Energion Direct

Category: Politics

  • Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.: Compassion?

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
     
    There is little doubt that the Bible teaches we are to have compassion for the poor. Whether in the Old Testament and verses like Amos 5:11 and Zechariah 7:10 or the New Testament with verses such as Matthew 25:42-45, concern and compassion for the poor is a theme that runs throughout the Bible.
    As I discuss in my book, What is Wrong with Social Justice, I believe a key passage is to be found in 1 John 3:17-18,
    Whoever has earthly possessions and notices a brother in need and yet withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God be present in him? 18Little children, we must stop expressing love merely by our words and manner of speech; we must love also in action and in truth.
    While it is pretty clear how we must love in action, how can we tell if we are loving in truth? True compassion is concerned with results. It asks the question, are lives actually improved? Actions that you take that make you feel better, that allow you to feel you have done something, but which do not actually make an improvement in the lives of people, cannot really be consider compassion.
    One example I discuss in my book is the issue of the minimum wage. Those opposing an increase are frequently labeled as heartless, and resistance is dismissed as resulting from corporate greed. Yet, as I write, “if one is concerned with the poor, there are several good reasons to oppose an increase in the minimum wage.”
    Recently this was confirmed yet again. The last time this issue bubbled to the top of the political discussion, several cities heeded the calls of compassion for the poor and increased the minimum wage. Seattle was one such city passing a law that increases the minimum wage over time to $15/hour.
    The Seattle Times reported approvingly, “Seattle City Council approves historic $15 minimum wage.” Seattle’s Mayor, Ed Murray, said “Today we have taken action that will serve as a model for the rest of the nation to follow.”
    In 2016 an early study, limited to single-establishment firms, seemed to indicate that while the law may have reduced employment slightly, overall it had the intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers. In short, if you actually had a job, the minimum wage helped. But if you were one of those who were unable to find work because employers could not afford to hire you at the new higher wage, the law didn’t work as well for you.
    A study by the Harvard Business School analyzed 10 years of data on 30,000 restaurants and found that for every $1 increase in the minimum wage, restaurant closures increased 14%. In short, 14% more restaurants failed, causing both the business owners and employees affected to have incomes eliminated instead of increased.
    Recently a more compressive study commissioned for the city of Seattle and conducted by the University of Washington found the negative effects of Seattle’s increase went beyond those who either lost their jobs, or could not find one. The study found that while wages did go up, the average number of hours worked declined. The net result was that “total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.”
    In short, the minimum wage increase hurt those who either could not find work or lost their jobs as a result of the increase. It certainly did help those who remained employed and received the increase when their hours were not reduced. But even for those who remained employed, on average, hours were reduced to the point that the net effect was not an increase, but a reduction in wages of $125 per month.
    Now some are sure to argue that this reduction just demonstrates the greed of business owners. Yet the Harvard study shows the hard economic reality owners face less they go out of business. While, given our media culture that stigmatizes business owner as evil and greedy, it is easy to make business owners into stereotypes, stereotypes that can then be callously dismissed, this is hardly a Christian viewpoint, even though it is found among many Christians. The simple facts are that business owners are people and most business fail. Many that do survive struggle. Even large corporations have ups and downs. Just look at any list of the top corporations from the 1960’s and you will see a lot of names that today are shadows of their former size and importance, and many that are gone.
    1 John 3:18 says “we must love also in action and in truth.” As we do this we not only act, but we must act is ways that truly helps those in need. When it comes to social policy, the number of people affected is so large, the issues and dynamics so complex, that for any given policy there will always be some who are helped and others who are hurt, and this is not just an issue of rich and poor, but even among the very people we seek to help. Social policy is not immune to the law of unintended consequences, and true compassion is a compassion that goes beyond our intentions.
     
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

  • Hold Them in Love

    (July 4, 2017) 10:46 AM Shot this pic in Dallas.

