Majoring on Minors and Minoring on Majors

Straining Out Gnats
By David Servant
Christian Living - Faith Writers

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:19, emphasis added).

Jesus obviously believed that there were lesser commandments, as revealed in the quote above. He therefore must have also believed that there were greater commandments.

To their credit, the scribes and Pharisees kept the lesser commandments, yet Jesus condemned them for ignoring the greater ones:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Matt. 23:23-24).

God has made both little gnats and big camels. Likewise, He has given some "weighty" and "less-weighty" commandments. None should be neglected, but the person who gives all his attention to God's minor commandments and ignores the major ones is like the man who finds both a gnat and a camel in his soup, and who removes the former and swallows the latter.

Majoring on minors and minoring on majors is a fault that is universal among pharisaic and religious people, whose spirituality consists of doing what costs very little, and what is likely to be ritualistic rather than heart-felt. Going to church and paying tithes are normally high on their list. Yet notice in the just-quoted scripture that Jesus put tithing in the "less-weighty" category. As far as the biblical record is concerned, that one instance is the only time He mentioned tithing during His entire earthly ministry. And He never once uttered a word about attending church services. (He did say we should make disciples and love one another, which certainly require gathering together and interaction, but honestly, how much Luke 14:25-35 discipleship and self-denying love occurs in the average church service?)

Of greater importance, notice what Jesus listed in the "weightier" category: justice, mercy and faithfulness. These should have been no surprise to His hearers who knew Scripture. In the Old Testament, at least two of those three were listed as being "weighty" by the prophet Micah:

He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? (Mic. 6:8).

I love verses that simplify spirituality, don't you?

Let's combine Jesus' and Micah's lists of "weighty commandments," which then gives us a list of four: justice, mercy, humility and faithfulness. Because they are all so "weighty" in God's eyes, let's briefly consider what it means to walk in justice, mercy, humility and faithfulness.

(1) Justice: "To do justice" implies treating everyone fairly, showing no partiality, and taking no bribes. It implies working against injustice, always being honest, and exposing what is evil (see Eph. 5:11). In the Old Testament, "doing justice" is sometimes associated with caring for the rights of orphans, widows and strangers (see Deut. 24:7, 27:19). It has always been a "weighty" commandment: "To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice" (Prov. 21:3, emphasis added).

Who is benefiting because of your "doing justice"?

(2) Mercy: The Hebrew word for "mercy" found in Micah's list is perhaps better translated "kindness," and in Jesus' list the Greek word can also be translated "pity" or "compassion." Meeting people's pressing needs, sharing our resources with the poor, and visiting the sick and incarcerated all fall into this category. Jesus once quoted from the prophet Hosea to emphasize the "weightiness" of compassion. Once again rebuking the Pharisees for straining out gnats and swallowing camels, He said,

But if you had known what this means, "I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice," you would not have condemned the innocent (Matt. 12:7, emphasis added).

The Pharisees were sure to bring their sacrifices to the temple, but they had little compassion for hurting people, just like those whom Hosea condemned in his day.

You will recall that when Jesus once illustrated the concept of loving one's neighbor, He told a story about someone who showed mercy. A good Samaritan had compassion upon a wounded crime victim, expending his time and treasure to help him. That victim had been ignored by two very religious men, a priest and Levite, who each doubtlessly could have quoted the second greatest commandment---but who didn't keep it (see Luke 10:25-37).

Are you more like the good Samaritan---or the priest and Levite? Who is benefiting because of your compassion?

(3) Humility: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (see 1 Pet. 5:5). The humble live with an understanding of their dependency upon God. Humility also means considering others as being more important than ourselves and serving them (see Phil. 2:3-4). Proud people expect to be served. One of the very last things Jesus emphasized to His closest disciples was that they should wash each other's feet, humbly serving each other, following His example. In God's eyes, the servants are the greatest (see Matt. 23:11).

Whom are you humbly serving?

(4) Faithfulness: Being faithful implies keeping your promises, being consistent, and persevering when you feel like quitting. Generally speaking, it is impossible to be faithful unless you are tempted to be unfaithful. Faithful people earn the trust of God and others.

Do people who know you trust you?

For the most part, justice, mercy, humility and faithfulness are four aspects of another commandment, and one that Jesus said should be second highest on our list -- loving our neighbor as ourselves (see Matt. 22:39). The only greater commandment is to love God with all our hearts. Yet how does one love God with all his heart? How is love for God expressed? Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15), and John wrote, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (1 John 5:3). This being so, we keep the greatest commandment by keeping the rest of the commandments. And according to Scripture, keeping the second-greatest commandment fulfills all the rest (see Matt. 7:12, 22:40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14).

Thus it could be rightly stated that to follow Jesus is to be a lover of others! How much more simple can it get? Of course, the kind of love of which I am speaking is more than just a feeling. It is a self-denying love that results in action.

Scripture repeatedly emphasizes the preeminence of loving others, especially fellow believers, above all other duties. Love is the camel that the gnat-focused Pharisees ignored. Love is the camel that all religious people ignore, including pharisaic "Christians," who are continually straining out gnats. What are some of those gnats? Read Paul's thoughts on the subject:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

Speaking in tongues, prophecy, and mountain-moving faith can all become strained gnats when love is missing. To be in the presence of people who are focused on such things---while self-denying love is absent---is as pleasant as sitting next to a clanging cymbal.

Did you notice a few other strained gnats that Paul mentioned? Two are (1) understanding mysteries and (2) having knowledge. Doctrine, even right and good doctrine, is meaningless apart from love. Theologians and Bible scholars beware! You are, according to Scripture, absolutely nothing without love. Some of the nastiest people I've ever met are those whose Christianity consists solely of doctrines they defend, who are ready to pounce on anyone who differs in even some minor matter. They can prove their points using Bible verses, but orphans and widows will starve waiting for a crumb from their tables.

Being a Christian is not defined by what you know or say you believe -- it is defined by what you are and what you do. Doctrine that cannot be translated into action is utterly useless. Reading your Bible every day amounts to nothing if you don't do what is most important to God---love others.

But am I saying that doctrine is unimportant? No. Am I saying that giving to the poor is the only important thing? No. According to Paul, giving to the poor, if done for a motivation other than love---to be seen by others, for example, or to receive your "hundred-fold blessing"---also amounts to nothing (see 1 Cor. 13:3).

How important is loving others? Love for other believers is the mark of being born again (see 1 John 3:14). Without love, one proves he is not truly born again (see 1 John 3:14, 4:8).

How important is loving others? Our love for each other identifies us to the world as being Christ's disciples:

By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35, emphasis added).

Along those same lines, our love for one another is what will convince the world, above anything else, of the truth of the gospel, which is why Jesus prayed,

...that they may all be one...that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me....that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me... (John 17:21, 23, emphasis added).

