To “Dis” or Not to “Dis” the Flag

The national flag of the United States of America is a symbol of freedom, liberty and human rights. It is a symbol of hope and all that we believe in as Americans. It is a symbol that some men rally behind, whether on our shores or in foreign territories. The stars on the flag represent the 50 states of the United States of America, and the stripes represent the 13 British colonies that declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and became the first states in the U.S.

The U.S. flag—The Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, and even The Star-Spangled Banner as it is nicknamed—is considered sacred by some; which will explain why the desecration of the flag is considered a public outrage, but remains protected as freedom of speech. Scholars have noted the irony that "the flag is so revered because it represents the land of the free, and that freedom includes the ability to use or abuse that flag in protest". Yet, there are those who say the flag holds no value for them at all and believe it’s nothing more than a symbol of a broken country.

For those who hold the flag in high esteem, it is about the beauty of living in America and enjoying the rights associated with our free democracy; those that has been paid for by blood, sweat, limbs, and even lives. It is because of this, that those who oppose issues in America and protest by burning the flag or kneeling during the National Anthem—the song associated with salute to the flag—are deemed unpatriotic or simply, “disrespectful”.

Over the last few years, this country has seen a public outcry over the increasing numbers of police brutality, especially in disproportionate numbers against African Americans. We’ve seen the likes of Travon Martin, Philando Castile, Eric Garner, Mike Brown, and many more killed in controversial confrontations by law enforcement officers only to have all of them adjudicated with no convictions.

It was Sunday, August 14, 2016 when San Francisco’s quarterback Colin Kaepernick, an African American, sat during the playing of the National Anthem before a pre-season game. Initially, he went unnoticed because he wasn’t in uniform and did not play because of an injury. By August 26, he made national headlines for again, sitting during the playing of the National Anthem.

Kaepernick told the media after the game he sat because of the oppression of people of color and ongoing issues with police brutality.

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color," Kaepernick said, via NFL.com. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

When interviewed, Kaepernick said, “I'm going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that has to change. When there's significant change and I feel that flag represents what it's supposed to represent, and this country is representing people the way that it's supposed to, I'll stand."

Unlike what some in the media, NFL and President Donald Trump has proclaimed, for Kaepernick, his position to not stand during the playing of the National Anthem was not about failing to appreciate those who have suffered greatly in respect of the flag. In fact, he said, “I have great respect for the men and women that have fought for this country. I have family…I have friends that have gone and fought for this country. And they fight for freedom, they fight for the people, they fight for liberty and justice, for everyone. That’s not happening. People are dying in vain because this country isn’t holding their end of the bargain up, as far as giving freedom and justice, liberty to everybody. That’s something that’s not happening. I’ve seen videos, I’ve seen circumstances where men and women that have been in the military have come back and been treated unjustly by the country they fought have for, and have been murdered by the country they fought for, on our land. That’s not right.”

So, did Colin Kaepernick “Dis” the flag by not standing and by kneeling down? Many have decided to register their opposition to policies and laws that are unjust in this country by sitting, kneeling and taking a stand. Whenever those who were bold enough to show their opposition did so, they too have been called wrong, ungrateful and disrespectful.

Recently, President Trump said while campaigning in Alabama, “Wouldn’t you like to see one of our NFL owners, when somebody disrespects the flag, say, ‘Get that son-of-a-bitch off the field.’”

“Disrespects the flag…” What does it mean to “Dis” the flag? President Trump also said on his infamous Twitter account, “Burning a flag is a peaceful and respectful way for citizens of this great country to voice their displeasure. Very powerful.”

H’mmmm…Let’s get this straight: Kneeling down silently during the raising of the flag is disrespectful, but burning the flag is respectful? Again, I say, “To Dis or Not to Dis the Flag?” Maybe it is who is doing the “Dissing”.

Perhaps Tommie Smith (Gold) and John Carlos (Bronze) were being disrespectful in 1968 at the Mexico City Olympics when they raised their fists in salute to Black power during the playing of the U.S. National Anthem as they received their medals. Perhaps Rosie Parks in 1955 was being disrespectful when she had had enough and decided to sit in the “Whites Only” section of the bus while she paid the same fare as Whites but was told to sit in the back of the bus or go to jail. She chose the latter.

In 2017, if one decides to kneel down during the playing of the National Anthem they too are not only being “disrespectful” but “sons-of-bitches”. If history has taught us anything, it’s that today’s “sons-of-bitches” are tomorrow’s heroes.