    You’ll notice that “community” is used instead of “church.” This is the high calling of the body of Christ, including your local church and mine: to live in community. (Some day I will stop using the word “church” to translate the Greek ekklesia. If people around me aren’t doing it, that’s no excuse for me not to try. An ekklesia is a group of people who have something in common as opposed to an ochlos, a “crowd.”) This illustrates something important for me. I am being lured back to the simple ways of Jesus. And I am finding the process so convicting. The humility of Christ doesn’t grant us permission on this Fourth to call out our fellow Christians for feeling patriotic or to harp about a revolution in 1776 that was probably at odds with Paul’s teaching about submission to civil authority in Romans 13. Oh my. This approach, it seems to me, is based largely on the habit of being negative — seeing only (or mostly) what’s wrong in our culture and even in our church culture. In Matthew 25, Jesus condemned those on His left not because of something they did but because of something they failed to do right. This is how simple the Gospel is. “Whatever you do for the least of these, My brothers and sisters, you do for Me.” In other words, Jesus is describing (as in the church sign above) a community, and a community that cares. If, on my website, I’m constantly calling out gays or liberals or Trump-supporters or Trump-haters, how can I ever expect to befriend them with a view to sharing with them the love of Christ? I’ve already alienated them. As my seminary evangelism professor once told me, “You’ve got to play the music, Dave, if you want to say the words.” We take our marching orders from King Jesus, and last I checked I don’t think He was asking us to defend homeschooling or eldership or a political brand. Believe what you want, but be careful of becoming apologists for your views. That’s the theme, by the way, of my little book Christian Archy. One example I used was pedagogy. Practice homeschooling if that’s your personal conviction (it was ours), but remember that other Spirit-filled Christians might view education differently, and you can both hold your convictions in love because you are in community, not pontificating from a keyboard. Following Jesus never comes with a permission slip to get up on our high horses. In their book The Tangible Kingdom, Hugh Halter and Matt Smay write, “People in America are not ignorant of Christianity…. They’ve seen so much of pop Christian culture that they have a programmed response to us: Ignore, ignore, ignore” (p. 125). Representing a kingdom alternative to the world does not require a boo-hooing of everything else in our culture.
    Well, Dave, isn’t it time you stopped preaching to the choir and got real? How are you going to change? After all, aren’t you the greatest of sinners? (Answer: Yes.)
    If I see a serviceperson today, I will thank him or him for their service without stopping to think (not even for a nanosecond) about politics. I will watch tonight’s fireworks and marvel at this Chinese invention. I will listen to Sousa and tap my feet. I will take a long walk. (I don’t need to be in “church” to experience God.) I will look for Him in a grandchild’s smile or in the reflection in a pond or in the scent of a gardenia or in feeding my puppy a treat or in taking a bubble bath. I won’t feel guilty that I live in a free nation. Instead, I will seek to leverage that privilege for Jesus. For starters, I will ask God to help me to make the most of every opportunity that lies before me both on the internet and at home, school, work, and every area of my life. I will ask Him to knock down a few of my defensive walls. Like Jabez, I will ask Him for broader horizons to share my faith. I will think long and hard about people I know who are not yet heaven-bound and will add them to my salvation prayer list and intercede daily for them. I will ask God to soften their hearts to the love and saving power of Jesus and to convict them of their sins. More importantly, I will ask God to make my life a light that points them toward heaven.
    Friends, the amazing thing is that it’s within our power how we will view this national holiday. With a snub we can create enmity; with charity we can work miracles, even the miracle of leading someone to the Savior. A put-down, even if it seems well-deserved,  might make us feel good for a while, but loving encouragement can heal a multitude of wounds. And boy could our nation use some healing right about now.
    So ….

    • Have your convictions.
    • Hold them in love.
    • Act civilly toward all.
    • Be Jesus to everyone you meet.

    It’s a tall order, but it’s not one-sided. “Remember, I am with you, day after day after day.” The Lord has big-time plans for Americans who, on the one hand, value their liberty, but who, on the other hand, leverage it for the Gospel.
    Happy Fourth!
    (From Dave Black Online. Used by permission.)
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2299′]

  • Enough?