This being so, preaching the gospel itself can become a strained gnat if love is absent. The most effective evangelists are lovers. Both Jesus' and Paul's ministries were characterized not by just preaching the gospel, but by caring for the poor (see John 13:29; Gal 2:10). And how strange it seems for a pastor to preach the gospel while a denominational sign stands in front of his church, broadcasting to everyone who passes by, "We do not want you to associate us with other Christians who hold slightly different doctrinal beliefs." If I put a sign in front of my house that says, "My name is David Servant, and I'm a Republican!," and the next day my wife puts a sign beside mine that says, "I am Becky Servant, and I'm a Democrat," what might my neighbors conclude about our love for one another?

How important is it that we love one another? If we allow the flesh to overcome the Spirit and yield to "enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, and factions" (Gal. 5:20)---all indications of a lack of love---Paul warns us, "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). Jesus likewise warned that the disciple who hatefully calls his brother a fool, "shall be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire" (Matt. 5:22). Thus if one is presenting his offering at the altar and remembers that his brother has something against him, he should leave his offering at the altar (stop focusing on the gnat), and be reconciled with his brother (no longer ignoring the camel; see Matt. 5:23-24).

How important is it to love one another? Jesus will not one day say to the sheep on His right, "You went to church...you paid your tithes...you read your Bible...you didn't smoke...your understanding of the Trinity was accurate...you had the timing of the Rapture figured out...you read only from the King James Version...your worship music was really good" or a thousand other things that seem to be what is most important to so many. Rather He will say, "I was hungry...I was thirsty...I was naked...I was sick...I was in prison...I was a stranger...and you proved your love for Me by loving the least of My brothers and sisters, expending your time and treasure." Self-denying love, or our lack of it, will reveal if we are sheep or goats at the judgment.

Church tradition tells us that the apostle John lived to be a very old man in Ephesus, where, during the last years of his life, he was carried by the disciples to the church gatherings because of his frailty. At those meetings he was accustomed to say no more than, "My dear children, love one another." His disciples, eventually weary of always hearing him say the same thing asked, "Master, why do you always say this?" "It is the Lord's command," was the reply of this elderly spiritual giant. "And if this alone be done, it is enough!"

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 7:12, emphasis added)

For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14, emphasis added).

----------

David Servant has been serving in ministry since 1979 as a church-planter, pastor, teacher and missionary. He has taught God's Word in over fifty nations and authored many books, including The Disciple-Making Minister, which has been distributed to Christian leaders all over the world in many languages. His ministry Shepherd Serve equips pastors and Christian leaders around the world.

Character: Who you are when everything is on the line

On Character
By Jim Barringer
Christian Living - Faith Readers

While at work the other day, my manager drew my attention to a t-shirt worn by a woman who had just finished playing golf. The shirt read, "You never know a woman till you meet her in court."

It got me to thinking about the importance of character, a topic that my pastor, Robert Gordon, has been preaching on lately as well. I've heard character defined as "who you are when no one is looking," but I think a better definition - as the woman's shirt indicates - might be "who you are when everything is on the line."

Let me give a few other examples. I would say that you never know a politician until he's about to lose an election. Is he going to start badmouthing his opponent, or rig the election, or take it like a man? You never know a pastor until you see how he handles a church split or having a major leader depart. Does he get manipulative and controlling, putting guilt trips on people to stay and keep serving, or does he trust in God's providence? I could go on, but you get the picture.

If character is who we are when everything else is on the line, then it's also a good measure of how close we are to truly giving God control of everything in our lives. You probably know as well as I do that times of tension and uncertainty are when people start trying to take matters into their own hands. Show me the person who can fight that instinct when all the chips are down, and I'll show you a person who really, really trusts God to take care of things.

Robert preached on Friday from 2 Peter 1. Here are a few verses, starting with verse 5: "For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I see three major things worth observing about character.

1. It is possible to have faith that accomplishes nothing. Peter warns about the possibility of "being ineffective and unproductive," and he says that this is a very distinct possibility for the person who does not have the qualities he lists as part of their character. Faith that doesn't have legs, says James 2, is no faith at all.

2. Peter says we need to "add" these things "to your faith." If we need to add them, that means we don't start with them. No one rolls into the world good, or knowledgeable, or self-controlled, or patient, or godly, or kind, or loving - our inability to be those things is the whole reason we fall into sin and require salvation. Once we accept God's salvation through our faith, we find ourselves in the position of having to add things to faith, which means developing our character, in order to undo the taint of sin and be the person that God always meant for us to be.

3. If we need to add these behaviors to our character, they need to be replacing other, less desirable behaviors. We cannot be simultaneously self-controlled and impulsive; we have to be either one or the other.

When we think about who we were before we were saved, it kind of makes sense that our personalities and character would require such a total overhaul. Nobody in the history of the world has arrived at godliness or unconditional love by accident. Those things run contrary to the way the fallen world, and the fallen people within it, operate. We come into the world conditioned to think of ourselves first, to take control of our own destinies and situations, and we retain that me-first, "I can do it myself" instinct when we run into difficulties in life. That's why I believe you can tell what a person is truly made of based on how they handle situations that tempt that desire to take charge.

You will notice that the absolute apex of good character, according to Peter, is love. Unconditional love is quite possibly the most difficult thing in all of humanity, because it is so utterly contrary to that self-preservation instinct I'm talking about. C.S. Lewis said, "Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal." A person who lives their entire life in mortal fear of emotional pain will be utterly unable to open their heart enough to extend love, because everyone who loves will end up feeling pain. God is no exception to this. He speaks repeatedly in the Old Testament about the agony he felt when his people rejected him. We caused him the same kind of pain when he took the gift of life that he gave us, took the freedom he afforded us, and promptly set about ruining our lives through rebellion and selfishness. How thankful we should be that God did not allow fear of pain to stop him from showing us unconditional love!

Why does God demand that we improve our character before he gives us his best blessings? Well, you wouldn't give a seven-year-old the keys to a new Porsche, would you? A seven-year-old simply isn't ready for that kind of blessing. Similarly, there are many opportunities that God waits to give us until our character is more capable of handling it. Yet he does not simply give us the command, "Improve your character," and then sit back in a lawn chair sipping lemonade till we catch up with him. His Holy Spirit lives in us, supervising the transformation, "giving us the desire and ability to do what pleases God" (Philippians 2). He is right here with us, living in us, eagerly awaiting the day when he can shower his very best on us. He promises us that he will continue this process until we are complete in Christ (also Philippians 2), and we know because of God's character that he is always trustworthy.

So as we consider character, let us take heed of what Peter wrote two thousand years ago, which is still as true today as when it was written. Let our character be consistent - let the person we are when everything is on the line match the person we are the rest of the time. Let us begin with faith, the gift that God has given us, and make every effort to add to it until we have a character that enables us to receive the best of God's blessings for us.

----------
Jim Barringer is a 26-year-old writer, musician, teacher, and traveler, currently finishing a master's degree from Southwestern Seminary. More of his work can be found at myspace.com/mygodisalive. This work may be reprinted for any purpose so long as this bio and statement of copyright is included.

Finding God's Will, or Hearing God's Voice?