In good ol’ Mr. Charlie type vernacular, Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys said regarding the recent stance by NFL members to kneel during the playing of the National Anthem: “You are all simply paid performers on a stage and that field is my stage! You will stand, with your hand over your heart and with respect, when our country’s National Anthem is being played or you will no longer be a Dallas Cowboy, a coach for the Dallas Cowboys, or have any association with the Dallas Cowboy organization! I will fire you, no matter who you are!”

Again, I say, “To Dis or to Not Dis the Flag”? The question has been, is taking a knee during the National Anthem being disrespectful? The real question is, what will taking-a-knee during the National Anthem cost those who will do it or what is the cost of silence? Does the beauty of the flag and the song cover up the injustices that started this entire stance in the first place?

R&B singer Erykah Badu says in lyric fashion, “Take a Knee”.

We are all watching to see

who will take a knee

We say if it were me

It would be so easy

But when you’ve suffered

Misery and have worked

To be what they call free

And are conditioned to

Believe what they say on TV

It’s hard to see the history

You are comfortably numb

To the indignity

Suffered by the collective WE

You watched mama struggle years

Social Media in your ears

And now the moment that you feared

All suited up you swallow tears

So though your legs are wobbly

You can’t go back to poverty…

We can ill afford to allow Colin Kaepernick’s original intent—that this country must do better in the disproportional injustice of police brutality against African Americans. We cannot allow those who would rather sweep the obvious under the rug and say this is disrespectful to the flag to call this protest disrespectful. No, kneeling stands for the very thing the flag represents to our country. We’re the ‘land of the free’ but every citizen hasn’t been made to feel truly free. Why does it still seem like there are different rules for drivers based on the color of one’s skin?

To Dis or Not to Dis the flag? We would be disrespecting the flag if we said nothing and did nothing about the racial injustices that African Americans face for still far too long in this country. We would be disrespecting the flag if the NFL players stopped their protests because of fear of their jobs. It cost Colin Kaepernick a job but we will look back on this time and say, it cost Colin but it paid dividends for others. We would be disrespecting the flag if you and I only allow the NFL players to partake in this stand. We must kneel with them in some form or the other. History would shame us if we allow them to stand alone. It would be a disrespect to them and to our forefathers who stood, walked, sat, drenched by water hoses and chased by dogs. Perhaps it is good to be disrespectful when being disrespectful is speaking up for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Don’t stop! Be “Disrespectful” in the dignity of right and justice. Shall we stand in shame or kneel in dignity? Again, I say, “To Dis or Not to Dis the Flag.” 

Dion Waiters skipped national anthem for religious reasons

On Wednesday, before the Cavaliers' game in Utah, those following Cleveland noticed Dion Waiters did not join the team during the pre-game presentation, including the singing of the national anthem. When asked by the Plain Dealer's Chris Haynes, Waiters attributed his absence to his religious beliefs:

Waiters informed Northeast Ohio Media Group that he is a Muslim and that he plans to excuse himself prior to the national anthem from here on out. "It's because of my religion," Waiters told NEOMG. "That's why I stayed in the locker room." Waiters says he is rededicating himself more to his Muslim faith. He appears to be in a happier state.

As Haynes explains, Waiters was absent not only for the anthem, but for lineup introductions -- a first because it was his first game of the season coming off the bench. In the Cavaliers' next game on Friday in Denver, Waiters remained out of the starting lineup, but did join his teammates for the anthem.

Waiters is not the first NBA player to forego standing for the anthem because of his Muslim faith. Nuggets guard Mahmoud Abdul-Raouf famously drew a one-game suspension from the NBA for his refusal to stand.

What do you think fair or foul?

Arizona Charter School Textbook Says Slavery Was Good for Blacks

Most historians agree that the enslavement of Africans for profit remains one the darkest religious periods of American history. So why is an Arizona charter school teaching students that slavery actually benefited blacks?

According to a lawsuit against the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools by the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, two books used by charters in Arizona, The 5,000 Year Leap and The Making of America by Cleon Skousen, teach Christian fiction and racist nonsense.

University of Baltimore legal scholar Garrett Epps told the Arizona Republic that The Making of America by Skousen are inaccurate.

“Parts of his major textbook, ‘The Making of America,’ present a systematically racist view of the Civil War. … A long description of slavery in the book claims that the state (of slavery) was beneficial to African Americans and that Southern racism was caused by the ‘intrusion’ of northern abolitionists and advocates of equality for the freed slaves,” Epps said.

The organization reached out to the charter school’s board to raise concerns about the school’s teaching of debunked and outdated information.