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
    The Left has become unhinged. Like some sci-fi robot spinning around spewing sparks as it is unable to process the data given it, the Left has been unable to process the fact that Donald Trump was elected president.
    Even though they had been highly critical of Trump during the campaign when he would not commit in advance to accepting the results of the election, from the moment Trump’s victory was announced many on the Left refused to accept it and began working to overturn the election.
    Of course, there were the obligatory but meaningless protests that are the staple of the Left. As if the protests of a hundred thousand on the streets could overturn the votes of millions in the democratic process. Then some sought to challenge the election result themselves by demanding recounts even in some states where Trump won by comfortable margins.
    When it became clear that this was not going to work, others tried to persuade some electors in the Electoral College to change their vote and thereby deny Trump the Presidency. When that failed, there was an effort to review the 25th Amendment and its means of removing a President who is unfit for office. When that likewise proved to be a dry hole, the focus became the meme that Trump had worked with Russia to rig the election and therefore should be removed.
    Now there is no question that Russia tried to interfere in the election. That is not, or at least should not be, anything new or surprising. This was reported during the election itself and frankly Russia, like most governments, tries to influence other nations, one aspect of which includes trying to influence their elections.
    What was surprising in the Left’s charge was not that the Russia meddled, but that they did so with the help of Trump. In short Putin and Trump colluded to rig the election. This would imply that the election was illegitimate and thus invalid and in theory Trump would be thrown out.
    The main problem for the left in all this, was that while there is certainly evidence that Russia meddled, there is no evidence that their meddling was significant, i.e., that it changed the outcome of the election. Whether your view is that Trump won the election, or just that Clinton lost, they did so on their own. The Russians did not send Trump to the key Midwest swing states, nor keep Clinton out of them, nor did they have Clinton set up a secret email server and then constantly change her story about it.
    But even worse for the Left is the fact there is likewise no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. What currently passes as “evidence” are innuendo and assumptions that would make Joseph McCarthy blush. A recent example would be the story about how investigators discovered 18 undisclosed contacts between those in the Trump campaign and “Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties.” At least in McCarthy’s day you had to be or have been a communist. Now you just need to get a phone call or email from someone in Russia to be suspect.
    Despite all the air play this supposedly shocking revelation had, for those who went past the headline and actually read a few paragraphs into the story discovered that those who had actually seen them saw “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.” But then why let such inconvenient facts get in the way of trying to undermine the Trump Presidency?
    Nor is this story unique. While there are several investigations ongoing, those who have actually seen the evidence and have spoken up, have said so far there is no evidence of collusion. Such statements do not just come from the President’s supporters, but from his opponents like Democratic Senator Diana Feinstein, or Former FBI Director Comey. In fact, the lack of evidence has become so clear that at Comey’s hearing most of the questions on collusion came from Republicans, as Democrats seem to realize there is no evidence and have moved on to the much more nebulous and thus safer questions of obstruction. Meanwhile, other Democrats in Congress filed suit against the President because non-Americans sometime stay in Trump hotels and then also file an impeachment bill in the House just to top things off.
    All of this would be little more that political theater except for the fact that increasingly overheated rhetoric and hate filled charges of traitorous behavior, undermining the country, stealing the election and the like, took a serious turn when a former Sanders supporter tried to kill Republicans at a baseball practice.
    Neither side is completely blameless in the area of over-heated rhetoric and this event raises the question of where is the line? What is the difference between legitimate and illegitimate disagreement? I think there are two key factors to consider in the answer to this question.
    First, particularly for Christians, is the truth. Are the charges made true or at least is there a basis for them beyond the political needs of the one making the charge? If this standard was applied to the Russian probe, it would disappear at least from the news, as there is no “there” there. One might argue that the investigations might come up with some evidence and while true, one could say the same thing about any charge made against anyone. Sure banks do get robbed, but there is no evidence that Obama robbed a bank, but the fact that in theory one might find some does not justify an investigation and Congressional hearings to see if any evidence could be found. Nor would it justify the changes of obstruction of justice if Obama complained about such an investigation. But that is essentially where we are with Trump and Russia.
    The second, also an important one for Christians, is to love those you oppose and part of this is to give them the benefit of the doubt. Here the playing field is not quite as level. While there are certainly exceptions it has long been noted that while those on the Right tend to see those they disagree with as wrong, those on the Left tend to see those they disagree with as, in some fashion, morally corrupt.
    Whether it be the minimum wage, Obamacare, etc, Republicans tend to argue that liberals are wrong and that their polices do not work or are harmful. Liberals, on the other hand, will tend to argue that conservatives do not care, are selfish, greedy, etc. In short that they are bad people. I would argue that being a bad person is significantly different than being a person who is wrong.
    One would hope that the recent shooting would shake up the political leaders on both sides. The comment and actions of those in both parties following the shooting, including the statement of Ryan, Pelosi and Trump were a good step in the right direction.
    Sure we will get back to our disagreements and arguments, but we should be careful to make sure that we value the truth more than our agenda and that we strive to see those on the other side of the
    political spectrum as people who are just as good and caring as we are, but who have a different ideal as to what is the best thing to do. In short, that they are people with whom we simply disagree, and that is okay.
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=2411]  

