How to Find the Will of God—For You!

After several decades of searching for God’s mysterious will for our lives, Nancy and I have come to the conclusion that it is really not so hard to find. But…it comes in a peculiar way—through closed doors!

I have little sympathy for people who wait for God to hit them over the head with a 2x4 in order to get their attention and tell them what He wants them to do for Him. Very infrequently will God communicate with us that way.

 It is important to wait on the Lord. Sometimes, very good things result from waiting upon the Lord, but while we are waiting, we should be seeking His guidance. He is not helpless to communicate with us.

The way to find God’s will for an individual person is to read the Bible and find several predominant themes concerning God’s will for His people, e.g., worship, kindness toward others, care for widows and orphans, intact marriages, sexual integrity, ministry to the poor, the pursuit of justice and mercy, etc., etc. These things are not hard to find in the pages of the Bible. Next, one should find something in that list that is of special interest—then begin asking around. When you find some place where you might be used, go and do it. If it is not in God’s will for you, the door to opportunity will close. Then, look for something else. It’s as simple as that!

A few years ago, I asked a friend why he had never done anything in Christian ministry. He answered, “God has never called me to do anything.” That is nonsense. God calls each of us to some service with Him. But just sitting with folded hands and refusing to look for God’s will is not becoming a follower of Christ.

The Common Core Curriculum for American Schools

Guess what! The United States Federal Department of Education has crafted a new initiative to replace the failed “No Child Left Behind” program of the 1990’s.

The new program with which the states are required to comply or lose federal dollars is called the Common Core Curriculum. This new way of teaching for all public schools in the nation from K→12 upsets the tried and true “old-fashioned” teaching by which subjects were presented in their proper contexts and with logical background so that the subjects might be properly understood.

This program manifests a break-up of logical, traditional, thinking instead of more traditional methods. Consider this: Into the mix of 11^th grade English literature class is Presidential Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. Also, Fed Views by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Cost Conundrum: Health Care Costs in McAllen, Texas, and Untangling the Roots of Cancer. Eleventh grade students are also taught to master the “California Invasive Plant Inventory” based on the claim that “invasive non-native plants threaten wild lands.”

After reading about this Common Core Curriculum and listening to a speech from the Westlake school superintendent, I am increasingly concerned about the socialist and environmentalist bent of the program. This thing is loaded up with politically correct ideas and teachings. The patterns of fractured thinking in the subject matter has been reduced to simple formulas about oppressors and the oppressed, capitalists and workers, Western imperialist and their non-western victims. Government has become the solution, not the problem.

This kind of thinking about the world in which we live indoctrinates kids in what to think rather than how to think. It has been said that “…you can’t make socialists out of individualists—children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Hmmm…. This new effort by the educationalist establishment looks like another strange, new, style of teaching—this one aimed at the agenda of new age people planners. I am suspicious of such new and revolutionary changes to traditional teaching. Remember the “new math?” It was deemed the latest in teaching math; and it turned out to be a disaster.

Are Your Children Successful…Why? Why not?

The New York School System has three high schools that are reserved for high-performing, gifted, children—Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech. These three elite schools consistently turn out students that enter premium universities and ultimately become the movers and shakers of our nation and our society. These three schools accept for entrance about 3000 students yearly; last year 28,000 eighth grade students took the entrance exam. The exam is a 2½ hour exam that is partly written and partly oral. Entrance into these schools is based solely on the outcome of the exam—there is not affirmative action or racial quota involved in admission decisions.

The ethnic mix of students admitted exclusively on the basis of test scores is interesting. Last fall, Stuyvesant admitted 9 Blacks, 24 Latinos, 177 Whites, and 620 Asian-Americans. The question naturally arises, “Why is there such a lop-sided ethnic mix of students favoring Asian-Americans?”

The answer to the above question has nothing to do with genetic superiority of Asian-Americans. The reason has everything to do with cultural differences between them and the other ethnic groups.