“Reading the text of The 5,000 Year Leap easily demonstrates that the book does not merely acknowledge the influence of religion in the nation’s founding, but actively promotes and endorses specific religious views and ideologies,” reads a letter from the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to the charter school’s board, according to the Huffington Post. “For example, the fifth of twenty-eight principles taught by the book is that ‘All Things Were Created by God, Therefore upon Him All Mankind are Equally Dependent, and to Him They are Equally Responsible.’”

Here’s a bit of what your child will learn if they’re assigned to read The Making of America.

“If pickaninnies ran naked it was generally from choice, and when the white boys had to put on shoes and go away to school they were likely to envy the freedom of their colored playmates.”

Does the Bible Condone Premarital Sex?

by Bob Russell

Occasionally church leaders email me, asking for my opinion on various personal or church problems. This spring, I received a note from a church leader in another city. The location isn't important, because the situation he outlined is common across the nation. He wrote of how a number of members ages 25 to 35 had reached the conclusion that premarital sex is “OK.” Some even play on the praise team, teach in the children’s program, or film videos for weekly announcements. “The problem is that some of them will tell me that they cannot find anything in scripture that says that what they are doing, having sex with someone, is wrong,” he said. “I have taught on the subject, but they do not see a direct statement against premarital sex.”

Dealing with sin.

He asked for other scriptures he can use, as well as about the church’s stance. Should it allow them to continue leading ministries or bring them before the congregation and—as the Bible says—have nothing to do with them in hopes it will help them see their sin and return to Christ? “I know that Satan wants to get in and cause problems in the church, but I also know the need to accept them and love them,” he concluded. “But we also have to deal with sin, or Satan wins.” In my response, I pointed out that the Bible repeatedly instructs God’s people to “flee fornication.” For 2,000 years, the word translated “fornication” in Scripture has been understood to include the prohibition of sex prior to marriage. Webster’s dictionary definition is clear: “consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.”

A privileged experience.

God designed the physical union of a man and a woman as a privileged experience within the bounds of marriage. The Lord intended marriage as a secure environment for raising children and a uniquely meaningful union that symbolizes God’s committed relationship to us (Ephesians 5:32). If there was nothing wrong with premarital sex, then why was Joseph determined to divorce Mary when he discovered she was expecting a child prior to marriage? If there is nothing wrong with premarital sex, then one could conclude there is nothing wrong with having children out of wedlock.

Obviously, those who would suggest the liberalization of the biblical standard are ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture, conforming to the values of the world, and yielding to the desires of the flesh. As Jesus said, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

The church’s responsibility.

Just as I said to this letter writer, I say to all church leaders: The church has a responsibility to practice discipline in regard to flagrant, known sin.  This is especially true for those in leadership. We are to gently confront believers who are known to be living in sin and encourage them to repent. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus cautioned us not to attempt to remove a speck from someone else’s eye without first examining ourselves to make sure there is not a log protruding from our own. Later, He explained that if the person living in sin doesn’t repent, then the believer is to take two or three others to confront again. If the backslider still refuses to change, the issue is to be taken to the church (Matthew 19:16-17). The shepherds of the flock are then to confront in love and encourage restoration to Christ. If the offender still refuses to repent, he/she is to be treated as an unbeliever.

Removal option.

The Apostle Paul instructed the Corinthian church to remove from their fellowship a man who persisted in living in incest, warning, “With such a man do not even eat” (1 Corinthians 5:11). Now, I know such measures sound harsh in an era of super-tolerance, but I’ve seen them work very effectively—often in the first stages. God designed the church to consist of people who are “called out” from the world. We are to live separate and holy lives. Unless we practice some measure of church discipline, the church is in danger of simply reflecting its culture rather than transforming it.  In Matthew 5:13, Jesus said if salt loses its saltiness, it is good for nothing except to be cast out and trodden under men’s feet. This is the present-day danger all church leaders face. May we have courage to point others to the truth instead of settling for the path of least resistance. 

Teen Sentenced to 23 Years for Killing Police Dog During Burglary

After NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s career was almost ruined for taking part in a dog fighting ring, some observers wondered whether society valued the life of dogs more than black men. This conversation is bound to be reignited now that a 17 year old black teen has been sentenced to 23 years behind bars for taking the life of a retired police dog during a burglary.

Ivins Rosier, 17, and two other teens broke into the home of a Florida trooper and gunned down his retired K-9. The dog passed away several days after the  burglary.
Rosier was convicted in May for the break-in and shoοting the five year old German Shepherd named Drake.


Although Rosier was only 16 when he broke into the home of trooper Robert Boody in 2012, Judge Robin Rosenberg said sentencing requirements left her little choice but to throw the book at the teen In addition, Rosier’s history with police didn’t help his case any.