  • Bob Cornwall: Religion and Human Rights

    by Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, pastor and author, from his blog, Ponderings on a Faith Journey. Author of Faith in the Public Square, Ultimate Allegiance: The Subversive Nature of the Lord’s Prayer, Unfettered Spirit: Spiritual Gifts for the New Great Awakening, Marriage in Interesting Times: A Pariticipatory Study Guide,and more!
    On the evening of March 21st, I had the privilege of being one of three speakers at a Niagara Foundation sponsored Abrahamic Dinner. This event was held at Rochester College, and brought together members of the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian communities — to promote dialog and understanding. Each of us, a Rabbi, an Imam, a Christian pastor, was asked to speak to the ways in which our faith traditions understand human rights, and whether this overlaps with or differs from secular understandings. We were asked to speak from the perspective of our own faith tradition, which is difficult when Christianity’s 2 billion adherents are divided into thousands of denominations and sects. Nonetheless, I did my best! As for my partners, the Rabbi went first, and I didn’t find much if anything to disagree with. In fact, he set me up nicely! As for the Imam, I learned a lot about the flexibility of Islamic law, which allows for support of human rights (more so perhaps than secular American law).
    Since this is an important conversation, I decided to share some of what I said. Below you will find my answer to the first question, which dealt with my traditions codes of human rights and relationship to secular codes. Before I share below, I want to add that I agree completely with the Rabbi’s statement that the Jewish tradition, and the Christian tradition following it, speaks not of rights but obligations. That said, I invite you to consider my response:
    (Read more)
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2343′]  

  • Elgin Hushbeck: A Cautionary Note On the Current Political Environment

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible,.

    There is no question that Liberalism in general, and the Democrat party in specific are in trouble. Not only did they lose the last election, but with their defeats starting in 2010, they have lost over 1000 seats nationwide, completely reversing the solid majorities they once enjoyed. They are now clearly a minority party in turmoil, divided as to whether their problem is that they were too liberal, or not liberal enough.
    To be clear, I am nowhere near ready to declare the party dead. The reason is that the Republican party, even though it has a strong majority of the state and national elected offices across the country, is not without its problems. In terms of the number of elected offices, the Republicans are where the Democrats where just 8 years ago. So things can change very quickly and now it is their turn to deliver and should they fail, things might reverse yet again.

    The simple fact is that there is a reason Trump won and it has nothing to do with fake news stories desperately seeking to find some connection between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Did the Russians meddle? Of course, they did. They have been trying to influence things here for a very long time. That is what other governments do. Just as Obama tried to meddle in the Israel elections to defeat Netanyahu or the British election and Brexit. And let us not forget that one of FDR’s chief advisers at Yalta later turned out to be a Soviet Spy.
    The real question is: Did they actually affect the outcome in any meaningful way? Here, barring some yet unknown evidence, the answer is a clear “No.” Trump won and Clinton lost because of factors far beyond the Russians. The Russians may have leaked some of the DNCs emails, but they did not cause Hillary to set up her own email server and then lie repeatedly about how and why she used it. And it was not the Russians that caused the new revelations in the week before the election but an FBI investigation of Anthony Wiener on possible emails to minor girls that discovered a whole new batch of emails resulting in the late minute uproar. It was not Russians that caused Hillary to take the election for granted such that she, for example, never came back to my state of Wisconsin while Trump was campaigning here vigorously. In short, Hillary was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign.

    While that explains why Hillary lost, it does not, except by default, explain why Trump won. While my view during the election was that both candidates were un-electable, but one was going to win, and frankly I thought it would be Hillary, I have come to believe that Trump actually won, and not just by default.

    One thing that was abundantly clear during the election was that voters are unhappy and angry with politicians. Democrats were hardly happy with Clinton, as was seen in the strong challenge from Sanders. Republicans of course rejected some of the best rising stars in their party to nominate Trump. While I will let Democrats speak to the democratic issues, for Republicans the reason was pretty clear. Since the 1960’s there has been an ongoing struggle within the Republican party between what might be called the Establishment Republicans and the Conservatives. Within the rank and file, Conservatives won long ago, but because of the power of incumbency, and other factors, Establishment Republicans remained dominate among elected officials.

    Thus, for decades Republican elected officials have campaigned on solid conservative principles, but have not governed that way. Whether it was government reform, repealing Obamacare, building the boarder wall, or a whole range of issues, election after election of strong promises, were followed by term after term of excuses. It would have been one thing had they fought and lost, after all no one ever thought that President Obama would sign a bill repealing Obamacare. Rather it was the perception that Republicans had talked themselves out of even fighting. For example, after years of pushing Republican elected officials, they finally passed a law to fund and build a wall along the Southern Border, but then the law was ignored, and the wall was never built even under a Republican President.

