Archive for the ‘opinion’ Category

Don’t Say Jesus

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Should courts control the content of your public prayer?

by Jim Ray

When government gets involved in deciding what should be said in a prayer, you can be sure that individual freedoms are in jeopardy. The prophet Daniel found himself in the company of hungry lions after failing to follow official protocol in his prayer routine. And Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, authored a helpful guide entitled the Book of Common Prayer. Many people appreciated the volume, but the Queen, Mary I, didn’t. In fact, she disliked it so much she had Cranmer burned at the stake.

Unfortunately, government meddling in the prayer lives of its citizens didn’t disappear in the middle ages with the bubonic plague. A recent ruling of the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals lays down the law with respect to what may or may not be said in prayers in certain places.

And the judges’ decision can be boiled down to this simple order: you may pray if you wish, but whatever you do…don’t say Jesus.

The court case was brought against Forsyth County, North Carolina by three individuals who claimed they were made uncomfortable by the Board of Commissioners’ practice of allowing clergy to begin meetings with prayer. The Board has for many years invited local religious leaders – of any and every stripe – to deliver an invocation. As the Court acknowledged, “No eligible congregation was excluded,” and the invitation was issued to religious leaders of all established local congregations in the community, regardless of denomination or faith.

And furthermore, just to be on the safe side, the Board of Commissioners created an official policy clarifying that prayer was not “a part of the public business,” that nobody “shall be required to participate in any prayer that is offered,” and that the opportunity to pray would be granted on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.

But the problem, in the view of the district court, was that too many people were referencing “specific tenets of Christianity” and praying in Jesus’ name – what the court called “sectarian invocations.” In short, it didn’t matter that leaders of other faiths freely mentioned Allah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Mohammad, or the Heavenly Father in their prayers. The court decided that references to Jesus Christ were just too frequent.

This is not surprising, given that the vast majority of the houses of worship in Forsyth County are Christian, but the court nevertheless said that too much mention of Jesus “runs afoul of the promise of public neutrality” as required by the First Amendment.

The solution, the court said, is simple. Prayers may continue if the person permitted to pray will promise to “embrace a non-sectarian ideal. That ideal is simply this: that those of different creeds are in the end kindred spirits, united by a respect paid higher providence and by a belief in the importance of religious faith.”

Federal Judge Paul V. Niemeyer dissented from the majority opinion of the three-judge panel. “The majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer – the sacred dialogue between humankind and God,” he wrote. “Most frightfully, it will require secular legislative and judicial bodies to evaluate and parse particular religious prayers under an array of criteria identified by the majority.”

What happens from here? In January, the United States Supreme Court refused to review the district court’s decision, which means that it cannot be overturned, at least for now. Gleeful representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union are already at work to see that this decision is enforced across the nation, and will also be sending a bill for $200,000 to Forsyth County for its attorney fees incurred in the case.

In the meantime, Christians who have the opportunity to pray in public settings will have to choose whether they will follow the instructions of the Fourth Circuit…or the instructions in the fourteenth book of John. In verses 13 and 14, Jesus says this: “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

Like the prophet Daniel and Thomas Cranmer – and countless other saints of the past who were told by others how they should pray – you have a decision to make.

Jim Ray is a writer and marketing specialist who currently serves as Estate Gift Representative with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. He also serves on the advisory board for Street 2 Street, a New York-based charity ministering to inner-city youth through the vehicle of sports. Jim and his wife Stacey have two children and reside in Nashville, TN.

Posted in opinion |

Who Would Jesus Elect?

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

His criteria to decipher the spiritual sound bytes

by James N. Watkins

As I listen to the 2012 presidential candidate’s fiery speeches, I’m not always sure if I’m at a political campaign rally or an old-fashioned tent revival. It seems that every candidate has seen the light and walked the sawdust trail to electoral salvation.

Candidates professing their faith in God is nothing new. Sociologist Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, notes, “Since [President] Carter’s 1976 profession that he is born again, voters have expected a faith narrative. More and more candidates are going to find out that Americans are going to want them to say something about their faith and how that affects their life.”