Rejecting formulas to find guidance
By Richard P. Hansen
ChristianityToday.com

Bruce Waltke is fed up. Christians "ought to stamp out of our vocabulary the nonbiblical and misleading expression 'finding God's will.'" God is not a divine sleight-of-hand artist with an elusive will that we must find like the proverbial pea in a heavenly shell game. God's will, after all, is clear! God wants us to be holy, to be mature, to be more like Jesus. God is all about forging our character and welcoming us into greater intimacy with him.

Who or what is to blame for this unwholesome fixation on God's will? In Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion?, Waltke blames disintegrating authority structures, lamenting the loss of guidance that family used to provide, but he especially fingers spiritual immaturity. Christians today, Waltke says,

are willing to try to follow a specific pattern of behavior their pastor draws out for them, but the abstract concept of "loving God" is harder to grasp. Consequently, they are leery of someone telling them to, in the words of Calvin, "love God and do what you please." They would prefer that someone tell them exactly what to do. That's why they resort to divination to seek God's will.

Conservative evangelical churches are often guilty as charged. As Waltke observes, far too many sermons promise "5 Steps to a Better _____ (you fill in the blank)," based on a view of the Bible as an AAA map to life—all road hazards clearly highlighted, of course—rather than as the essential book of stories we need to sustain us on the journey. In such a culture, perhaps it's natural that God morphs into a heavenly computer ready to spit out answers, but only with the correct passwords—in short, divination.

All techniques to "find" God's will—letting the Bible fall open to the first verse you see, laying out fleeces, analyzing signs and the like—Waltke labels as nothing more than pagan divination (hence his subtitle). An Old Testament scholar, he offers a thorough survey of divination techniques. (Did you know rhabdomancy means using arrows to get a sign from God?) After the disciples cast lots to select Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:24ff), Waltke says, never again in the New Testament does the church seek God's will with such means. In fact, he adds, whenever God does offer miraculous guidance (Peter's rooftop dream, for example), it is to people who have neither asked for nor are expecting it.

Having established that Christians are too often caught up in seeking shallow formulas that "tell them exactly what to do," Waltke proceeds to devote the final three-fourths of his book to his own six-point program! The six points are familiar—Scripture, a heart for God, counsel from others, providential circumstances, our own good judgment, divine intervention—but he stresses that we must take them in prioritized sequence if we expect to hear from God. While most would agree, for example, that Scripture should take precedence over circumstances, seasoned believers realize God is not contained in six-point systems. God begins at different points with different people—circumstances may drive us to Scripture, or the Lord might first capture our attention by a word from a friend. Chapters on each of the six points offer conventional advice—occasionally quite good—but cannot shake the shadow of the formulaic mindset Waltke himself criticizes.

If Waltke wants to save us from veering off into the stagnant shallows called "finding God's will," Henry Blackaby and his son Richard's more comprehensive Hearing God's Voice keeps us in the strong center of the current. Terminology is important. Whereas "God's will" is static and nonpersonal (something to find like a misplaced map), hearing God's voice is personal and relational. Just as in Henry Blackaby's Experiencing God series, used in churches throughout North America (including the one I serve), the strength of Hearing God's Voice is that the authors never tire in expressing a simple but surprisingly elusive truth: God really wants a relationship with us! "God's choice to communicate in so many diverse ways forces us to put our faith in him, not a method," the Blackabys write. "We do not seek a word from God to prove he is real so we can have a relationship with him. Rather, as we seek to develop an intimate relationship with him, we will hear him speak to us."

Guidance is not complicated: the better we know God, the better we will recognize God's voice. We may not identify every voice on the telephone, but we (hopefully) never mistake our own spouse's or child's voice. The Blackabys ask: do we have hearts, minds, and spirits becoming increasingly familiar with God's voice? In the parable of the sower, the seed is scattered evenly; the crucial variable is the receptiveness of the soil. God is speaking—are we listening and willing to obey?

The Blackabys investigate other methods by which God speaks—inner witness of the Holy Spirit, Scripture, prayer, circumstances, other people—along with novel suggestions about family history and spiritual heritage. However, methods are never raised above relationship or presented in lockstep formulas. For example, the chapter on hearing God through the Bible tells how God spoke to George Muller to establish orphanages for homeless children in 19th-century industrial Britain. Muller began feeling a personal burden to meet this particular social need among many others. He prayed and asked God to examine his motives. He sought advice from trusted Christian friends. Finally, he heard God speak in the Scriptures and knew he should move forward, even though he had no money, expertise, or other resources. God speaks by different methods—and confirmation comes (or not) as we keep listening.

Two other emphases are noteworthy. Too often "God's will" (i.e., what I need to ensure a good life for myself—marrying the right person, pursuing the best career, etc.) is framed as the end, with God as the means. The Blackabys never diminish God as a means to our ends. On the contrary: "At times Christ is inaccurately viewed as a cosmic best friend who only exists to make us happy and successful. God turns our focus away from us and on to him." Yes! The primary reason we should listen is because it is God who is speaking.

Coupled with this refreshing emphasis are strong statements challenging American individualism. Hearing God's voice is a community process—not the quest for a personal holy grail. I wish more books about discovering God's guidance were saying this: "God designed people for interdependence and community. As Christians commit themselves to their fellow believers, God speaks through the church to benefit every member. Estranged from the church, Christians will not hear all God has to say to them."

This is meat-and-potatoes writing. If one might at times wish for some pinches of intellectual seasoning, it is always sane, nourishing, and easy to digest. Richard Blackaby shares a couple of humorous personal stories, instances where he fails to hear God's voice, but overall there are few nods to the mystery, paradox, or human frailty many experience in seeking divine guidance. While I agree that the reasons we fail to hear God's voice are not God's problem, a little more empathy for the hard task of dissolving our own blockages would be welcome. Maybe I am one of only a few modern Samuels who does not always recognize God's voice right away, but I suspect not.

Indeed, the one significant shortcoming of this solid work is the authors' insistence that anyone who wrestles or argues with God's voice "obviously does not really know God." For the Blackabys, this is a no-brainer. If indeed God is perfect love (1 John 4:7-8), who could (or should) argue with him? And yes, some in the Bible who wrestled with God suffered consequences—Jacob walked with a limp, Zacharias was struck mute after questioning the birth of his son John the Baptist. But others who "really knew God" in Scripture did wrestle, sometimes strenuously—Abraham argued to save Sodom for a few righteous men, Moses argued for the wayward Israelites when the Lord was ready to annihilate them, Jeremiah argued against his prophetic call, and, most famously, Jesus certainly wrestled in Gethsemane with what he was hearing his Father ask of him. In the first two cases, the Lord even modified his plans in response to the argument, however we understand that theologically.

Is not occasionally wrestling with what we hear from God exactly what we might expect if we are in relationship with a Person? Do not all authentic relationships—even the relationship between Perfect Love and far from perfect creatures—have at least some wrestling intrinsic, even necessary, to their growth? (On our side, at least.) Allowing more room to be honest with each other about such give and take might be just what we need to hang in there and keep listening.