During trial, Boody wept as he described coming home to find Drake lying in a pool of bloοd  critically wounded. Drake’s injuries were so severe that he eventually had to be euthanized.

Rosier admitted to Palm Beach County police that he was the one who shοt Drake. “If you shoot that dog and he dies, that’s murder of a law enforcement officer,” Detective Philip DiMola told Rosier during an interrogation, which was recorded and played during trial. 

Rosier’s attorney pressed for leniency but the judge pointed out the teen’s history of criminal activity and that he was even wearing an ankle monitor for a previous burglary during this incident. Rosier was tried as an adult for burglary and animal cruelty and sentenced to 23 years in prison.

Dr. Boyce Watkins, author of the book, “The 8 Principles of Black Male Empowerment,” says that this case is indicative of how society has never seen black men as being human. “Think of it this way.  You get a quarter century in prison for killing a dog, but the killers of Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin were not even convicted.  This very clearly and logically reminds us that the lives of black men are worth less than animals,” said Dr. Watkins. “You must link the psychology behind rulings like this to the fact that there are thousands of dead black boys all across the country who barely get a peep from the media, almost no serious police investigation and few repercussions for those responsible for the violence or the guns behind it.  If these boys were dead dogs, white people would be outraged.”

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below.

Floyd Mayweather Shuns Charitable Giving, Says He Makes Money For Himself

Late last year, radio personality Kelly Mac interviewed outspoken and undefeated boxer Floyd Mayweather.  The boxer confessed that he has a “good heart,” but that he does not feel obligated to give to charities, specifically in Africa.

     
“[People] say ‘well, he got all this money, why is he not giving to Africa?’” starts Mayweather.  “Well, what has Africa given to us?  What has Africa came and gave to my children and to my family? Things work two ways.”

He then discussed the threat that he believes giving too much money to charity can cause.

“Everybody’s always talking about giving, giving, giving.  That’s the problem.  Everybody’s doing so much giving, at the end of the day, they may not have nothing.   Then they’ll say ‘why was he giving this to that person, and giving this to that person when he should have been saving?’”

Mayweather goes on to say that he should be able to do whatever he wants with his earnings, such as using it to provide for himself and his family.

“I never got involved in the sport of boxing to say ‘I’m going to fight and make hundreds of millions of dollars and just give it all away.’  If I’m gonna mess money off in a bad way, I’m going to spend it on myself.  I’m going to do what I want to do with my money.  You hear people talking about, ‘well, he should…donate to this or donate to that.’  No, I should donate to Floyd Mayweather, donate to Floyd Mayweather’s family.  Because that’s what it’s about.”

According to Celebrity Net Worth, Mayweather, 37, is worth $170 million. Mayweather also has a charity, The Floyd Mayweather Jr. Foundation, in which the foundation declares to help underprivileged youth in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Recently, Mayweather has been in the news for reportedly spending $50,000 for rapper Nicki Minaj to appear at his daughter’s birthday party.

Do you think Mayweather should be obligated to give to 

Africa and/or other charities?

Racism: Still Alive in 2014

 

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 when newly elected President Barack Hussein Obama addressed his supporters at Grant Park in his hometown of Chicago, he boldly declared that a “change had come to America”. For many, the election of a man of Kenyan decent signaled that America had finally closed its dark chapter on racism and change had in fact not only come to America but to the rest of the world.

The mainstream media soon declared that America had reached the pinnacle of race relations and President Obama’s victory was proof the nation had entered a “new day”.

With recent comments by Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher battling the federal government’s efforts to restrict the land his cattle can graze on, and Los Angeles Clippers’ owner, Donald Sterling, it seems the change President Obama ushered in has worn out its welcome.

While talking to reporters covering his stand-off with the government, Mr. Bundy recalled driving by a public housing project in Las Vegas and seeing “at least half-dozen (black) people sitting on the porch, they didn't have nothing to do”. He added that they were “basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?...They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton…And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy?”

Perhaps Mr. Bundy has forgotten this country’s past and the savagery of slavery. His warped vision of Blacks “having a family life” during slavery was quite the contrary. One of the abhorrent tragedies of slavery was that it constantly tore families apart. Children were sold off and separated from their parents; spouses were broken up and sold to the highest bidder. In “Help Me Find My People”, author Heather Andrea Williams uses letters, public records, slave narratives and historical documents to “recreate the wrenching scenes of separation that happened on plantations and farms, in marketplace and on auction blocks”. Slavery ensured anything but “having a family life”.