    In addition to this was the fact that for decades those in Washington on both sides seem so focused on their issues and agendas, that in a very real sense they had forgotten the people they represented, and more importantly the problems and struggles they face. It was not by accident that the states that switched from Blue to Red to give Trump the election were Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

    This is what Trump both saw and tapped into. He clearly does not speak the language of politics, but he spoke a language the people heard; and no, contrary to Liberal hyperbole, it was not a language of racism and bigotry. All of the Republican candidates this year, as in past years, said they would build the wall. The difference is that people believed, whatever his faults, Trump would actually do it. As Salena Zito summed it up “the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

    So Trump is now the President and is moving ahead with his agenda as he promised he would do. Both Republicans and Democrats should be wary. For Republicans, it is important that they do not go back to business as usual. At the end of the day they must fulfill their promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare, build the wall, reform immigration, rebuild our infrastructure and our military and improve the economy and wages. In short, do the things that they campaigned on.

    There will surely be a place for negotiation and compromise. After they build the wall and get immigration under control, I believe most Republicans would support allowing those already here illegally who have not otherwise broken our laws a way to gain permanent legal status, though not citizenship. Given the narrow margins in the House and Senate, this however, might require some Democratic support.

    This brings me to the Democrats and Liberals in general. Many are clearly in denial that Trump won and is now the President, so much so they are becoming completely irrational, as with the constant desperate attempts to find any hint of a possible connections between anyone connected to Trump and the Russians, as if that would suddenly reverse the election and Hillary could magically become President.

    Yes, we have desperate and irrational people within the Republicans ranks as the whole birther silliness demonstrated. But for the most part they are at the fringe. The current irrationally among the Liberals is found at the highest levels of the party and throughout the Mainsteam Media. There are repeated stories of how no President has ever done X or Y before, such as the comment I heard the other day of a reporter claiming no President has ever criticized his predecessor before Trump. Really? Such claims are normally played to great amusement on talk radio followed up by clips many Democrats in the past doing what supposedly had never been done before.

    As many know I was not a supporter of Trump. I did not think he would be elected. I think he still has a lot to learn about being President. But he is President and he is learning, and so far has done an ok job and I think over all his cabinet choices are pretty good.

    Elections have consequences. While I would not expect Democrats to just fall in line and support Trump, I would hope that the knee-jerk opposition to everything Trump, would be replaced by a more reasonable opposition that recognizes that he won. Dragging out every single confirmation battle as long as possible, only serves to make the government even more dysfunctional than it already is.

    I would remind them that an all or nothing approach can lead to victory, but it can also lead to ruin. Will some people be hurt by the repeal of Obamacare? Of course! In a country of 319 million people there will be some who it has helped, but there are vastly greater numbers have been harmed by it. The law was never popular and Republicans have won election after election across the country running on trying a different approach. Perhaps Republicans are wrong, but Democrats, and the people they represent would be better served if they productively join in and actively sought ways of mitigating any deficiencies they see, than their current block anything and everything approach. All or nothing often leaves you with nothing, and there are many in both parties that would benefit from learning that lesson.
     
     

  • Allan R. Bevere: Politics of Witness: Introduction

    by Dr. Allan R. Bevere, pastor, professor and author of The Politics of Witness: The Character of the Church in the World, Colossians and Philemon: A Participatory Study Guide, and The Character of our Discontent.
     
    For the next few Thursdays I will be publishing a series of posts on a subject that is very important to me– so important in fact that I wrote a small book on the subject — The Politics of Witness. The reasons for this series is the continued misunderstanding of my position and those of us who embrace what I also refer to as a robust political ecclesiology. My position does not promote withdrawal from the culture or nation state politics, nor does it embrace a very untenable personal/public dichotomy. The reasons for this continued misunderstanding are found in the very context I desire to critique. I will post more on this over the next few weeks.
    While the subject of the church’s witness has hardly been ignored, I overtly tie the church’s witness to politics and politics to ecclesiology. I ask the church to consider the recovery of a robust political ecclesiology that sees the very life and witness of the ecclesia as its politics, and that the primary and central political posture of the church toward the nations is not one of influence in the political chambers of Washington D.C., but by embodying in its collective life what God expects of the nations. The church can only reclaim its mission and prophetic witness in the world by embracing the politics of witness. I seek a way out of a status quo ecclesiology and a completely uninteresting understanding of nation state politics. I believe that God is looking for a remnant to faithfully embody the politics of witness to the nations. (Read more …)
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