Question is, how will what they say affect your vote? Even more, what criteria would Jesus Christ use if He were a voting American today?

The candidate’s faith dialogue

Newt Gingrich was raised in the Lutheran tradition, but was baptized in a Baptist church while a graduate student at Tulane University. Recently, Gingrich joined a Roman Catholic church in D.C. where his wife sings in the choir. The former speaker of the House told the Cathedral of Praise in North Charleston, “I don’t come here today as a perfect person. I don’t come here today without baggage.”

Texas Senator Ron Paul writes on his official website, “My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

Texan Governor Rick Perry, arguably the most outspoken evangelical, recently told a crowd, “At age 14, I walked down that aisle and gave my heart to Jesus Christ.” Mitt Romney, a high-ranking Mormon and former governor of Massachusetts, is running an ad called “Shared Values” in which he argues his common ground with evangelicals: “Today, Christian conservatives are supporting Mitt Romney because he shares their values: the sanctity of life, the sacredness of marriage and the importance of the family.”

Rick Santorum, Roman Catholic and former Pennsylvania senator, actually aligns more closely with evangelicals on social issues than his fellow American Catholics. Over half of Catholics (52 percent) support same-sex unions, while only 19 percent of evangelicals do. He also has evangelical support for his strong pro-life stance.

Meanwhile, in the other column of the November ballot, President Barack Obama told the National Prayer Breakfast last year, “My Christian faith has been sustaining for me over the last couple of years and even more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time. We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but that we are true to our conscience and true to our God.”

WWJE: Who would Jesus elect?

It’s not an easy question, but here are criteria He would likely employ:

First, Jesus warns, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matthew 15:8). Not every candidate who claims to be a Christian may be living out biblical teachings.

Second, Jesus would warn against those who parade their faith for personal – and political – gain. “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)

Third, Jesus would ask, “What’s your record on issues that are important to Me?” “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” (Matthew 25:35-36)

And, fourth, Jesus would probably evaluate how the candidates are treating each other on the campaign trail based on that “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” command (Matthew 5:44).

So don’t support someone simply because the person mouths the right spiritual sound bytes. Rather, follow Christ’s warning as you evaluate the candidates: “Be wise as serpents.” (Matthew 10:16)

James Watkins is a humorist and author and contributor to 24 books and over 2,000 articles on social and spiritual issues.

Posted in opinion |

Faith, Hope, Votes

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Iowa result shatters evangelical stereotype

by Dave Ficere

“Evangelical voters, it turns out, are a more sophisticated bunch, judging candidates on a broad continuum of considerations from their personal faith and character to leadership attributes and electability.” – Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition Executive Director

More than 60 percent of those who call themselves evangelicals voted for either a Roman Catholic or a Mormon in the recent Iowa Caucuses. The combined votes cast for Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum along with Mormon Mitt Romney exploded the popular media myth that characterizes the evangelical faction as a giant monolith looking for the “right” candidate.

Truth be told, the results of the January 3 vote showed evangelical voters are paying close attention to so-called “values issues” such as abortion and marriage. These voters also aren’t being wooed by “Christian talk” as they consider who should be the Republican nominee for president.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed after the Iowa balloting, Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land called Santorum “the truest of true social conservatives” and described the former Pennsylvania Senator’s near win as a sign the religious right is “alive and flourishing.”

Reed says evangelicals have matured in their voting choices, evaluating the positions of candidates on a variety of issues, and not just supporting those who quote Scripture and use Christian buzz phrases.

Luis Cataldo, director of The Response prayer movement, says he was encouraged by Santorum’s second place performance in the Iowa caucus, crediting his surprisingly strong showing to the former senator’s consistent message. “He continues to engage abortion, marriage and life in the debate,” Cataldo said.

Santorum, a devout Catholic who has been outspoken about his pro-life views, touts his experience fighting partial-birth abortion and ushering in welfare reform during his time in Congress. Prior to the January 3 vote, he was languishing near the bottom of the national polls, but finished just eight votes behind winner Mitt Romney.