The impact of slavery continues to have a lingering effect it on society despite having ended nearly 150 years ago. Slavery is also thought to be the biggest blight in the nation’s history.

While many conservatives who formerly viewed Mr. Bundy as a “patriot” have denounced his comments as “vile”, several continue to support him and argue his statement is an attack on the federal government versus one that disparages African Americans.

It is a mistake to believe that race is no longer an issue in America. NBA team owner Donald Sterling’s views on race is a testament to the fact there is a ways to go before we can announce that change has truly been achieve in terms of race relations.

In a recording, Mr. Sterling allegedly scolded his girlfriend, who happens to be of Black and Mexican heritage, for taking a photo with Los Angeles Lakers Hall of Fame Magic Johnson and posting it to a social media site.  During the conversation, he went on to say:

-- "It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to?"

-- "...Don't put him [Magic] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games."

Mr. Sterling seems to have overlooked the fact that his team’s roster is comprised mostly of the same people he prefers to not have an association with. It is on the backs of these same players that he continues to make his fortune.

Mr. Bundy and Mr. Sterling are just the latest individuals to share their racist viewpoints with the nation. Politicians have long spewed underhanded, subtle—and not so subtle—jabs at President Obama.

From Brush Ash, a Republican National Committee member, accusing the President of “shucking and jiving” to GOP Representative Doug Lamborn’s “tar baby” comment to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer photographed pointing her finger in the President’s face, the attacks have been relentless.

There have been numerous reports that President Obama may be the most disrespected president in the history of the United States. Recently the Democrats admitted that this may in fact be attributed to his race versus his policies.

It is naïve for us as a nation to believe that race no longer plays a role in our daily lives. Racism has not gone away and we must continue to have an open dialogue about race if there is truly to be a “new day” in America.

Racism is wrong on every level—regardless of who is perpetrating the act. It goes against God’s teachings. Galations 3:28 states that there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

What do you think the church’s response should be to racist comments, attitudes and actions?

Name It and Claim It!

Name It and Claim It!

Question: "Is 'name it claim it' teaching biblical?"

The “name it and claim it” or “prosperity gospel” is not biblical and is in many ways antithetical to the true gospel message and the clear teaching of Scripture. While there are many different versions of the name it and claim it philosophy preached today, they all have similar characteristics. At its best, this teaching comes from the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of some Scriptures and, at its worst, it is a completely heretical teaching that has the characteristics of a cult.

The roots of the Word of Faith movement and the name it and claim it message have more in common with new age metaphysics than with biblical Christianity. However, instead of us creating our reality with our thoughts, as new age proponents advise, name it and claim it teachers tell us that we can use the “power of faith” to create our own reality or get what we want. In essence faith is redefined from trusting in a holy and sovereign God despite our circumstances to a way of controlling God to give us what we want. Faith becomes a force whereby we can get what we want rather than an abiding trust in God even during times of trials and suffering.

There are many areas where name it and claim it departs from biblical Christianity. The teaching really exalts man and his “faith” above God. In fact many of the more extreme Word of Faith teachers teach that man was created on terms of equality with God and that man is the same class of being that He is Himself. This dangerous and heretical teaching denies the very basic tenets of biblical Christianity which is why the extreme proponents of the name it and claim it teaching must be considered to be cultic and not truly Christian.

Both the metaphysical cults and the name it and claim it teaching distort the truth and embrace the false teaching that our thoughts control reality. Whether it is the power of positive thinking or the prosperity gospel, the premise is the same—what you think or believe will happen is ultimately what controls what will happen. If you think negative thoughts or are lacking in faith, you will suffer or not get what you want. But on the other hand if you think positive thoughts or just have “enough faith,” then you can have health, wealth and happiness now. This false teaching appeals to one of man’s most basic instincts, which is one reason why it is hugely popular.

While the prosperity gospel and the idea of controlling one’s future with his thoughts or faith is appealing to sinful man, it is insulting to a sovereign God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Instead of recognizing the absolute sovereign power of God as revealed in the Bible, the name it and claim it adherents embrace a false god who cannot operate apart from their faith. They present a false view of God by teaching that He wants to bless you with health, wealth and happiness but cannot do so unless YOU have enough faith. Thereby God is no longer in control but man is. Of course this is completely antithetical to what Scripture teaches. God does not depend upon man’s ‘faith” to act. Throughout Scripture we see God blessing who He chooses to bless and healing who He chooses to heal.