  • Doris H. Murdoch: What’s Up with The Hill of Evil Counsel?

    by Doris H. Murdoch, teacher and author of Testify: By the Blood of the Lamb and the Word of our Testimony and Constructing Your Testimony.
     
    goldmans-promenade-1These pictures were taken from Goldman’s Promenade on the Hill of Evil Counsel. The Goldman’s Promenade sits amidst the Peace Forest. The junction of the Kidron, Hinnom and Azal Valleys separate the Mount of Olives and the Mount of Evil Counsel, also called (Jebel Deir) Abu Tor. From the location of the Hill of Evil Counsel, one can see: the pine trees of the Peace Forest; the Old City of Jerusalem; Mount Moriah, the site of the first and second temples; the Dome of the Rock; to the west, the Hinnom Valley and Mount Zion; and to the east, the Kidron Valley and Mount of Olives with the Garden of Gethsemane and the Tower of Ascension. What in the world is the Mount of Evil Counsel? It is the location for: the attempted overthrow of King David by his son, Absalom; the place where the high priest Caiaphas and his colleagues decided to arrest Jesus; Judas Iscariot’s final hours; making battle plans; and, today, the United Nations headquarters.
    Chapters 15-18 of II Samuel tell the story of how Absalom plotted to overthrow and kill his father, King David. In this plot, Absalom sent spies throughout the tribes of Israel, saying “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpets, then you shall say ‘Absalom is king in Hebron’ ” (II Samuel 15:10, NASB). Absalom seeks the counsel of Ahithophel, David’s mystic counselor or sage, as his wisdom and advice were of God, except he failed to give God the credit or glory for this wisdom. Ahithophel suggested that Absalom go into David’s concubines and then Ahithophel would take 12,000 men to pursue and strike down David. Absalom also sought out Hushai’s advice who suggested Absalom go himself to carry out the task. Hushai remained true to David and David knew of the plan. In conclusion, Absalom ends up dead in the Peace Forest on the Hill of Evil Council and David remains in power as king. Absalom received evil counsel that brought on his death (hung on a tree, stabbed 3 times by Joab, and then finished off by Joab’s armor bearers, II Samuel 18:14-15). Regretfully involved in the overthrow and disgraced by his ignored counsel, Ahithophel commited suicide. Here, we see “pride goes before destruction” from Proverbs 16:18. His rumored final words to his family were, “Never side against the royal Davidic family and take no part in dissensions.”
    The scriptures of John 11:47-53 share the evil counsel as the Jewish leaders plan to conspire against Jesus:

    Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. (NASB)

    The council of elders decided to offer Jesus to the governor of Judah, Pontius Pilate. According to Christian tradition, Pontius Pilate agreed to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ after this gathering on the Hill of Abu-Tor at the residence of the past high priest, Ananias.
    goldmans-promenades-2The ancient hill is also identified as the place where Judas Iscariot finalized his contract to betray Christ. The flat-top area is called the Field of Blood where Judas made the deal on the arrest of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, the blood money for betraying Jesus. Acts 1:18-19 states, Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood. In this scenario of Judas betraying Jesus after his visit to the Hill of Evil Counsel, we are reminded of the betrayal of David by his counselor Ahithophel in the same location.
    The view from the Hill of Evil Counsel is a panorama of Jerusalem with a most spectacular view. Most likely, those who have invaded Jerusalem have made their battle plans and drawings from this site. Saladin and other Arab leaders may have viewed Jerusalem from this hill. I would suggest that Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, and Philistines may have all taken a good look at the city of Jerusalem before making any battle plans. Here on the Hill of Evil Counsel stands the Government House, a colonial residence when the British Crown had control of the area on behalf of the League of Nations. Today this serves as the Israel headquarters of the United Nations. Most people think of the United Nations as a world arbitrator on issues of right and wrong among nations. Where does the authority of the United Nations come from? It certainly is not the authority of God, but the authority of world governments based on the human model of democracy and voting in proportion to representation.
    Recently, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) made the decision that Israel’s Jews no longer had any historical or religious connections to the Temple Mount. The U.N. agency wants to adopt a policy of the Temple Mount being sacred to Muslims only. Israel’s ancient high court of Sanhedrin has reformed and responded with, “The Jewish right to the Temple Mount was established in the Bible, and should therefore be recognized by Christianity and Islam. In fact, the Jewish claim to Jerusalem is as essential to those religions as it is to Judaism. The biblical connection between the Jews and Jerusalem led to the building of the First Temple by King Solomon, which strengthened our claim to Jerusalem even more.” The Sanhedrin have warned the U.N. that such statements and decisions encourage global terrorism and do not promote world peace, which should be the ultimate goal of the U.N. organization.
    As Christians, we have a responsibility to the United Nations and other global humanistic organizations to question decisions by acknowledging and seeking out God’s authority and wisdom. We need to ask ourselves if the U.N. (UNESCO) decision is the best decision for all of mankind as it relates to the will and plans of God. The U.N. acknowledges God in its New York office building with part b of Isaiah 2:4; all of the scripture, parts a and b, need to be acknowledged. God is the Supreme Judge and anti-semitism cannot be a part of such an organization.
    a And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples;
    b And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war. (NASB)
    When we look back in history on decisions made by the U.N., we see obvious discrepancies in how the nation of Israel is being viewed by this world peace organization. The following highlights concerning Israel and UN have been made available by Steven Shamrack, independent editor of The Kings Calendar, The Shamrack Report:

