Chances are, however, that most of the world won't notice because we're not using a multi-billion dollar advertising campaign; we're not having major cosmetic surgery performed; we're not even changing many of our administrative leaders. No, instead, we're working as a group, yet very individually, to each become the man or woman we were intended to be. We are doing all we can to learn how we can live and proclaim Christ's gospel "in the world". We know that many of you won't come to the church anymore, so we need to "be the Church" outside the physical church building. In fact, we want as many of you as possible to start thinking of church not as "a place where some people go" but rather for what it was intended to be. We want the Church for you to be "what John, Janice, Tom, and Mary and all those who are truly Christ-followers in deed and in word, are." Not a place, but a group of people who are indeed different because of Christ's love being extended to others through them. When you can recognize that Church, whether you belong to it or not, we'll have achieved our goal. When you have voluntarily chosen to join us in our beliefs because of what you have seen as you observed our lives, then we can rejoice together that the Holy Spirit of God has done HIs work in you.

This small group of Christians, from all denominations and backgrounds, refers to itself as "the missional church". By that we mean that we are less interested in what we can do to reach more people for Christ than how we can be more like Christ in the world. If we stay true to our desire, you'll see many more of us moving away from a goal oriented strategy (i.e. doing things) to one that emphasizes 'being' more like Christ not so much in the church, but "in the world" where the rubber hits the road and where everyone is living life. We believe we will be of more earthly good there.

There is no guarantee that all of you will buy into what we are doing. Unfortunately, there will be many who will continue to ignore what they heard before, and even now, what they may see in the lives of missional Christians. We, for our part, will go on living as we believe we should. We'll leave your relationship with God between the two of you.

As you approach Easter Sunday, you have a choice. You can consider it an old holiday started by a bunch of fanatics that has now turned into just another marketing day for the sake of Wall Street. Or, you can investigate why that single day in history was so pivotal to the world for the last 2000 years and will once again, form the vary foundation on which the entire world and all humanity will be judged by the very God who sent His only Son to die as a sacrifice so that you and I may live forever. Either way, I wish you a Happy Easter!

You can follow Ken Godevenos 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.

Genesis 25:19-21 -- Isaac’s Family

Genesis 25:19-21: Now these are the records of the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham became the father of Isaac; and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Syrian, to be his wife. And Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord answered him and Rebekah his wife conceived.

At this point Isaac’s family tree seems to be shorter than Ishmael’s. To our chronological chart we can now add the year of Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah, when he was 40 years old:

• 3271 Abraham was 100 when Sarah bore Isaac to him (Gen. 21:5)
• 3308 Isaac was 37 years old when Sarah died (3271 plus 37)
• 3311 Isaac, at age 40, marries Rebekah (Genesis 25:20)
• 3346 Abraham died at age 175 (Genesis 25:7,8)
• 3394 The death of Ishmael (based on his birth in 3257 and now Genesis 25:17)

Whereas one would have thought that people married very young in the past compared to now, that was not always the case. Isaac was a full 40 years old when he married. When one is waiting for God’s chosen mate for him- or her- self, sometimes one needs to wait a relatively long time. However, as all who wait on the Lord have found out, the wait for His chosen mate for them is well worth it. If you do not readily agree with that statement, maybe the premise “that it was indeed His chosen mate for you” was not the fact in your case.

Our chronological chart also tells us that Abraham lived another 35 years after Isaac married Rebekah. Long enough to have enjoyed grandchildren through both Ishmael and Isaac. Reminiscent of his mother Sarah’s story and her barrenness, Isaac now finds himself praying to the Lord for his own wife, Rebekah, asking Him to help her conceive, as she too was barren. Scripture very simply just tells that “the Lord answered him and his wife conceived”.