Richard P. Hansen is pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Visalia, California.

Is Media Ethics A Matter of Media Perception?

Media Code of Ethics
Source: Uncyclopedia

On Seeking the Truth

Journalists can be honest, fair and courageous in reporting and interpreting information but only when it is profitable, in which case it usually isn't. In all other cases, just tell people what they want to hear.

Journalists should:

* Test the accuracy of information by fastening the information to a rock and throwing it in the nearest lake. If it sinks, it is ok to print.

* Make shit up. Deliberate distortion of the news is really funny.

* Identify anonymous sources if what they did was really embarrassing or if beastiality was involved. Public figures should always be identified since that is a great way to blackmail them for cash.

* Understand that sources give their quotes with the full knowledge that it will be printed or broadcast which automatically makes whatever they have to say irrelevant. Just get them to say the most ridiculous thing they can think of and fix it up later with some creative editing.

* Understand that misleading re-enactments or staged news events are ok mostly because the public is too stupid to know the difference. And if a re-enactment is necessary, throw a ragdoll dummy off a roof at some point, that shit is always good for a cheap laugh, especially if broadcast in slow-motion.

* Seek out and publish only one side to an argument and then, later, seek out the other after they are good and pissed off. You get better quotes that way.

* Jump to conclusions. Truth and accuracy matter little because making the deadline is way more important

* Plagiarize. Chances are, whatever it is, someone else has written it better then you can so why kid yourself? Change a few key words and hope nobody does any checking.

* Only support the open exchange of views if you can be sure that no freaks or weirdos are present to fuck things up.

* Doctor pictures and video. Sometimes news photos aren't "exciting" enough and they need to be played with for dramatic effect. Photoshop was invented for a reason folks.

* Stereotype. It is really the easiest way to represent people. For example, since there are no Jews in Arkansas a picture of Woody Allen is a great way to represent any Jew in an Arkansas publications. Like they can tell the difference.

* Trap people and lie for a good story. Stories from undercover journalists are a great way to catch people with their pants down, literally. Because the media itself is the only thing standing in the way of millions of sick pedophiles out there.

* Pay little attention if any headlines, news teases, promotional materials, photos, videos, sound bites, graphics, and quotations misrepresent their source. People take stuff out of context anyway so why bother being right as long as it looks good.

* Ignore diversity. The cultures of other people are weird and difficult to understand and people cannot view them without some degree of condescension and awe. Therefore, explaining these cultures is really a waste of time, time better spent laughing at stuff like praying towards Mecca or arranged marriages. Remember that people view diversity as a necessary evil. The world would work so much better if everyone thought and acted alike.

* Understand that it is ok to print insulting political cartoons and the like as long as the subject of ridicule has little chance of seeing the offending material.

* Insert themselves in their stories. Would you rather hear a story from someone who was there and a participant or someone that heard about the story and told you from someone else's point of view? Just make sure you're loaded on LSD when you cover an event because things like political debates are so much better that way.

* Overanalyze everything. If praying mantises are dying by the thousands, surely there are twenty "experts" out there we can interview about it. And, if not, then a local science teacher would be a good stand-in.

* Remember that whatever we say is the "official record." Whenever we report one thing and ignore another, we are advocating the thing we report. Since we cannot report on everything we should only choose stuff that we like. Someone else will surely report about the other stuff.

* Cause panic. Nothing gets the people of the world to stop what they are doing and glue themselves to the TV set like a good old fashioned media panic. So what if the Swine Flu has only killed a handful of people and is milder than the regular flu, which kills thousands each year? Forget that part and keep repeating that there is no cure and that the virus can mutate at any time and wipe out civilization as we know it. That is the stuff that sells ads.

On Maximizing Profit

Journalism is really a business. We like to think this is to keep us independent of governments and outside interests but really this is the only way the owners of the media can make any money. Remember, pledge drives are for pussies.

Journalists should:

* Hire only the least qualified individuals for any open position. Bonus points if they are a minority or a woman, we don't want to lose readers by pissing these people off.

* Increase space for advertising at the expense of content. Never pass up an opportunity to peddle some shit to someone.

* Not release any stories that will piss off our advertisers.

* Watch movies, take vacations, read books and play video games all for free. Journalists can do this by saying they are a "reviewer" when in actuality our opinions only carry weight because thousands of people will see them.

* Mislead the public. Advertising is so prevalent in our society that people actually expect to see it everywhere. This makes it ok to blur the lines between news and advertising. Besides, if newspapers cost 75 cents each, and the nightly news is free to anyone who owns a TV, how the fuck are we going to make money?

* Jam advertising down people's throats. We're in the advertising business, not the news business.

* Get a sponsor for everything. Anything can be sold, stadium naming rights, titles on opinions pages, the fucking superimposed first down marker on Monday night football. Never pass up an opprotunity to sell ad space. They may not know it, but people like it.

* "Mistakenly" air the same commercial three times during the same commercial break. Because people need to understand that ALL is the Stain Lifter, and you can't get anything clean using that Tide shit. And ALL paid us twice as much as Tide did.

On People Exploitation

Journalists must show no interest in respecting people, especially if they are celebrities. The news and the money and prestige involved is way more important than human decency. Remember, if we did not exploit people, we would all be working at Jack in the Box.

Journalists should:

* Be annoying. Let's say someone dies in a horrible motorcycle accident. It would be nice if we could show his gory corpse smeared on the highway, a bloody trail left behind as his body was reduced to a human crayon. Rather, the best way to get good video is to shove TV cameras in the faces of the victim's family as they arrive on the scene.

* Play up anything involving violence. Since newscasts can bypass that idiotic V-chip anything involving violence should be given precedence over all other news. This way, we can provide the youth of America with what they really need. Graphic content.

* Make as much money as possible off of celebrities. If Ben Affleck is spotted buying condoms at the local Wal-Mart, the media reaction should include nothing less then "total coverage." Interrupt broadcasts, hire helicopters, interview eyewitnesses. You never know when Ben Affleck will come back.

* Understand pandering. The era of good taste is gone so if a show where people eat slugs for cash is what people want to watch, then that is what they're going to get.

* Know that victims of sex crimes deserve no protection. Dude, they totally wanted it and they know it.

* In case of disaster like flood, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fire, herpes outbreaks, or earthquakes, head to the poorest parts of town. Poor people in distress or floating dead in a canal makes great news.

* Know that the best place to interview an elusive newsmaker is by standing in their front lawn and yelling a lot.

* Understand children are worthless sources, unless they are saying funny stuff. Record them talking about feces or their body parts or mispronouncing words like "berfday." This is good stuff to save for slow news days.

* Treat reluctant sources with care. Once they realize we don't give a damn about their situation and are only after a story that will make us look good, we will never see them again. Unless we give them money.

* Understand that libel laws are vague and libel lawsuits will eventually go away if we ignore the little ones and throw plenty of money at the really bad ones.