Another problem with the name it and claim it teaching is that if fails to recognize that Jesus Himself is the ultimate treasure worth sacrificing everything for (Matthew 13:44) and instead sees Jesus as little more than a way of getting what we want right now. Jesus’ message is that a Christian is called to “…deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul” (Matthew 16:24-24). Contrast that to the message of the prosperity gospel. Rather than being a message of self-denial, the prosperity gospel is one of self-satisfaction. Its goal is not becoming more Christ-like through sacrifice but having what we want here and now, clearly contradicting the words of our Savior.

The Bible teaches that “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12), but the name and claim it message is that any suffering we undergo is simply the result of a lack of faith. The prosperity gospel is completely focused on us getting the things the world has to offer, but 1 John 2:15 tells us we should not “love the world or the things in the world” and, in fact, those with a fondness for the things of the world become enemies of God (James 4:4). The message of the prosperity gospel simply cannot be any more opposite of what the Bible really teaches.

In his book Your Best Life Now, prosperity teacher Joel Osteen says that the key to a more rewarding life, a better home, a stronger marriage and a better job is found in a “simple yet profound process to change the way you think about your life and help you accomplish what is truly important.” How different that is from the biblical truth that this life now is nothing compared to the life to come. The message of the prosperity gospel is focused around the “treasures” or good things we want and can have now, while Jesus said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19-21).

Jesus did not come to give us health, wealth and happiness now. He came to save us from our sins so that we can have an eternity of bliss with Him. Following Christ is not a ticket to all the material things men desire in this life but a ticket to eternal life. Our desire should not be to have our best life now but should be that of the Apostle Paul who had learned to be content “in whatever state I am” (Philippians 4:11).

The Rich Gospel

If you are not rich, is it because of your lack of faith?

Question: "What does the Bible say about the prosperity gospel?"

In the prosperity gospel, also known as the “Word of Faith,” the believer is told to use God, whereas the truth of biblical Christianity is just the opposite—God uses the believer. Word of Faith or prosperity theology sees the Holy Spirit as a power to be put to use for whatever the believer wills. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a Person who enables the believer to do God's will. The prosperity gospel movement closely resembles some of the destructive greed sects that infiltrated the early church. Paul and the other apostles were not accommodating to or conciliatory with the false teachers who propagated such heresy. They identified them as dangerous false teachers and urged Christians to avoid them.

Paul warned Timothy about such men in 1 Timothy 6:5, 9-11. These men of “corrupt mind” supposed godliness was a means of gain and their desire for riches was a trap that brought them “into ruin and destruction” (v. 9). The pursuit of wealth is a dangerous path for Christians and one which God warns about: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (v. 10). If riches were a reasonable goal for the godly, Jesus would have pursued it. But He did not, preferring instead to have no place to lay His head (Matthew 8:20) and teaching His disciples to do the same. It should also be remembered that the only disciple concerned with wealth was Judas.

Paul said covetousness is idolatry (Ephesians 5:5) and instructed the Ephesians to avoid anyone who brought a message of immorality or covetousness (Ephesians 5:6-7). Prosperity teaching prohibits God from working on His own, meaning that God is not Lord of all because He cannot work until we release Him to do so. Faith, according to the Word of Faith doctrine, is not submissive trust in God; faith is a formula by which we manipulate the spiritual laws that prosperity teachers believe govern the universe. As the name “Word of Faith” implies, this movement teaches that faith is a matter of what we say more than whom we trust or what truths we embrace and affirm in our hearts.

A favorite term in the Word of Faith movement is “positive confession.” This refers to the teaching that words themselves have creative power. What you say, Word of Faith teachers claim, determines everything that happens to you. Your confessions, especially the favors you demand of God, must all be stated positively and without wavering. Then God is required to answer (as though man could require anything of God!). Thus, God's ability to bless us supposedly hangs on our faith. James 4:13-16 clearly contradicts this teaching: “Now listen, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” Far from speaking things into existence in the future, we do not even know what tomorrow will bring or even whether we will be alive.

Instead of stressing the importance of wealth, the Bible warns against pursuing it. Believers, especially leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:3), are to be free from the love of money (Hebrews 13:5). The love of money leads to all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Jesus warned, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). In sharp contrast to the Word of Faith emphasis on gaining money and possessions in this life, Jesus said, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19). The irreconcilable contradictions between prosperity teaching and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is best summed up in the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:24, “You cannot serve both God and money.”

Is pleading the blood of Jesus biblical?

"I Plead the Blood of Jesus over…”

Question: "Is pleading the blood of Jesus biblical?"

“Pleading the blood of Jesus” in prayer is a teaching that can be traced to some of the early leaders of the Word of Faith movement. When people speak of “pleading the blood of Jesus,” in prayer they are referring to the practice of “claiming” the power of Christ over any and every problem by using the phrase “I plead the blood of Jesus over _______.”