As I consider those few words uttered as simply a “matter of fact”, I stop and wonder whether things have really changed between the period of Isaac’s life and now. Can we still pray to God on someone’s behalf? Can God still answer? Can the thing we prayed for simply come to pass? And the answers always come back in the affirmative. God is still the same. We still have access to Him through prayer. He is still involved in our lives and He still works both within and beyond the natural. I believe what makes the difference between prayer answered along our line of request and prayer answered differently (for God always answers prayer – sometimes with a ‘yes’, sometimes with a ‘no’, sometimes with a ‘later’, and oftentimes with a ‘better’), is whether or not what we are asking for is in His will for our lives or the lives of those on who’s behalf we are praying. In fact, I have come to discover that the real purpose of prayer is to glory God and to have His magnificence manifested to us and to others through our lives. It is not primarily to gain outcomes that we desire, although those may well come in the bargain. C.S. Lewis once suggested that God answers prayer in one of two ways, either “Yes” or “God’s grace is sufficient!” How true.

Follow Ken Godevenos 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.

Genesis 25:11-18 -- Ishmael's Family

Genesis 25:11-18: And it came about after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac lived by Beer-lahai-roi. Now these are {the records of} the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's maid, bore to Abraham; and these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the firstborn of Ishmael, and Kedar and Adbeel and Mibsam and Mishma and Dumah and Massa, Hadad and Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages, and by their camps; twelve princes according to their tribes. These are the years of the life of Ishmael, one hundred and thirty-seven years; and he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people. They settled from Havilah to Shur which is east of Egypt as one goes toward Assyria; he settled in defiance of all his relatives.

Volume I ended at Genesis 25:10 with the death of Abraham. As we begin Volume II we are informed that after Abraham’s death, God blessed his son Isaac or perhaps continued to bless Isaac. What a delight that must be for a parent? And what does that look like in today’s world?

To begin with, the God we believe in cares for our family. His relationship may be strongest with us, but He, partly, but not exclusively, because of that relationship, He also cares for those that we cherish and love. And that care goes on after we’re gone from this earth. That is a benefit for the Christian. Genesis 25:11 is the first clear evidence of that in scripture.

So what does that look like for us today? For starters, it is not about fame and riches. It is not about prestigious positions in big companies, or fancy houses, or multiple luxury cars. It is not about having money to travel the world in Executive Class. No, for in fact as I pen these words, I think of one of my beloved children. At this very point in time, he is once again between jobs, separated from his wife of two years, and living in a very small basement apartment. Yet he is walking with the Lord, volunteering at his church, enjoying friends, is in good health and excellent spirits. He is pursuing journalism classes and with his wife, working on their relationship to see if they can get back together. His finances are limited to whatever small writing assignments he can get and he’s doing a great job of writing when he does get work. I believe God is very much interested in him. Perhaps to teach him more lessons that he has not yet learned. For me, that is blessing enough and I thank God for it.

The text records that Ishmael, Abraham’s eldest son through Hagar, the Egyptian handmaid of his wife, Sarai, had twelve sons. Each one set up their own village or town that was likely protected as one or more campsites of many tents. This was typical of Nomadic tribes at the time and each of Ishmael’s sons was the chief or prince of their village people or tribe.

With the knowledge of the fact that Ishmael died after living 137 years, we can now return to our chronological table that we started in Volume I of the series. As shown by the first three, the birth of Ishmael, and the last three entries we made in Volume I reproduced below, we are keeping track of the number of years since Adam was created (that year being designated as ‘year 0’). To these we now add Ishmael’s death according to Scripture.

• 0 Adam created (Genesis 1:27)
• 130 Seth born to Adam (Genesis 5:3)
• 235 Enosh born to Seth (Seth was 135 years old) (Genesis 5:6)
• . . . .
• 3257 Abraham was 86 when Hagar bore Ishmael to him (Gen. 16:16)
• . . . .
• 3271 Abraham was 100 when Sarah bore Isaac to him (Gen. 21:5)
• 3308 Isaac was 37 years old when Sarah died (3271 plus 37)
• 3346 Abraham died at age 175 (Genesis 25:7,8)

Now we can add the following:

• 3394 The death of Ishmael (based on his birth in 3257 and now Genesis 25:17)

Scripture tells us that the sons of Ishmael settled from Havilah to Shur. Havilah is first mentioned in Genesis 2:11 when the text identifies the various lands that the rivers flowing out of Eden went through. Havilah was on the river Pison. In Genesis 10, Havilah is the name of a great-grandson (vs. 7) and a great-great-great-great-great-grandson (vs. 29) of Noah. (I continue to be amazed at the details that God had arranged to be passed on to the author of Genesis so many years later.) Havilah as a place was part of the old Persia, the new Iran, and likely closer to India or at least that part that today is Pakistan.