* Beat breaking news to death. People who were alive at the time will always remember the OJ Simpson trial or Elian Gonzalez because these events made us experts at making trivial shit seem important. Keep this up. Whenever a white girl goes missing in a foreign country or some celebrity gets embarrassed by some lame scandal put in 100% and don't let up until the next media circus comes along. Remember the glory days of Pulitzer and Hearst? Strive for that.

* Realize gathering and reporting information will cause harm and discomfort, mostly because the people that work in the media are complete assholes and arrogant social outcasts. Yeah, there's no way around this, sorry.

We Are Spineless Toadies

News Coverage and the media are all predisposed by hundreds of outside influences; advertisers, pissed off interest groups, religion, government, your mom. This will never change and the best way to deal with bias is to ignore the fact it exists and move on.

Journalists should:

* Understand that sometimes, bias and conflicts of interest are unavoidable. By simply saying this it allows us to continue all biased reporting unabated.

* Understand that with any controversial issue, the media inevitably will be associated with one side or another. Try to choose the side that will win.

* Skew coverage of all politics. Since complete objectivity is impossible to achieve we, the media, can do one of two things about it. Ignore the fact that bias exists, or blow it completely out of proportion and call people who think differently idiots. Always remember, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter actually make money for being pompous assholes.

* Allow advertisers to influence news coverage, especially if they threaten to pull their ads. Conflicts between advertisers should always be resolved by the potential dollar amount of their advertising. Remember: Wal-Mart is always better than Ed's Mattress Emporium.

* Technically hold those in power accountable but we can only do so if it looks like they will be out of power soon. Openly criticizing the government is in violation of The Patriot Act and will piss off a lot of people. Mostly rednecks.

* Understand that if a source offers information for money, then he is greedier then we are and should be offered a job.

* Take comfort in the fact that there will always be idiot attention-whore celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears who use us to stroke their already overblown egos. Don't piss them off and be sure to bow to their every wish otherwise it will be our competition that will benefit.

We Have A Job To Do?

Journalists know that readers, listeners and viewers exist and that in turn makes us rock stars. Hell yeah motherfuckers! People are reading our shit! Keep in mind though that the majority of our readers are idiots and should be treated as such. Responsibility? Psssh! There are ways around that.

Journalists should:

* Understand that complicated things are best left to "serious" news networks like C-SPAN and NPR. Serious stuff is boring anyway.

* Keep an ethics expert, called an Ombudsman on retainer. Of course, this job is of little significance and has no responsibility other than to provide the appearance of respectability and accountability of news reporting. Retiring janitors make great ombudsmen.

* Memorize the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is the only thing that routinely saves our asses from unemployment or lengthy jail time.

* Encourage the public to voice grievances against competing media outlets. Stifle any disasterous criticism.

* Expose the unethical practices of competing news media networks in an effort to steal their advertising revenue.

* Admit mistakes only if found. And then only print or broadcast corrections when and where nobody will see them.

* Understand that journalism is the first draft of history. To us, this means we can be as careless and alarmist as we want with the news just to make more money. People will come later and fix what we screw up.

* Know we are the voice of the people! If there is any doubt as to what is important, remember that the people would rather talk about Lost or the Super Bowl then wars or famine or genocide. Those types of things only happen in other countries anyway.

* Hold dear the truth that most people are retards. Remember, we the media have spent decades cultivating a society that cares more about the results of American Idol then actual worldly problems. Gloss over hard news because nobody really cares and get to the good stuff, like what Eva Longoria wore to the Emmy's or the score of the Dallas Cowboys / Washington Redskins game.

* Remember that we are not doctors, or lawyers or accountants. If we fuck up, chances are nobody will die or be financially ruined. We're pretty much wannabes and scumsucking, parasitic bootlickers, making our way in life off the pain, suffering and success of others. Our jobs can easily be eliminated and nobody will know the difference. This all means we really have no responsibility and therefore no obligation to adhere to any high standards or anything like that.

So Help Me, God: The Expectation of Leadership

By T.M. Moore, BreakPoint
Crosswalk.com

The old saw makes an all-too-true point: How can you tell when a politician is lying? Are his lips moving? Americans have become increasingly cynical about their leaders.

“Now then, let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the LORD our God, or partiality or taking bribes.”
(2 Chronicles 19:7) We want to trust them, and we hope they’ll tell us the truth and keep their word. But it seems that, when push comes to shove, politicians are only interested in their own agendas.

Campaign promises go out the window in the heat of political debate, and everyone seems to care only about scoring points and enlarging their base of power. Compromise and spin become the order of the day as politicians fear nothing so much as the latest polls and work hardest at making their decisions palatable to their constituents.

Do we have a right to expect more of our political leaders? Should legislators, executives, and judges be held to a higher standard than mere pragmatism? Almost every officer-holder in the land embarks upon his service by swearing to serve the people, “So help me, God.” We should not allow them to take this invocation of the Lord’s name in a frivolous manner. If they’re going to use it, we should hold them to it.

What God requires of rulers

The Scriptures are abundantly clear on this matter. Those who take up the responsibility of governing a people in the name of the Lord must be prepared to adhere to His requirements. These are spelled out in Deuteronomy 16:18-20, where God says to those who accept the calling to rule, “They shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe...Justice and only justice, you shall follow...”

But what does this involve? What do we have a right to expect of those who agree to govern us, calling upon the help of the Lord?

When King Jehoshaphat of Judah took up the responsibility of appointing judges and rulers in the cities of the nation, he charged them solemnly with this mandate. From his words in 2 Chronicles 19:4-7, we can discern precisely what it means for rulers to govern in the help of the Lord.

Govern as unto the Lord

Jehoshaphat’s first injunction to rulers establishes the framework within which we must expect them to govern: “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for the LORD” (v. 6). When public officials engage their duties with the words, “So help me, God,” we must presume that they mean what they say. We have a right to expect that legislators, executives, and judges will weigh their actions before the Lord, looking to him in prayer, seeking the advice of wise and God-fearing counselors, and considering the teaching of Scripture and the precedents of God-fearing forebears.

How then can we reconcile this invocation with the resolute effort of public officials to keep “religion” out of the public square? Do they really want to govern as unto the Lord and not unto men? Are they merely submitting to some custom or tradition when they declare this invocation, silently agreeing with all who see them that it is but a trivial procedure and means nothing? If we would help our politicians to make their words matter, then we must remind them of their invocation and encourage them to practice their trust in the Lord daily, and not to give in to the pressures of lobbyists, special interest groups, or their own selfish ambition when it comes to the prosecution of that with which they have been entrusted.

Walk with the Lord

Jehoshaphat’s second admonition follows from this: “He is with you in giving judgment.” We must remind our rulers that God is concerned about every aspect of their work and their lives. He is with them to aid them in ruling the nation, and He forms the kind of person they will be as rulers in the day-to-day details of their lives.

Do we have a right, therefore, to expect of those who invoke the help of God in the performance of their civic duties that they should be people of faith? That they should take seriously such disciplines as prayer, fellowship with other believers, worship, and meditation in the Truth of God? How shall our rulers know the presence of God with them in their law-making, policy-setting, or judging capacities if they do not practice His presence with them in all their daily activities?