In a television interview, Reed told CNN the evangelical vote historically has never been monolithic. Pat Robertson, Reed says, won strong support from “religious” voters in Iowa in 1988, vaulting him to national prominence. However, Robertson still lost the Iowa Caucuses to Bob Dole as well as the evangelical vote in South Carolina to George H.W. Bush.

Similarly, George W. Bush won one-third of the evangelical vote in Iowa in 2000 but split that vote with Steve Forbes and much more socially conservative candidates Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes.

While social issues remain important in 2012, a CNN entrance poll taken at the Iowa Caucuses found 42 percent of attendees listed the economy as the number one issue determining their vote. Another 34 percent cited the budget deficit but only 14 percent listed abortion as their most important concern.

As Kimberly Strassel recently observed in The Wall Street Journal, the poll suggests evangelicals, like many Americans, are motivated by a wide range of concerns, including jobs, taxes, the debt and national security, as well as social issues.

So what should you make of the voting process as it relates to “values issues” and evangelicals? Ralph Reed has an answer: “So when commentators prognosticate about the ‘evangelical vote,’ we might want to ask them, ‘Which one?’ For there are many evangelical votes, many candidates who win their support, and a multitude of motivations for their engagement in the rough-and-tumble of American politics.”

This, Reed says, is all for the good because it demonstrates that the civic involvement of evangelicals is “a cause for celebration, not alarm; a sign of the health of our political system, not that it suffers from an anti-democratic or sectarian impulse.”

In the days leading up to your state’s primary and the November presidential election:

Continue educating yourself about the issues facing the United States and the Republican candidate’s positions on those issues.
While the focus of the presidential election process until November will be on the Republican candidates, Democrats offer four more years of President Obama. Continue to examine his positions and leadership on issues that matter to you.
Ask yourself who will best lead America through 2016: President Obama or a Republican or Independent candidate, and pray that God will guide you in making your choice in November’s 2012 presidential sweepstakes.

Dave Ficere’s articles and writing have been featured in a wide array of media including radio promotions, devotional publications, websites, magazines and newsletters. Dave is married to Patt and works and lives in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ.

Posted in opinion |

Military Divorce Rates Rise… Again

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

Troops preserve national security, but many struggle at home

by Nikolas Grosfield

War always produces casualties beyond the battlefield. Seclusion, drunkenness, unemployment, suicide and – infamous in the past 10 years – post-traumatic stress disorder have all devastated soldiers and their families alike. Less public, but likewise tragic, are the many broken homes in the military.

As the middle son of two divorcees, it is terrible to read about the rising divorce rate among U.S. military personnel. In 2011, about 30,000 marriages ended where at least one spouse was serving in the military. This number represents 3.7 percent of all military marriages, and it is the highest rate in 12 years. By contrast, 3.5 percent of all civilian marriages in America ended in 2011.

The Air Force had worst divorce rate while enlisted women in all branches suffered the most divorces, almost 10 percent, far outpacing enlisted men or commissioned husbands or wives. Age can play a role, too, with more divorces among those in their teens and early twenties. Statistics such as these can be traced to a plethora of causes – some obvious, others less so.

Root issues

Much of contemporary American culture lends itself poorly toward strong and lasting marriages. Pornography, television, pre- and extra-marital sex, and no-fault divorce laws in most states have badly damaged the institution of marriage in military settings, no less than in civilian ones.

Perhaps one little-known yet grievous consequence of this culture is the readily available online legal “support” for divorce. Browsing some of these websites makes for a grim evening activity. It is easy to find charming links like “Download Divorce Pack” or “Get Divorced Online.”

One team of military divorce lawyers in Texas, John H. Carney & Associates, cite this quote on its home page: “Too many lawyers have forgotten that the main purpose of the legal profession is to serve the public interest.” Yet the entire website is devoted to individuals getting the most out of their divorce, without a word of compassion or a hint of hope for anyone’s marriage. (Besides, preserving marriages would mean fewer clients.)