 Angela Duckworth, a psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania studied National Spelling Bee finalists and found there was no genetic advantage for any ethnic group. She found that these high-achieving kids were willing to forgo the immediate gratification of TV watching, texting friends, and playing video games. They worked many grueling hours on the tedious task of writing out thousands of flashcards with words/definitions and memorizing them. She also found that these high-achieving students come from homes where there is a difference in parenting practices from homes where high-achievement is not present. The high-achiever homes are characterized by parenting that guides the children and demands hours of difficult work. Homes like this produce students for Stuyvesant High School.

An Unusual Lexicon of Books for Christian Readers

For some months, I have thought about presenting a list of unusual books for Christian readers. The following is that list. Happy reading to you all!

1)   The first book on my list is Till We Have Faces by C. S. Lewis. This Christian allegory will keep you thinking. This book is set in the framework of Greek mythology. As Nancy and I were reading this book, various characters appeared; and each time we encountered one, we would say to ourselves, “That character must represent Abraham; or…we would say, “That must be Mary of Magdala.” But each time we offered a guess, the story would take an unexpected turn; and we could see that our guess must be wrong. Then, in the middle of one night, Nancy woke up and exclaimed, “Now I know what this story is all about.” She had figured it out. This book is an inspiration for Christian readers to absorb.

2)   The second book on my list is Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe. Most people think this is a book about a man marooned on a remote island. I can tell you for sure—this book is much more than that. Read it and learn a lot more about the Christian faith!

3)   The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson is one of the most beautiful pieces of Scottish literature every written. Its words will thrill you as you read. And…although it never mentions Christianity, God, or religion, its timeless message will cement forever in your mind a basic understanding about the Christian faith.

4)   My last recommendation for your reading is a trilogy. First, read the 3^rd Chapter of Genesis. Next, read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. This short historical novel is about the Belgian Congo during the latter years of the 19^th Century and the beginning of the 20^th. This enigmatic novelette is one of the jewels of Polish/English literature. It is often studied in university literature classes with a goal of trying to learn its mysterious message. And, finally, in this trilogy, read King Leopold’s Ghost, by Adam Hochschild. This book is an academic and very readable history of the Belgian Congo during the same period as Heart of Darkness. I doubt that Mr. Hochschild is a Christian; but his book sheds bright light on the writing of Joseph Conrad—it is a page turner; you won’t be able to put it down!! I can guarantee, you will never absorb three readings that will teach you more about the basic nature of mankind than these three.

America’s Declining Military Strength

Our Armed Forces, when in its prime fighting operation, carries Marine Expeditionary Units aboard ships ready to go over the beach at almost any hot spot in the world and fight ground battles with little notice and extreme effectiveness. These MEU’s usually number 2200 Marines in special forces, reconnaissance, armored reconnaissance, armor, amphibious assault, infantry, artillery, engineer and aviation battalions, companies, and platoons. These MEU’s are highly effective and able to handle almost any kind of immediate violent challenge to the interests of the United States wherever it may crop up.

On March 21, 2011, an American F-15 went down in Libya. Immediately after the Mayday, the 26^th MEU started rescue operations from the USS Kearsarge, and a short time later two of its Harrier fighter jets, and two CH 53 Ospreys were at the scene with more than a hundred Marines. Hundreds more might easily have arrived if required. Forces like this could have shattered the assault in Benghazi in minutes.

From World War II onward, the U.S. Sixth Fleet stabilized the Mediterranean region and protected American interests there.  Until 2008, it was common practice to stock the Mediterranean with a carrier battle group, three hunter killer submarines, and an amphibious ready group with its MEU or equivalent. But in the first year of the Obama presidency this force in the Mediterranean was reduced to one almost entirely unarmed command ship. When the debacle at Benghazi happened, nothing could be done to stop the slaughter of the ambassador and his staff because there was no MEU available to put soldiers on the ground. Or…because of timidity on the part of the President and the State Department, no response was ordered.

One would think that with all the uproar in the Middle East, the United States would maintain sufficient force from the Sixth Fleet to handle uprisings against our country. We have recently seen the Muslim Brotherhood watching over the Egyptian powder keg, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb reaching from the Sahel into the Mediterranean littoral, instability in Tunisia, Bedouin kidnappers in Sinai, Hamas rockets streaming from Gaza, Lebanon protecting the Hezbollah tiger, Jordan imperiled, and a civil war raging in Syria. I read that the al Nusra branch of al Qaeda in Syria has 12,000 soldiers in that country fighting against the government army; if Bashar al Assad’s government falls, it seems likely to me that al Qaeda will run the country.  All these things should alert our government that preventive and battle-ready forces must be continuously deployed to handle emergent situations such as terrorist warlords murdering our diplomats in Libya.