“Pleading the blood of Jesus” has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. No one in the Bible ever “pleads the blood” of Christ. Those who “plead the blood” do so as if there was something magical in those words or as if by using them their prayer is somehow more powerful. This teaching is born from the misguided and heretical view of prayer that prayer is really nothing more than a way of manipulating God to get what we want rather than praying for His will to be done. The whole Word of Faith movement is founded on the false teaching that faith is a force and if we pray with enough faith, then God guarantees us health, wealth, and happiness and will deliver us from every problem and every situation. In this view, God is simply a way to get what we want instead of being the holy, sovereign, perfect and righteous Creator that the Bible reveals Him to be.

Those who teach this Word-Faith falsehood have an exalted view of man and our “rights” to plead what we want and get God to respond the way we want. This is in opposition to true biblical faith exemplified by Paul’s life and his approach to suffering and trials. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). But Word of Faith teaches that if we suffer or are sick or struggle with sin, it is because we do not have enough faith or that we are not pleading the blood of Jesus to claim what is rightfully ours. But we do not see Paul pleading the blood of Christ or claiming what is “rightfully his” when he was faced with trials and persecution. Instead we see his unwavering faith in Christ no matter what the situation: “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that day” (2 Timothy 2:12).

 

Paul had “learned in whatever state I am in to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:11-13). Paul’s faith was in Christ alone, and he could say with conviction “the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom. To Him be the glory forever and ever, Amen!” (2 Timothy 4:18).

“Pleading the blood” as it is commonly practiced has more in common with mysticism—reciting a magical formula and hoping it works—than it does with biblical prayer. Saying certain words does not make our prayers magically more powerful. Furthermore, “pleading the blood” of Christ is not needed to defeat Satan. He has already been defeated, and if we are truly born-again, Satan has no power over us other than what God allows for His purpose and glory. Colossians 1:13 makes this perfectly clear: “For He has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins.”

Rather than “pleading the blood” of Christ for protection or power, Christians should obey the command in James 4:7 “Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” Rather than practicing an unbiblical model of prayer, we are to follow the simple precepts of Scripture—leading a pure life before God, taking captive all our thoughts to avoid giving sin a place, confessing our sins when we fail those first two precepts and putting on the full armor of God as outlined in Ephesians 6:13-17.

The Bible gives us numerous instructions in victorious living in Christ, and pleading “the blood of Jesus” is not one of them. We have been cleansed by the blood of Christ and He is our High Priest and mediator who “always lives to make intercession” for us (Hebrews 7:25). As His sheep we are already under His protection, we simply need to live day by day trusting in Him for what He has already promised and provided.

Trick or Treat? Is It Hallowed or Is It Not?

For centuries the Christian church honored its deceased members on All Hallows’ Day (All Saints Day), November 1. The night before was known as “Hallowed Eve.” The liturgical churches—Catholic, Episcopalian (Anglican), and Lutheran—still celebrate All Saints Day, but as most everyone knows, the evening of October 31 is no longer a hallowed evening. It has become quite unholy, even though the etymology of the word Halloween would indicate otherwise.

Every act around Halloween is in honor of false gods, which are spirits in the realm of the Satanic. Thus, Halloween is seen primarily as a satanic holiday.

Should Christians have anything to do with the celebration that glorifies the power of God’s enemies?

Truth or the System? Was Zimmerman Really Innocent?

Everyone had their own opinion as to how the case of the state of Florida vs. George Zimmerman should end. For some it ended in justice. For many it was just another case of the system working for some and not for others. The prosecution all along wanted to make sure that the truth came out. They believe to the best of their abilities it did. However, according to our justice system the truth coming out means nothing if it is not proven in court; at least if it is not proven to a jury. For the millions who watched the 2 weeks of testimony during the case saw what they believed was the truth coming out. Even before the verdict by the jury many believed that either side had done its job in either proving or defending what really happened that dreadful, dark, and rainy night. But in reality, only two people really know exactly what happened that night. One was in court and the other one is dead. As stated by the prosecutor during the closing rebuttal: To the living we owe respect; to the dead we owe the truth.

As much as I would like to inject my opinion as to how things really came out, as a Christian leader I cannot afford to do that. However, here is the real ultimate truth: A child is dead and the man that shot him is free. It is God who really knows what happened. It is God who is still on the throne. It is God who sees everything. If Zimmerman is really innocent then the system worked. If he is really not innocent, although he is free, God will handle it. No one gets away with anything. That is where we as Christians ought to be; let God be God and not us. As Romans 12:19 says, Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

We must pray for Trayvon Martin’s family. At this moment they are really hurting. A son is gone. Dreams are dashed. Hopes have dissipated. That beautiful bouncing baby boy that his mother had on her knee will not be able to grow up and become whatever they had hoped for him to become. That young boy who started to grow and stand tall like his dad will never stand again. But God is able.