Crises in military marriages also arise from long periods of separation – typically due to multiple deployments. According to Army Chaplain Carleton Birch, “As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan draw down, we’re going to put more families together who haven’t been used to being together.” Both spouses change during a deployment, and sometimes those changes are not communicated well when they are reunited. If those changes involve combat, financial struggles, insufficient re-entry preparations, or extra-marital relationships, the chances for successful marriages decrease.

Air Force Master Sergeant Todd Gaff has been deployed 13 times since 2001. His wife Valerie shares, “We had to renegotiate our roles, routines and relationship…I was totally in charge and fully responsible for our children and household. When he returned, it was hard to let go of some of those roles. It was also scary getting reacquainted.”

Key solutions

The military has an interest in preserving the marriages of its servicemen and women. Problems at home can weaken morale, which can retard performance on the job or even on the battlefield. Each branch of the U.S. military has various programs to help couples work through their issues. Chaplains are often at the forefront of these efforts.

U.S. Army Reserve Colonel David Ragusa notes a 2010 study which recommends that veterans should not be sent home immediately following a deployment. They may need some “R and R” in order to process some of their experiences. Dennis Rainey, president and founder of Family Life, a nonprofit organization that focuses on marriage and parenting issues, says that returning soldiers need to work hard in “the first 90 days” to establish good habits and communication at home.

Many solutions lie with the spouses. In Kentucky, a nondenominational group of military wives started an organization called Lantern, in which women gather in small groups to study the Bible and how it applies to modern military marriage issues. Those involved consider their connection with each other to be very important, since less than one percent of Americans are in the military.

Finally, prayer is always one of the greatest weapons against failing military marriages. Families and churches alike should participate in this genuinely patriotic duty. If a veteran’s struggles do not end after his deployment, then a praying American’s compassion should not end there, either.

Nikolas Grosfield edits media reports on U.S. foreign policy and national security. He has a B.A. in History from Cedarville University in Ohio. A columnist from Montana, he has published over 50 articles. He and his bride currently reside in the Middle East.

Posted in opinion |

The Cosmological Constant Scientists Can’t See

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

What the God Particle means for Christians

by Jim Ray

“We are in the position,” Albert Einstein once told an interviewer, “of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is.”

Einstein was referring to scientists’ understanding of the universe – and the need for a modicum of humility in approaching a subject filled with complexity beyond the complete understanding of man. But now some scientists believe we are closer than ever to discovering exactly how the universe works, thanks to new developments in the search for the missing link of physics – otherwise known as the “God Particle.”

The first thing to understand about the “God Particle” is that scientists don’t want you calling it by that name. They prefer to call it the “Higgs boson” and worry that the moniker favored by journalists, which invokes a Higher Power, is misleading and inappropriate.

The excitement involves new experiments made possible by the Large Hadron Collider, a mammoth underground apparatus in Europe with a 17-mile circumference that allows scientists to smash particles together at near light speed. Many Americans may recall that a similar project was planned in Texas some years ago. The Superconducting Super Collider was slated to be even larger than the European model, and Congress was told that it would cost $4.4 billion. However, the government pulled the plug on the project when it was badly mismanaged and cost estimates swelled beyond $12 billion.

The Europeans, though, have their supercollider in operation, and they believe they are on the cusp of uncovering a great secret of how the universe came to be. What they are seeking to prove is the existence of a sub-atomic particle that gave mass and energy to matter. They believe it would help explain how the Big Bang occurred and provide the “missing link” in this area of evolutionary theory. Last month the scientists announced with great fanfare that they have found signs of the elusive Higgs boson, but need another year of experimentation before they can reach definitive conclusions.

What does the so-called God Particle – assuming it exists and is identified – say about creation and God’s handiwork? It depends on who you ask. Providing a typical response, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas-Austin says that “as science explains more and more, there is less and less need for religious explanations.”

Many Christians, however, believe it simply would provide new insight into how God created and upholds the universe today. And Vern S. Poythress, Ph.D, of Westminster Theological Seminary says that while the God Particle would be an exciting discovery in the highly specialized field of particle physics, it also would say something about the age-old issue of human pride and hubris. “Physicists…like to get ‘to the bottom’ in understanding the physical character of the smallest particles, and…getting to the bottom gives scientists the feeling that they have achieved a God-like knowledge.”