Here again, by prayer and continuous encouragement we should come to the aid of our public officials who have sought the help of the Lord in fulfilling the duties of their office. By reminding them of their words and pointing them to resources and people who can help them in their daily walk and in the conduct of their offices, we may be able to guide them to a richer and more meaningful experience of the presence of the Lord in their lives and work.

Fear the Lord

Jefferson once reflected with trembling on the implications of God’s justice for a wayward people such as Americans tend to be. He was right to voice such concern. Jehoshaphat insisted of those who accepted the call to public office in the name of the Lord, “Now then, let the fear of the LORD be upon you.” In the Scriptures God is clear about His attitude toward those who scorn His Law and ignore His will in the performance of their duties and the conduct of their lives. God hates sin; He hates it even more when public officials breed sin into the systems by which they govern their people. Those kings and rulers—like Jehoshaphat—who truly feared the Lord were well aware of the fact that He is no remote or disinterested deity. He watches over the affairs of men and nations and prefers His own counsel to theirs (Psalm 33:10-12).

They who call upon the name of the Lord at the inception of their public service must nurture the fear of Him as the ground for their lives and duties. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10). The fear of the Lord encourages a close walk with Him, nurtures deep and abiding love for Him, and leads to faithfulness in His service (Deuteronomy 10:12,13). Unless public officials fear the Lord they will not be inclined to seek Him or follow Him as He accompanies them in the fulfillment of their duties.

Be careful in all they do

Finally, Jehoshaphat instructed the rulers he appointed over the people of Judah to “be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the LORD our God, or partiality or taking bribes.” Rulers must be expected to act in a circumspect manner, with regard for the will of God and the common weal, before they make any decisions or take any actions. They must resist every self-serving inclination or opportunity lest they fall afoul of the justice and goodness of the Lord. They must “deal courageously” (v. 11) in following the way of the Lord in all they do, trusting that He will be with those who act according to His goodness and truth and will bless both them and the people they serve.

Those who invoke the help of the Lord in taking up the call to public service should not expect to have God as their Servant, to do all their bidding whenever they may choose to consult Him. Nor must they renege on their oath in the performance of their duties; the taking of public oaths is a solemn affair, and must not be trivialized or transgressed. If our rulers want us—and the Lord—to take them seriously, then they must seek and receive the help of the Lord according to the guidelines He Himself has provided in His Word.

Mere talk?

Are these words of advice to rulers mere talk? Are we kidding ourselves to think that we could expect our rulers to take their own words seriously? Does Caesar really owe anything to the God he invokes upon taking up the duties to which he has been called? What about separation of Church and State? Are we seeking to establish a theocracy in America? As Paul might have said, “May it never be!”

All we ask is that our politicians begin to redeem the words by which they govern us, and the work they perform on our behalf, by making their “yes” mean “yes” and their “no” mean “no.” And we want them to do so at the very beginning of their service, as well as throughout.

But many will say, “It is unreasonable to expect politicians to govern us as unto the Lord, according to their invocation. We are not a Christian nation.” I do not believe that we should not hold our public officials to their word; if we are to do so, then let us take one of two courses.

First, let us consistently and continuously remind our politicians that they are not acting in the performance of their office according to their words of invocation. Let us become like Elijah or Micaiah, who troubled the King of Israel by their constant insistence on his acting in good faith toward the God they pretended to serve. Let them deny publicly any intention of seeking the Lord in prayer, of leaning on wise and Godly counselors, or of allowing the Word or biblical precedent to inform their actions. Let them stand before us all and say, “I didn’t really mean that. It was just a formality, you know.”

Then, second, if indeed such is to be the case, let us dispense with the formality. Let legislators, presidents, and judges say what they will at their swearing in. Let us require them to declare their sources, invoke the help of particular advisors, known political philosophies, and their own best hunches.

Let them resolve in solemn oaths to look to the god of reason, or prosperity, or political advancement in all their actions. Let them be required, in other words, to tell us, right up front, what they will depend on in governing us, to whom or what they will look, and what will be the formative influences in all their actions as our leaders. And let them say clearly to what extent, if any, they intend to look to God for help at all.

For I rather suspect, given the large Christian population of this nation, and the staying power of a long tradition that—to the chagrin of many—will not go away, that any public official who would choose that course, and who would declare beforehand that he will not look to the help of the Lord in the ways we have described, would find his hopes for attaining political office severely diminished.

For reflection

Is this a reasonable expectation for Christians to hold out to public officials? How might you begin to practice such expectations?

Ethical Economics

Ethics are concerned with promoting mutually acceptable behavior between people and groups of people.

Economics are concerned with people and organizations obtaining and using scarce resources.

So ethical economics is the combination of the two: promoting acceptable behavior between those who are striving to obtain those resources.

It is often said that the words “Ethical” and “Economics” cannot be used together. But that implies that people must be too concerned with maximizing their own share of those resources to consider the effects of those actions on others. That we should in effect not have “loving our neighbor as ourselves” as a principle which we hold as the essential basis for looking for the development of the human race and ourselves within it.

-- http://www.ethical-economics.com/

Ethical Economics
By Fr. Roy Cimagala
The Bohol Chronicle

I think we need to be familiar with this concept and try to help build it up, making everyone as far as possible to get involved in the task. I think that as we progress and face more challenging times, we need to see to it that we are also doing our economics properly.

We just can't allow our economy to work by the principle of the so-called "invisible hand." That would be working by blind faith, tempting God and creating an environment that favors the privileged, the strong and the rich to take advantage.

We have to discard the idea that some mechanism inheres in the economy that would automatically make things right. That simply is not true.

While we have to respect personal freedom and right to private property, we also need to not only to have some regulations, but also to expand and tighten them, so that the whole system can function really well.

I was reading the other day the speech of the Vatican observer to the UN conference last June 26 on "The World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development," and this-ethical economics-was what at bottom he was driving at. I agree with the idea, though it sounds fantastic still at the moment.

Let's quote some words of his: "Underlying the current economic crisis is an ideology which places individuals and individual desires at the center of all economic decisions.

"The practice of economics has reflected this ideological focus and has sought to remove values and morality from economic discussions rather than seeking to integrate these concerns into creating a more effective and just financial system."

He concluded by saying that this attitude has created a society in which short-term economic and personal gains are made at the expense of other and have the effect of creating an individualism lacking recognition of the shared rights and responsibilities necessary to create a society respecting the dignity of all people.

He then called for integrating ethics into our economic activities. This is easier than done. Not only do we need to know the relevant ethical principles. We also have to know how to apply these principles, what adequate structure and support system would be needed to make the ethical dimension workable, etc.

A lot of pertinent education in all levels of society is needed to make everyone at least to be aware of this concern, if not to empower them to effectively participate in shaping and keeping our economic system alive and healthy.

What is desired is that more and more people develop a growing sensitivity to the requirements of the basic social principles of the common good, solidarity and subsidiarity in their different aspects and levels. Alas, I wonder what efforts are made to pursue this particular goal.