But…unfortunately, the Obama administration has opted to show the weakest military response possible, short of pulling our forces out of the Middle East, altogether.

I have heard President Obama say that with modern weapons and reconnaissance resources, it is not necessary to have lots of ships and soldiers on the ready. Stability can be assured using modern methods rather than men and war machines. Well…it seems the truth is out. The United States was and is not ready to handle emergency situations on the ground.

There is one principle of warfare that I learned long ago in ROTC: It is impossible to control an area militarily without putting foot soldiers in place. America is not ready.

(This post was partly redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 10 April page A13.)

Tax Breaks For Big Oil…?

Nancy and I received a letter from President Obama today thanking us for our interest in Government spending and the National debt. He assures us that he, too, is very interested in these subjects; and that he is doing all he can to make America solvent.

He pointed out that he has repeatedly called on Congress to stop giving away $4 billion yearly in oil and gas subsides to an industry that has never been more profitable. This kind of talk always brings looks of puzzlement to the faces of tax and energy-industry experts, who ask: “What special tax breaks?”

It is true that the oil and gas business tries to pay as little money for taxes as legally possible—but…who doesn’t?

In 2004, Congress and the Senate passed with widespread bipartisan support the American Job Creation Act. That Act provided a 9% tax deduction from net income for businesses engaged in qualified production activities in the U.S. The Act was designed to encourage domestic manufacturing in the hope that the tax break could provide a competitive advantage against foreign competition and that it would create jobs.

The businesses that might benefit included the oil and gas industry, manufacturers of farm equipment, appliances, pharmaceuticals, and many others. There was one caveat—the oil and gas industry tax break was limited to 6% rather than the 9% granted to the other businesses.

Although he did not say so in his letter, I suppose that President Obama would like to eliminate the tax break altogether for the oil and gas business. These measures are most likely aimed at raising more income for the government to help pay for welfare programs and to reduce the National debt.

On April 3^rd, USA Today published a list of the 10 companies that paid the highest U.S. income taxes in 2012. Number one on the list was Exxon Mobil at $31 billion. Number two was Chevron at $20 billion. Number six was ConocoPhillips at $8 billion. Those three companies together paid more than all the other seven combined.

Hmmm…I wonder—how does President Obama define his idea of a “fair share” of income taxes. It seems to me that the oil and gas industry is certainly paying their fair share.

 

Is the U.N. Worth It?

Opposition to the United States’ membership in the United Nations is growing among conservatives. One main reason is the burgeoning influence of Iran in the organization and the increasing tendency of the U.N. to interfere with internal affairs of its 193 member states—an activity that is strictly prohibited by its organizational mandate.

The United States pays about $6 billion to the U.N. yearly for our membership in the U.N. Iran pays $9 million for its membership.

Iran is the present head of the second largest voting bloc in the U.N. General Assembly, the Non-Aligned Movement. As such, Iran wields strong influence over the other 120 countries in that bloc. Iran is the leader of that caucus and often speaks as representative of all those General Assembly voters. The Non-Aligned Movement contains countries that are supposedly not aligned with any major super powers. It often votes in opposition to the wishes of the United States.

Four times, the United Nations Security Council has sanctioned Iran for its illicit nuclear activities; and four times, Iran has ignored the sanction. Despite this, Iran has been granted seats on governing boards of many major U.N. agencies. Some of these agencies handle billions of dollars every year in funds donated chiefly by Western nations, especially the U.S. This year, Iran won a three-year seat on the 36 member executive board of the U.N’s flagship agency, the U.N. Development Program, which operates billion-dollar budgets across more than 170 countries.

It seems doubtful to me that further membership in the United Nations is in the best interests of the United States. I think we should get out and look more closely to our own interests, instead of bowing to leadership such as Iran and other rogue countries.