One thing that’s clear is that many atheistic scientists today operate with nothing of the humility that characterized Albert Einstein’s work and thoughts. Although he was not a Christian believer, Einstein was far from an atheist and “displayed a profound faith in the orderliness of the universe,” wrote the biographer Walter Isaacson, and he saw the universe as “marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws.”

Whether or not scientists establish the existence of Higgs boson, there will always be a missing link for those who reject the Creator. Einstein once coined a term to help explain his theory of a static universe: he called it the cosmological constant. Like all things scientific, the theory has been introduced…subsequently rejected…then reconsidered…and still debated.

But the Cosmological Constant of Scripture has always been and always will be this: “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16) Pray that this will be revealed and confirmed in America, to His glory!

Posted in opinion |

A City on a Hill

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

America’s biggest challenges of 2011

by Dave Ficere

America faced a variety of challenges in 2011, both foreign and domestic, but none larger than jobs and the economy.

According to a poll conducted by the Libertarian-leaning Reason Magazine, the top three categories of concern among those surveyed were jobs, the economy and debt/spending. Fifty-six-percent of participants named one of those three categories as the major problem facing the United States…giving you much to pray about as you approach the advent of a New Year.

Over the past year, Americans continued asking, “Where are the jobs?” and the economy will be the driving issue in the 2012 presidential election. Despite November’s drop in the unemployment rate to 8.6 percent, unemployment for most of 2011 hovered close to nine percent; meaning more than 13 million Americans are out of work. In addition, the government’s Bureau of Labor statistics reports another 2.6 million Americans are unemployed but have given up looking for work.

Americans are also concerned about runaway government spending and the huge $15 trillion deficit. The U.S. government borrows about 42 cents of every dollar it spends and the debt has increased by more than $1 trillion in each of the last three fiscal years. That $15 trillion hole amounts to $40,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

The poor economy and Washington’s apparent inability to tackle tough issues leads to another challenge facing America. Eleven percent of those polled in the Reason public opinion survey cited political discord and/or government as a big problem. They see America as sharply divided along political lines, leading to doubt and cynicism that any political leader can solve or is even willing to tackle the country’s toughest problems.

About four percent say big government is the most pressing problem America faces. That includes government intrusion into health care, business and even what type of light bulbs Americans should buy. An increasing number of citizens want less government and more of the self-determination they believe this country was founded upon.

Surprisingly, terrorism wasn’t mentioned at all in the survey, although war was. Perhaps in the ten years since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the nation has forgotten about the terror threat and subsequent plots that have been foiled by those who keep diligent watch over America. Sadly, it would probably take another 9/11 type attack to vault terrorism to the top of the list again.

To summarize, the top problems facing the U.S. in 2011 were:

The economy, jobs and unemployment
The nation’s deficit and out-of-control spending
Division (politically) and cynicism about leaders
Overly intrusive government

How can you pray about these issues as you head into 2012?

Prayer for the nation’s leaders is the key to righting the American ship – and a good place to start is on this website. Each week, the Presidential Prayer Team suggests key legislative and judicial leaders, government officials and members of the military to pray for. Ask God to give them wisdom in the decisions they make that affect all Americans.

Pray, too, that the president and Congress will come together and make hard choices about the economy, jobs and unemployment as well as the nation’s deficit. As Americans watch them work together, it’s possible much of the nation’s cynicism will disappear.

Finally, Jesus spoke of a “city on a hill,” a phrase quoted by two presidents: Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Ronald Reagan.

In 1961, Kennedy said:

“We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us – and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill – constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”

Reagan summed it up in his January 11, 1989 farewell speech to the nation:

“I’ve spoken of the shining city. It was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Pray that America may once again become that tall, shining city on a hill.

Posted in opinion |

We Wish You a PC Christmas

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

It’s not what you think

by James N. Watkins

I have in my right hand, direct from my home office in the frozen wasteland of northern Indiana, the “Top Ten Politically-Correct Christmas – excuse me – Holiday Days.”