Besides, there are basic questions that need to be clarified yet. Like, how do we strike a healthy balance between profit and social responsibility, private property and universal destination of goods, individual initiatives and corporate activities, confidentiality and transparency, etc.

I could readily see that there can be no easy answers to these questions, nor rigid formulas to follow. What's needed is a continuing vigilance and a deepening formation of consciences, since we are actually appealing to the sense of freedom and responsibility of persons.

In the end, there is a clear spiritual and moral dimension in all these economic activities. And that's where the main problem lies, since at present we are still stalled by a formidable obstacle starting with people's attitude and mentality.

The obstacle has two sides: one is that those in business generally feel religion has no place in it, and two, that those in religion also generally feel the economy is not their business.

To be sure, there had been attempts to link the two, but so far, they generally succumb to a common fatal anomaly-that of thinking that business and economy can be run like faith and religion, that is, in terms of dogmas that do not respect a certain autonomy of our business activities.

These points are still wild, new frontiers that need to be cleared, developed and settled. And one basic and indispensable task is to spread the idea of ethical economics to pave the way for more concrete actions for our economy to work properly.

----------
Fr. Roy Cimagala is the Chaplain of Center for Industrial Technology and Enterprise (CITE) in Talamban, Cebu City. You can email him at:Email: roycimagala@boholchronicle.com

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul

A wounded woman lies on the ground following a blast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in central Jakarta July 17, 2009. Six people were killed in nearly simultaneous explosions at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the Marriott Hotel in central Jakarta on Friday, Indonesian police said. Jakarta police spokesman Chrysnanda Dwilaksana said he could not confirm if the blasts were caused by bombs. A Jakarta hospital official said 10 people had been brought in for treatment.

----------


.
Heal The World
By Michael Jackson

I.

There's a place in our hearts
And we know that it is love
And this place could be much brighter than tomorrow
And if we really try
We'll find there's no need to cry
In this place we'll feel
There's no hurt or sorrow

There are ways to get there
If we care enough for the living
Make a little space, make a better place...

Chorus:

Heal the world
Make it a better place
For you and for me
And the entire human race
There are people dying
If we care enough for the living
Make a better place
For you and for me

II.

If we want to know why
There's a love that cannot lie
Love is strong
It only cares for joyful giving
If we try we shall see
In this bliss we cannot feel fear or dread
We stop existing and start living

Then it feels that always
Love's enough for us growing
So make a better world
Make a better world...

(Repeat Chorus)

Bridge:

And the dream we were conceived in
Will reveal a joyful face
And the world we once believed in
Will shine again in grace
Then why do we keep strangling life
Wound this earth crucify its soul
Though its plain to see
This world is heavenly
Be God's glow

III.

We could fly so high
Let our spirits never die
In my heart I feel you are all my brothers
Create a world with no fear
Together we cry happy tears
See the nations turn their swords into plowshares

We could really get there
If you cared enough for the living
Make a little space
To make a better place...

(Repeat Chorus 3X)

There are people dying
If you care enough for the living
Make a better place
For you and for me...

(Repeat)

You and for me...

(Repeat 10x then fade)

----------
Jesus' words when undergoing persecutions [Matthew 10:16~31]:

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

You will be hated by all men for my name's sake, but he who endures to the end will be saved.

Therefore don't be afraid of them, for there is nothing covered that will not be revealed; and hidden that will not be known.

What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim on the housetops.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? Not one of them falls on the ground apart from your Father's will, but the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore don't be afraid. You are of more value than many sparrows.

* * * * * * *
In every work of evil there are corresponding far great opportunities for goodness to shine.

Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, “Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord.” Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:19-21)

Changing The Rules Of Interfaith Dialogue

Ministry Lessons From A Muslim
His message to Christians: Fully embrace your identity
By Skye Jethani and Brandon O'Brien
Christianity Today

"Remember, the three most powerful narratives on the planet are narratives of religion, narratives of nation, and narratives of ethnicity/race. You cannot afford to forfeit that territory by talking about economics or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Don't be afraid to be Christian ministers. If you don't use the Christian narrative to define reality for your people, then someone else will define reality for them with a different narrative." - Eboo Patel

Eboo Patel is not the most likely seminary professor. His credentials are not the issue. Patel earned his doctorate from Oxford University, and he is a respected commentator on religion for The Washington Post and National Public Radio. He has spoken in venues across the world, including conferences for evangelical church leaders.

What makes Eboo Patel an unlikely seminary professor is that he is Muslim.

The editors of Leadership first encountered Patel at the 2008 Q Conference, where he challenged 500 Christian leaders to change the rules of interfaith dialogue. "Muslims and Christians might not fully agree on worldview," he said, "but we share a world." Patel spoke of his enduring friendships with a number of evangelicals and his desire to move beyond the "clash of civilizations" rhetoric that dominates Christian/Muslim interaction. While holding firmly to his belief in Islam, he also affirmed church leaders. "Even though it is not my tradition and my community," Patel wrote after the conference, "I believe deeply that this type of evangelical Christianity is one of the most positive forces on Earth."

We were intrigued, so we contacted Patel to talk more about the ramifications of increasing religious diversity in America, as well as his outsider's perspective of the church's response. Patel gave us more than we bargained for. He invited us to attend a class he was teaching on interfaith leadership at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago.

Patel is not on the seminary faculty. He serves as the executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC)—a Chicago-based international non-profit that brings together religiously diverse young leaders to serve their communities. The seminary invited Patel to co-teach the course on interfaith leadership with Cassie Meyer, a Christian who serves as the training director at IFYC.

Be more Christian

When we arrived in the class, which included twenty seminarians—men and women from diverse racial and denominational backgrounds—the students were discussing a newspaper article. Patel and Meyer were using the report about tensions between Somali Muslim immigrants and Latino workers at a meatpacking plant in Grand Island, Nebraska, as a case study. The Muslims wanted the factory's managers to adjust production schedules to accommodate their prayer times and holidays like Ramadan. Others in the rural community admitted being uncomfortable with the influx of so many Muslim neighbors—particularly after September 11, 2001.

"Imagine you are the pastor of a church in Grand Island, Nebraska," Patel says to the class. "A reporter from The New York Times calls you because he is working on a story about the conflict between Muslims and Christians at the meatpacking plant. The reporter asks you, 'What should Christians do?' How would you respond?" After a few moments of reflection, a student answers.

"I would talk about the fact that this country was founded on religious freedom," he says. "We have to respect other people's beliefs."

"Yes," interjects another student. "But if they allow the Muslims to take breaks for prayer, it will disrupt the factory's productivity. There is an economic reality to consider. If the plant shuts down, the whole community will suffer."

For fifteen minutes the students debate the matter, fluctuating between constitutional rights and economic realities. Finally, Patel interrupts.

"I'm hearing you articulate two grand narratives. First, the narrative of American freedom. And second, the narrative of capitalism and productivity. But remember, the reporter is not calling you because you are an expert in economics or constitutional law. He's calling you because you are a minister. Don't be afraid to answer the question as a Christian. Answer out of the Christian narrative."