    1. Before 1990, the Security Council passed 175 resolutions, 97 were directed against Israel.
    2. Before 1990, the UN General Assembly voted on 690 resolutions, 429 were directed against Israel.
    3. The UN was silent when Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in Jerusalem.
    4. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
    5. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
    6. The UN was silent while for 18 months Israel was terrorized by indiscriminate suicide bombing campaigns unleashed by PA leadership.
    7. There are 54 Muslims countries in the UN. As well as many more are others, Arab oil dependent states.
    8. Israel is the ONLY MEMBER OF THE UN THAT IS NOT PERMITTED MEMBERSHIP ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL.
    9. Israel is the only country excluded from the U.N.’s regional group system. Since Israel does not belong to any group, it is the only country of 190 member states that is not eligible to serve on the numerous U.N. commissions.
    10. In recent years, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has annually passed five resolutions condemning Israel. This year, they passed seven. By contrast, each of the following countries/regions has been the subject of only one resolution: Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Russia/Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Southeast Europe and Sudan.
    11. Nov. 29 is the United Nations Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People. No other group or nation has a U.N. Day of Solidarity.
    12. Israel is the only state to which a special investigator with “an open-ended mandate to inspect its human rights record” is assigned by the U.N.
    13. It is the only state targeted by two special committees and special units of the U.N. Secretariat ostensibly devoted to the Palestinians but in reality dedicated to Israel-bashing worldwide, costing millions of dollars a year.
    14. UNIFIL, the U.N. force stationed on the Israel-Lebanon border, hid a videotape of Israeli soldiers being abducted by Hezbollah in October 2000. After finally admitting to having the tape, the U.N. would only show an edited version (in which Hezbollah faces were hidden) to the Israeli government.

    Does it sound like Israel has been viewed fairly as it relates to internal and global peace? According to Zechariah 14, the nations of the world need to take a sincere look at the countries they are supporting and following. The Lord will fight against all the nations that do not support Jerusalem and He will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem. “Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth.” A great panic from the Lord will fall upon the nations. At some time in world history, the nations that oppose Israel may have stood on the Hill of Evil Counsel, but they will not stand in the end times. Jerusalem will dwell in security.
     
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2440′]
     
     

  • Bob Cornwall: Solidarity

    by Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, pastor and author, from his blog, Ponderings on a Faith Journey. Author of Faith in the Public Square, Ultimate Allegiance: The Subversive Nature of the Lord’s Prayer, Unfettered Spirit: Spiritual Gifts for the New Great Awakening, Marriage in Interesting Times: A Pariticipatory Study Guide,and more!
     
    safety-pinAn election has taken place. We have a President-Elect. He’s not the one I would have chosen. He didn’t receive my vote. Nonetheless, the Electoral College has weighed in.  On the night of the election, after Hillary Clinton called to concede and congratulate him, he came out and spoke of uniting the nation. As we have seen from comments on social media, in our own conversations, and in the protests that have taken place, not everyone is ready for unity. That is because over the course of the past eighteen months we have heard a candidate speak in divisive terms. Not everyone voted for Donald Trump, because they are bigots or ignorant. People vote for a wide variety of reasons. At the same time, there are elements of his “coalition” who are bigots. They have reveled in their perceived freedom to say and do as they please without any concern for the feelings of others.
    As an American citizen, I respect the office of President. It’s important for our cohesion that we respect our democratic institutions, some of which have some cracks in them and need to be fixed. One of those is the electoral college, but it needs to be said that both candidates operated under this system knowing how it works. If the electoral college were abolished they would spend most of their time in a different set of battle ground states. Florida would remain in the mix, but New York, California, and Texas would get the bulk of the attention. That said, when the people in office act in ways that we cannot abide, it’s important that we stand up for what we believe is right.  (Read more … )
     