I don’t know what God is going to do as a result of this but I do know God. He always has the last word.

We cannot afford to erase the struggle of so many because a few would like to become vigilantes. So let’s not lose control but let’s allow God to still be in control.

Jada Pinkett Smith and Hollywood's Open Marriage Trend

If you were in a celebrity marriage, would you allow your husband to cheat? Jada Pinkett Smith opened up about this very topic on Thursday when during an interview with HuffPo Live, she addressed longstanding rumors that she and her husband of 15 years Will Smith are allowed to sleep with other people. "I've always told Will, 'You can do whatever you want as long as you can look at yourself in the mirror and be okay," said Pinkett Smith. "Because at the end of the day, Will is his own man. I'm here as his partner, but he is his own man. He has to decide who he wants to be and that's not for me to do for him. Or vice versa."

It's not the first time one half of the power couple as spoken out about their unconventional relationship. In 2008, Will Smith told British magazine Now, "Our perspective is, you don’t avoid what’s natural and you’re going to be attracted to people. If it came down to it, then one would say to the other: 'Look, I need to have sex with somebody. Now I’m not going to do it if you don’t approve of it.'"

Hollywood isn't exactly known for its successful marriage rates—seems like you can't walk by a newsstand without seeing headlines such as "$200 million dollar divorce!" or "Details of their shocking split"—but there are a handful of couples who do seem happily wed with one caveat: They're in open marriages. In 2010, comedian Mo'Nique told Barbara Walters that her husband Sidney Hicks is allowed to sleep with other people. "Could Sid have sex outside of his marriage with me? Yes. That's not a deal breaker. That's not something that would make us say, 'Pack your things and let's end the marriage.' What if it's 20 times? So what? We've been best friends for over 25 years, and we truly know who we are. Often times, people get into marriages and they don't know who they're laying next to. I'm very comfortable and secure with my husband."

Angelina Jolie and her maybe/maybe not husband Brad Pitt are rumored to have permission to see other people with Jolie once telling German magazine Das Neue that she didn't believe fidelity was "essential to a relationship." And in 2012, reality star Bethenny Frankel announced on her talk show that she and now-soon-to-be ex-husband Jason Hoppy agreed to give each other a free pass if the other ever met their celebrity crushes (his, Angelina Jolie; hers Taylor Kitsch). Is this arrangement crazy or realistic? Its no secret that people are becoming more wary of marriage as an institution. For starters, fewer people are getting hitched in the first place, with only 51 percent of adults married, compared with 72 percent in 1960, according to a recent study conducted by Pew Research Center. And on Thursday the CDC released data which found that couples are exchanging house keys at much higher rates than wedding vows and choosing to live together for much longer periods of time than ever before.

And that's just in real-people world—while there are no official stats on the divorce rate in Hollywood, it make sense that when you mix two gorgeous celebrities (who typically crave validation and attention), boatloads of cash and fame, sexual temptation is bound to occur. What's more, these people have more opportunity to stray than normal folks. Toss in screaming, obsessed fans who often go to great lengths to throw themselves at celebrities, bodyguards who can arrange discreet hook-ups at the drop of a non-disclosure agreement, and movie roles that require celebs to get naked with other gorgeous co-stars, it's a head-scratcher why the famous get married in the first place. For the ones that do, having an open marriage may simply be a logical lifestyle for two people who don't have much of a fighting chance of staying faithful in the first place.

Sounds sensible, right? Well, this type of arrangement can get messy, even with the strictest of ground rules. A source told Radar Online that Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher reportedly had an open marriage (“They would have threesomes. Demi liked women and Ashton would bring another woman into their relationship for flings, but they both agreed to it") however Moore was humiliated when Kutcher's fling with San Diego administrative assistant Sara Leal went public and she filed for divorce. And Pink and motocross star Carey Hart allegedly separated in 2007 because their reported "Don't ask, don't tell" policy caused too much tension in their marriage.

In the end, celebrity marriages will all play out differently regardless if monogamy is on the table. And we'll continue to be rapt audiences.

The Significance of Christ's Resurrection

Scandal - Who can you trust in this SCANDALOUS world?

Easter 2013

When God is for You.....

If Stones Could Talk

30 Days of Life

How to Reach the Lost