The irony of a Muslim challenging a group of pastors to be more Christian was not lost on the students. Heads dropped as they contemplated a different response to the case study. Cassie Meyer assisted the students by adapting the scenario.

"Imagine you're the pastoral intern at the church in Grand Island," Meyer says, "and you've been given the responsibility to preach a sermon this Sunday addressing the conflict between the Christians and Muslims. What would you say from the pulpit? What would you use from Scripture?"

"The greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbors," says one student. "Whether we like it or not, these Somali Muslims are our neighbors and we are called to love them."

"But many in the town don't view the Muslims as their neighbors," says another student. "They view them as intruders, unwanted outsiders, or even their enemies."

"Do you think referring to the Muslims as 'enemies' in your sermon might inflame the problem?" Patel asks.

"I don't think so," the student responds. "Jesus calls us to love our enemies and to show kindness to aliens. But that would have to be made clear in the sermon. The story of the Good Samaritan comes to mind." Patel is out of his chair, energized by what he is hearing.

"I want you to see what just happened," he says. "I want to affirm this. You are using the grand Christian narrative to respond to an interfaith conflict. First, I heard the Christian story of loving God and loving your neighbor. Second, I heard the Christian story of the Good Samaritan and the call to love the stranger. By using these stories, you are defining reality through the Christian narrative.

"Remember, the three most powerful narratives on the planet are narratives of religion, narratives of nation, and narratives of ethnicity/race. You cannot afford to forfeit that territory by talking about economics or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Don't be afraid to be Christian ministers. If you don't use the Christian narrative to define reality for your people, then someone else will define reality for them with a different narrative."

Patel's call to stand firmly on the Christian narrative isn't what most students expect to hear from a Muslim professor. [...]

Click here to read full text.

----------
Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments as recorded in the book of Mark 12:30-31:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. The second is like this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these."

Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law [Romans 13:10]. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [Galatians 5:14]

What ways are there that are able to deal successfully with the problem of human relations other than what the Lord Jesus has taught and demonstrated by his brief life on earth?

Iron Sharpens Iron

Obama asks Russians to forge partnership with US
By Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer
Yahoo News

Moscow – Working to turn Russia from antagonist to ally, President Barack Obama asked the Russian people Tuesday to "forge a lasting partnership" with the U.S., but he acknowledged after talks with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that on divisive issues there won't be "a meeting of the minds anytime soon."

Obama was wrapping up a two-day stay in Russia, during which he and President Dmitry Medvedev said they were determined by year's end to negotiate a new nuclear arms treaty that would slash both country's arsenals by about one-third.

After breakfast at Putin's country home, Obama sped back to central Moscow to tell the graduating class of the prestigious New Economic School that the U.S. and Russia were not "destined to be antagonists."

Throughout his young presidency, Obama has hewed to a singular message about U.S.-Russian relations, insisting that both nations must get beyond the kind of thinking that gripped Moscow and Washington during the decades of the Cold War. He reprised that in his graduation speech.

"It is difficult to forge a lasting partnership between former adversaries," Obama said. "But I believe on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation."

Before leaving for Russia, Obama had said that Putin had "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new." After breakfast with the Russian leader, he told Fox News Channel: "I found him to be tough, smart, shrewd , very unsentimental, very pragmatic. And on areas where we disagree, like Georgia, I don't anticipate a meeting of the minds anytime soon."

Putin, the former Russian president, also spoke warmly of his country's hopes for improved U.S. ties with Obama in the White House.

"With you we link all our hopes for the furtherance of relations between our two countries," the former KGB official said, sitting next to Obama.

The White House had been hoping to reach a broader Russian audience with Obama's speech, but the address was not widely available on television. It was carried live on the 24-hour news channel Vesti, but not on any of the main, more widely watched Russian outlets such as First Channel, Rossiya, or NTV.

Obama used his speech to further define his view of the United States' place in the world and, specifically, to argue that the U.S. shares compelling interests with Russia.

"Let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia," he declared.

His upbeat comments showed Obama's determination to turn around public opinion in Russia, where polls show people are wary of the United States and take a skeptical view of Obama himself.

He said Russian and U.S. interests largely overlap in halting the spread of nuclear weapons, confronting violent extremists, ensuring economic prosperity, advancing the rights of people and fostering cooperation without jeopardizing sovereignty.

But he also sprinkled in challenges to Russia, particularly in the area of democracy. U.S. officials are wary of Russia's increasingly hard-line stand on dissent.

"By no means is America perfect," Obama said. But he also said: "Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course. ... If our democracy did not advance those rights, I as a person of African ancestry wouldn't be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a president."

Obama said the U.S. will not try to impose any kind of governing system on another country. But he argued for democratic values "because they are moral, and also because they work."

On Georgia and Ukraine — two nations that have sought NATO membership to the chagrin of neighboring Russia — Obama tried a diplomatic touch. He defended the steps nations must take to join the alliance, adding, "NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation."

The White House described the session positively, on the whole.

Both sides agreed to try to be better listeners and pay more attention to how each side is looking at the same issues, said one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the private meeting that was described as "very candid."

Before the speech Obama held what the White House characterized as a "good meeting" with former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The U.S. leader, accompanied by Medvedev, also met with U.S. and Russian business leaders. Obama also met with a diverse collection of nongovernment leaders from both countries — health experts, environmentalists, reporters, human rights advocates — who held their own summit to re-engage engage bilateral cooperation.

Obama also met with Russian opposition leaders.

On Wednesday he heads to a G-8 summit in Italy. While there he will meet Pope Benedict XVI, before moving on to Ghana where he plans to deliver what the White House describes as a major foreign policy speech.

----------
To sharpen irons, physical contact and rubbing are necessary. Irons may successfully sharpen each other if they are strongly determined to stick together and willing to endure the real pain of rubbing against each other.

Unequal or insufficient pressure (commitment) from either one will cause both of them to fall apart. And too much friction in-between them will not cause any rubbing motion at all.

Putting everything under the guidance of the Master Blacksmith, a masterpiece can be hoped for.

Was Once A Flourishing Young Tree

Can a tree choose its place of growth? Can it move from where it has grown? Can it always flourish in every environment?

Can a tree be blamed for not bearing fruit? Can it simply be rejected for failing to flourish? Suppose you are that tree, what can/will you do?

The tree shown in the picture was once a flourishing young tree. On the ground where it has grown were once green grass where cows, horses, and goats used to graze. But now it has become a heap of non-biodegradable wastes.

The toxins of the garbage in this open dump site poisoned whatever were once flourishing in the area. All that is left is a dying young tree that seems to plead to the heavens for some measure of mercy.

----------
Blessed is the man who doesn't walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the way of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers; But his delight is in Yahweh's law; On his law he meditates day and night. He will be like a tree planted by the streams of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also does not wither. Whatever he does shall prosper. (Psalms 1:1-3)