10. Chestnuts Roasting on an Environmentally-friendly Fuel Source
9. Rudolph, the Endangered and Exploited Specie
8. We Three Politically Oppressive Patriarchs
7. Rocking Around the Recycled, Flame-Retardant, Artificial Holiday Tree
6. All I Want For Christmas is a Dental Plan
5. Frosty the Snowperson
4. I Saw Mommy Suing Santa Claus for Sexual Harassment
3. I’m Dreaming of a Racially Diverse Christmas
2. I’ll Be Home for Ramadan
1. We Wish You a Non-sectarian Holiday

Yep, political correctness has wheedled its way into the celebration of Christmas – excuse me again – non-sectarian gift-buying winter solstice.

At the risk of coming across as The Grinch, Ebenezer Scrooge and Henry Potter all gift-wrapped into one big “Humbug,” I’d like to propose putting some P.C. in our Christmas celebration. And before you cancel your subscription, let me change the meaning of P.C. to “Purposeful Concession.” God Himself made some purposeful concessions on the first Christmas morning.

Paul writes in Philippians 2: “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Christmas is about incredible concessions to communicate God’s love and to redeem His beloved. My favorite purposeful concessions statement is Colossians 4: “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Colossians 4:5-6)

Be wise

Let’s face it, “Burn the Koran Day” and the “God Hates [Fill in the Blank]” campaigns were not the wisest strategies to win the hearts and minds of the nation. Glorifying God through good deeds, championed by such groups as the Salvation Army, is not only more biblical but more effective.

Make the best use of time

What is a need that believers can meet and, in so doing, be a witness for Christ? For instance, there are now more Crisis Pregnancy Centers than abortion clinics in America. And the majority of compassionate ministries to HIV/AIDS patients have come through Christian groups. And how can Christians use local or national events to provide an opportunity to share a biblical worldview with the community?

Be full of grace

I spent 15 years writing a column in three secular newspapers that dealt with the moral and political issues in America. As I wrote each essay, my question was always: “Will what I write draw people closer to Jesus or drive them farther away?”

After writing a piece on why God is bent out of shape by homosexuality, I received an email: “First, I want you to know that I’m an atheist and gay. But if there is a God, I want Him to be the kind you described.” Sometimes I get it right.

Be winsome

Your letters to the editor, speeches at town hall meetings, and petitions to politicians need to be seasoned with salt. They need to create a thirst for what you have to share. (Notice how my top ten list drew you in.) Engaging and entertaining as well as educated.

While God was willing to make purposeful concessions, He did not compromise His message. Okay, the hand-writing on the wall thing wasn’t that effective, so let’s try writing in the sand. The razzle-dazzle, Cecil B. DeMille miracles didn’t have the desired result, so let’s try turning water into wine at a wedding. And slaughtering lambs and bulls never had a lasting impact, so let’s sacrifice the Son of God to bring lasting forgiveness.

Though the method changed, God’s message remained the same. “I am holy. I am love. And I desire holy people who will love me completely and love their neighbors as themselves.”

Consider adding a bit more purposeful concessions to your Christmas by following Jesus’ example: Approach the audience with humility, grace…and a dash of P.C.

A new writer for the Presidential Prayer Team, James Watkins is a humorist and author and contributor to 24 books and over 2,000 articles on social and spiritual issues.

Posted in opinion |

Sidestepping Suffering

Thursday, December 15th, 2011

Why Washington politicians don’t feel your pain

by Jim Ray

John Adams did not become wealthy serving as our nation’s second president, and after he returned to his Massachusetts farm he was dealt a financial blow rivaling anything suffered by investors in our current economy.

Adams and his wife Abigail had saved about $13,000 which was invested with the London banking house of Bird, Savage & Bird. In 1803 the bank collapsed, and the Adams faced financial ruin. Fortunately, they were rescued by their son, John Quincy, who stepped in to help. “I shall not refuse to share in the suffering,” he wrote to his parents.

An explosive new investigation of Washington politicians’ questionable activities reveals how much things have changed. Today’s elected representatives are not only unwilling to “share in the suffering,” they also are exploiting ways to enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of their constituents.