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2343′]

  • David Alan Black: We Can Be the People Who Speak the Truth

    9781893729568by Dr. David Alan Black, professor, marathon runner, mountain climber and author of Seven Marks of a New Testament Church, Running My Race: Reflections on Life, Loss, Aging, and Forty Years of Teaching, The Jesus Paradigm, and more!
    I trust you’re doing well. I’m sitting here nursing a head cold and trying to grasp the significance of what our nation just experienced. But first of all I want to join President Obama and Secretary Clinton in congratulating Mr. Trump on his election victory. I also promise to pray for him as he begins his term of office. As President Obama put it today, “We’re all rooting for his success.”
    As you can probably figure out, I’m pretty much a conscientious objector when it comes to the Left/Right political wars. I guess I’m a self-described “misfit.”
    Read the rest on JesusParadigm.com.

  • Steve Kindle: A Vote for Hillary is a Vote for the GOP

    by Rev. Steve Kindle, pastor2pew.org, progressive author: I’m Right and You’re Wrong, Stewardship: God’s Way of Recreating the World, and If You’re Child is Gay.

    Editor’s note: On August 27, 2016, conservative author, Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. wrote a post, The Least Bad Choice. We encourage you to read both of these posts today.

    election-2016-pictureThis election cycle may be the most important of my lifetime. It’s the equivalent of 1860 when the future direction of the nation is at stake. The party of Lincoln emerged then as one of the two great parties of the American political scene. We are on the threshold of losing it forever.
    Although the Founders did not see or encourage a two-party electoral system, it has emerged as one of the great bulwarks of American democracy. This election may very well determine if the Republican Party will continue in any form we would recognize. This would be a great loss, and I say this as a registered Democrat.
    The demise of the GOP began with the election of Barak Obama in 2008. It became the obstructionist party, the “just say no” party, that blocked anything POTUS put forward. It operated under the strategy of the Senate Majority Leader who famously said he would do all he could to make Obama a one-term president. He may have failed on that score, but he may have succeeded in taking down his own party in the process. How?
    The glue that holds our democracy together is compromise. Wise pols know that. They know that they cannot get everything they want, that they do not hold the only good ideas, that working together to solve problems leads to the best solutions. But Republicans have lately elected ideologues to the House and Senate, people who regard compromise as weakness and can’t bend without breaking. They refuse to entertain anything that suggests acceptance of what they consider less than the only true way. This has led to two of the least productive Congresses ever, and the emergence of Donald Trump. And, ironically, he will destroy the Republican Party.
    The professional Republicans know this. Sure, call them the establishment, if you will, but they are those who put nation above party. Just Google “Republicans for Hillary” and you will see a stellar list. People like Steve Schmidt, McCain’s presidential campaign manager; David Frum, Bush 43’s speech writer; Colin Powell; Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush; Meg Whitman, Former Va. Sen. John Warner; Michael Chertoff, former United States Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. Add to this the growing number of Republicans who announced they won’t vote for Trump (without saying who they will vote for) including Mitt Romney, George Will, Sens. Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham, the Log Cabin Republicans, and 95% of the state legislators. This list is huge and growing.
    The so-called Republican “autopsy report” that detailed the Republican failures of 2012 named ideological rigidity, its preference for the rich over workers, its alienation of minorities, reactionary social policies, and institutionalized repression of dissent and innovation as its major liabilities that needed to be addressed if the party would ever again be a factor in upcoming presidential elections. This comes from Republicans!!! Or should I say, this comes from Republicans who understand their failures and want to do something about them. The emergence of Donald Trump is the most reactionary candidate possible for thwarting any hope that the Republican Party will self-correct. The result is the end of the GOP as an effective partner in the support of American democracy.
    So, when I vote for Hillary Clinton this Tuesday, I will be voting for a renewed GOP as well as for someone who is a proven compromiser, a person who is no ideologue, who effectively reaches across the aisle for the better good. Sure, she has her flaws, and as a Bernie supporter, she falls far short of what I would prefer. But I want a strong Republican Party and someone who embraces all Americans. Donald Trump brings neither.
    The loss, once again, of the White House, just might be the impetus for Republican reform and a return to political integrity. Come on back, Republicans—We need you!
     
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.