But more interesting than the exact location is the fact that the Bible specifies that Ishmael and his families settled there in “defiance of all his relatives”. The King James Version uses the words “in the presence” of his brethren (or relatives). Several other versions however seem to indicate the Hebrew word used implied more than that as hinted at in the New American Standard Bible we are using. The consensus is that he settled facing, or opposite, or away from his brothers or relatives. This may well be in keeping with the prophecy that angel gave to Hagar when she was pregnant with him. In Genesis 16:12 we read, “And he will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers.” Certainly these verses here are evidence that he flourished and stood out among his brothers, holding his own. Still, there is no record here that he was weary of the world when he died or willing to leave it as Abraham, his father, was.

On the other hand, Ishamael did live 137 years which demonstrates how God listened to Abraham’s prayer for him in Genesis 17:18 when he pleaded, “Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!”

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 First 3,346 Years

At Genesis 25:10, we come to the end of the world’s first 3,346 years since God created it. Man and woman enter the picture and are given benefits beyond belief as well as a pleasant responsibility to take care of the earth. However, through the deception of the serpent Satan, they are encouraged to disobey and contravene what God had asked of them for their own good. This disobedience introduced sin into the world and with it, the fall of mankind. Adam and Eve are evicted from the Garden of Eden and life became very difficult for them.

One of their sons murders his brother and the corruption of mankind continued to slide so much that God wanted to start all over again. To do so, He had to destroy every living thing through a flood. Only Noah and his family were spared, along with the animals God had instructed Noah to take into an ark that he had build to God’s specifications.

God then promised that He would never again destroy the world in that way. Abram comes into the scene and God selects him to be the Father of God’s chosen people, the Israelites through which God was going to bless all of mankind. From Genesis chapter 16 to the early parts of chapter 25, we followed the story of Abram, how his named was changed to Abraham, and finally having a son, Isaac, through his wife Sarah, formally called Sarai. Prior to Isaac’s born, Sarai, being anxious to give Abram a male heir, gives him her Egyptian maid, Hagar, who bears him Ishmael. Sarai then requests that Hagar and Ishmael be sent away. God pursues His own plan and the promise He made to Abraham in spite of the assistance that Sarah and he were trying to give Him. Eventually Sarah dies, Isaac marries Rebekah, Abraham takes another wife named Keturah who bears him six sons, and eventually the Patriarch Abraham dies at age 175.

But the foundation has been set for a great people to rise up through which God would bless all mankind. The story may have begun with Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, and Isaac, but it continues to this very day with you and me, and those that may well come after us. We are just as much a part of this story as the characters we read about and studied. The exact role we are to play is a function of our faith in, and relationship with, the God who created Adam and was a Friend of Abraham’s.

Living in the 21st however, we, however, have the benefit of being involved with more of the triune God than Adam or Abraham were. We have been ransomed by the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, and being guided every day of our lives by the Holy Spirit of the Almighty.

As we close this volume, I hope you will join me, as God may permit both of us, on the next journey of this incredible story starting some 3,346 years after creation.

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

Churches Need Miracle

“Churches Need Miracle”

That was a headline in the Toronto Star on February 28, 2009 in particular reference to the churches in Canada’s province of Quebec. The story by Andrwew Chung goes on to talk about extremely low attendance, dismal offerings that won’t even pay the heat, and the resulting need to put beautiful church structures up for sale in a market where no one is buying. With no takers in sight, some churches end up being barricaded.

Quebec, that bastion of French culture in Canada, may be somewhat an extreme example of what is happening across North America and perhaps even in Europe where Christianity has been around for centuries. In Quebec, Chung reports that fewer than 10% of the population actually attends mass.

Let’s focus on two comments made in relation to all of this. First, Gerald Baril, spokesperson for the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Canada is quoted as saying, “People don’t care much about spirituality and don’t care much about the church.” Second, Louis-Philippe Desrosiers, who’s in charge of selling churches for Montreal’s parishes is quoted as saying, “Well, remember that the majority of people in the parishes nowadays are in their sixties to eighties…. People are not interested in the life of their souls anymore.”