The story, reported by CBS’ 60 Minutes program, details a legal but unscrupulous practice involving insider trading – that is, buying and selling stocks with the benefit of secret information other investors don’t have access to.

An example of how this works is illustrated by how some politicians profited during the global financial meltdown in 2008. In September of that year, members of the House Financial Services Committee met behind closed doors with Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury. In that meeting, legislators were privately warned a financial collapse was imminent.

At least one of the legislators attending, Alabama Republican Spencer Bachus, immediately used that insider information to purchase option funds that allowed him to make money as the market went down.

If this had been done by anyone other than a member of Congress, it would have been a criminal act. However, Congress has exempted itself from laws which apply to all other Americans.

CBS News was unable to get any current politicians from either party to agree to an interview. But it turns out that back in 2004, a small handful of legislators tried to enact a bill that would halt the sordid practice. The proposed Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, however, didn’t go anywhere. It was rejected and died quietly. Yet now that the harsh light of public criticism has been brought to bear on the subject, seemingly every government official in Washington proclaims his or her enthusiastic support of new legislation that would end insider trading.

It should be disturbing – though not necessarily surprising – to voters to learn that many of their elected representatives only do what’s right when they realize someone is watching.

Unlike John Adams, who had no insider tips to help him avoid the banking collapse and who returned to a humble life of farming following his service as president, many of today’s politicians trade on their power, influence and insider information to leave Washington as millionaires. They draft and pass legislation that immunizes them from the hardships other Americans face and then leverage their positions as public servants to become wealthy.

In an October 1800 editorial praising John Adams, the Washington Federalist newspaper wrote that he was “always great, and though sometimes alone, all weak and personal motives were forgotten in public energy and the security of the sacred liberties of his country…his sole object…the present freedom and independence of his country and its future glory.”

The United States is in dire need of principled leaders like John Adams. If Americans are to have them ever again, you must be engaged with your democracy, be prayerful, and be committed to voting for those who serve because of their love of country – not their love of portfolios, preferential treatment and personal perks.

Posted in opinion |

Nothing New Under the Sun

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

Responding to the latest American sex scandals

by Nikolas Grosfield

In early December, Herman Cain withdrew from the 2012 Republican presidential race after weeks of adultery allegations against him. Having been hugely popular only weeks earlier, Cain’s downfall comes shortly after two other high-profile cases of alleged sexual immorality.

In November, Syracuse University fired assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine, and Penn State fired assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Both have been accused of molesting young boys throughout their careers. The former candidate and former coaches all insist on their innocence.

As usual, the media is harping on these incidents as if their like has never been seen before. Yet Americans can learn from these tales as they ponder the future of their country, their families, and their own lives.

The biblical book of Ecclesiastes undermines all efforts to pronounce these “hot stories” as astonishing, incredible, historic, or arguably even newsworthy at all! “The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:8-9)

In part, this passage means that the suffering and sin which you see each day on the news, at home, and in you is not new to history. Every situation is unique, and the pain and consequences are real and terrible; but deceit, violence and other maladies have all afflicted someone somewhere before.

This may not seem reassuring, but it does mean two things. First, this nation’s problems need not come as a surprise. Perhaps you can even skip the headlines once in a while, unless you plan to do something about them – and much can be done!

Second, neither personal nor national events ever take God by surprise. He has declared, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Revelation 22:13) Also, He “in every respect has been tempted as we are.” (Hebrews 4:15) In other words, He knows and understands everything you experience.

The latest round of tabloid-style sex scandals can also remind you as an American of your common law heritage, which dubs everyone “innocent until proven guilty.” Pointing fingers is easy, but it can be a biblical violation.

Jesus said, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Furthermore, “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) These words indicate that it is better to not lambast Cain, Fine and Sandusky, but rather to pray for them and then join Moses in asking that God “go in the midst of us…a stiff-necked people, and pardon our iniquity and our sin.” (Exodus 34:9)

Nevertheless, voters and employers alike may be wise to doubt someone whose moral reputation is tarnished, even if he is innocent. There is a difference between judging another person’s heart and having discernment about their situation. In the former, pride can creep in and say, “I’m better than they are.” In the latter, the process of elimination may run its course and you may end up with a better candidate or coach.