Let me react. Both of these gentlemen seem to be placing the blame for the demise of the church on its congregants. The first says people don’t care about spirituality or the church and the second says they’re not interested in what happens to their souls. I believe they’re wrong on several counts. They’re wrong because they’re assigning responsibility to the former attendees rather than to church leaders. People have not changed since Christ ministered among us in person. He drew them by the thousands and his disciples did so after him. I suggest that we start looking at how church leaders and the organized church has brought about its own demise. We don’t have to look far. Start with the residential school issues, then go to the child abuse issues, then go to the misuse of funds, inappropriate relationships among clergy, and so forth. Look at the abandoning of widows and orphans, and the hypocrisy within some of the structured church bodies today. In the evangelical world, more and more churches are abandoning the larger denominations and becoming independent. The reason for that may lie in some of the things we listed above, coupled with the organized church’s unwillingness to change quickly enough with the times. [And I am certainly not advocating changing the Message of the Gospel, only the means by which it is delivered meaningfully in today’s culture. God is God is of all times and generations.]

Second, I think these men are wrong in saying that people no longer care about spirituality or what happens to their souls. Just witness the ever-increasing bookshelf space available in bookstores for ‘spirituality’. Or, study the ever-increasing number of people trying desperately to ensure their immortality.

Third, I believe that while Desrosiers may be correct in saying only older people sit in the pews these days, his church leaders are wrong in not calling for a massive change in the way things are done. Changes are needed that will attract and encourage youth to become church participants. [For one example of this see Youth.]

The Church as a whole entity cannot and will not die. It is Christ’s Body and He will accomplish what He set out to do. We can either be part of that or we can watch the particular local arm of that Body we belong to suffer as we’re watching so many do in both the Protestant and Catholic faiths. We can get involved in bringing about positive change or we can sit on the sidelines and say, “what a shame!” while people and especially youth run to all the wrong sources to get their spiritual needs met.

At least that’s the way I see it. You may choose to differ.

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

Pope, Pelosi, Abortion, Politics

One of my favorite newspapers, the Arizona Republic (AR), published a "news briefing" on February 19 entitled "Pope urges Pelosi to reject support of abortion rights". Apparently, when Pope Benedict XVI met recently with Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic U.S. House speaker, he, according to the AR, told Pelosi, a Roman Catholic and an abortion-rights advocate, that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development."

I find it amazing how people can identify themselves with a particular faith and not hold to some of the basic tenets of that faith. Is being a Roman Catholic for such a person simply something they do out of "family tradition" or perhaps out of political expediency? Why would such a person want to meet with the Pope and take the risk of being told they weren't being a good Catholic? Do the pro-Democrat, anti-abortion people of America really care that Pelosi is an abortion-rights advocate? Do the abortion-rights advocates really care what the Pope thinks? Would someone like Pelosi even seriously consider the request of her spiritual leader when the political risks are so high?

Here's my point. The answers one is likely to give to all these, and other similar questions, just point to the fact that somewhere along the line, we have lost the ability to think straight about some key matters because we have lost our desire to adhere to some absolutes.

For starters, even if we believe there is a God (which I do), we do not find it necessary to accept what He is likely to say about certain things, especially if it does not fit in with our own desires or goals. Secondly, organized religion for many has become more of a membership club than a collective means of worshiping and serving the Creator. Thirdly, personal faith has become just that to a lot of people -- that is, it's so 'personal' that they themselves stipulate all the ground rules of the very 'faith' they choose to have. For example, "I'll be a Christian, but I won't accept the tenets of Christianity concerning the virgin birth, the sanctity of life, total dependence on God, and the Great Commission, etc."

What does all this mean for the true Christian? The way I see it is simply this: I have to realize that unless a politician stands up for and personally adheres to the teaching of his or her faith, especially those claiming to be Christians, whether Roman Catholic or otherwise, then I must discard as completely irrelevant anything they say about their faith and possibly most of what they say outside matters of faith.

At least that's the way I see it. What do you think?

(you can now Twitter me by going to 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.

You Can Now Follow Me on Twitter

Hello readers -- you can now follow me on Twitter.com -- search it for Ken Godevenos and happy trailing.

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.