As November 2012 inches closer, you may be surprised to learn that at least 15 presidents have been prominently accused of having illicit relationships while in Washington (though many remain unproven). Does this mean they were terrible presidents, or that their supporters sinned in voting for them? Probably not. But just like everyone else in America, national leaders need prayer support and faith in order to overcome their mistakes and find rest in God’s salvation.

Please pray for:

Integrity, honor and purity among your elected officials.
Conviction, confession and forgiveness of sexual sin across America.
Wisdom for voters, employers and families in dealing with immorality.

Posted in opinion |

In God We Trust

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

Does He still belong on America’s money?

by Bill Noles Jr.

The motto “In God We Trust,” first appeared on United States coins in 1864 – during the American Civil War. Officially adopted into law in 1956, the motto was required on all coins and paper currency. Congress voted to reaffirm the motto in 2002.

This year, the U.S. House of Representatives – following the lead of the U.S. Senate which in 2006 again confirmed “In God We Trust” as the official national motto on the fiftieth anniversary of its adoption – also recently endorsed “In God We Trust” as the national motto of the United States. The House bill also encouraged the motto’s pronouncement on public buildings and continued printing on the national currency.

So why the sudden interest in the House in reaffirming the motto? “Unfortunately, there are a number of public officials who forgot what the national motto is, whether intentionally or unintentionally,” said Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the sponsor of the latest bill. One of those officials he may have been referring to is President Obama.

In a 2010 speech in Jakarta, Indonesia, the president said, “In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum – out of many, one.” That Latin phrase is not the national motto but is written on the national seal.

Although the House only spent 35 minutes debating whether the motto should be reaffirmed, many felt there were more important issues to debate. “In the House of Representatives, what have you guys been doing, John?” Obama chided House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “You’ve been debating a commemorative coin for baseball. You’ve had legislation reaffirming that “In God We Trust” is our motto. That’s not putting people back to work.”

Interestingly, last year the Democrat-controlled House passed more than 250 commemorative resolutions, honoring everything from motherhood to motor homes. The House voted 396-9 to reaffirm the motto, encourage its display in all public schools and government buildings, and not remove or change it. One Republican (Justin Amash of Michigan) and eight Democrats voted against it.

Michael Shermer, publisher of the aptly-named Skeptic magazine, writing in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed segment, said, “The motto was made official in 1956 during the height of Cold War hysteria over godless communism.” He contends that American freedom is unrelated to God and that faith should instead be put in the following ideals:

“The rule of law; property rights; a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system; economic stability; a reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country; freedom from the press; freedom of association; education for the masses; protection of civil liberties; a clean and safe environment; a robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states; a potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by people within the state; a viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws; and an effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.”

Comments on the article ran the gambit of emotions: “It’s harmless,” “I don’t endorse wasting time to reaffirm this motto, and I don’t endorse removing it,” “What about those who don’t trust in any god?”

Shermer also brought up the issue of the separation of church and state. Over the years, the motto has withstood legal challenges from various groups that also said it violated the separation of church and state. But courts have held that the motto is “ceremonial Deism,” not an official endorsement of religion.

If one is to condemn lawmakers for reaffirming the placement of “In God We Trust” on paper and brick, then what about the pagan symbols that appear on U.S. currency? As one commenter stated, “Should those be voted off because they offend some people?”

According to a 2011 Gallup Poll, a belief in God among Americans is still holding strong at about 90 percent. It would seem that the majority of U.S. citizens approve of the motto as reflected in the recent House vote.

Americans should be proud of their national motto “In God We Trust” – whether it’s printed on the currency or not. Pray for the nation today, and remember where you place your faith: “In God I trust; I shall not be afraid.” (Psalm 56:11)

Bill Noles Jr. is an entrepreneur, author and writer. Married for 30 years, he is a father of two sons and grandfather of three children. He and his wife Diann live in Tucson, AZ.

Posted in opinion |

« Older Entries |