Christians have often heard the accusation “practice what you preach.” There are several reasons why Christians do not practice what they preach or at least appear to others to not be practicing what they preach.

We as Christians are not perfect. Christians are expected to “practice what you preach,” but we preach a message that is, ultimately, impossible to live up to. While sinlessness is to be our goal, it is not achievable in this lifetime. However, the fact that we fail to live up to God’s perfect standard does not change the fact that it is to be our goal and message. Also, many times true Christians behave in an un-Christian manner out of immaturity in the faith or a lack of understanding of exactly what the Christian life entails. New believers are often excited about their newfound faith and eager to share it with others. When, because of immaturity, their lives do not measure up to their testimony, charges of not practicing what you preach are leveled at them. As we grow and mature in the faith, our lives should more and more reflect the truths that we profess to believe.

Fortunately, people are not saved by whether or not others practice what they preach. Salvation is the gift of God through faith, and none of those whom God has given to Christ will be snatched out of His hand (John 10:28-29). No amount of false professions by unbelievers or disappointing actions by immature Christians can change that.

cell phones 2

 

What’s more frustrating than speaking without being heard? We’ve all been there: confiding in a friend as they paw at their phone; pitching an idea to a co-worker as he/she interrupts with their own; telling your mom about your day as her eyes glaze over – apparently focusing on something else much, much more interesting than you.

These situations, in the moment, can be annoying and downright hurtful. But the fact that they happen often can’t be too surprising. “There’s a misconception that when we hear, we listen,” says Pamela Cooper, vice president of the International Listening Association, “but listening is really hard work, and it takes a great deal of concentration.” No wonder our friends and family and co-workers can be lousy at it. But what about you – are you a good listener?

“Most people are very aware that other people don’t listen, but they’re not nearly as aware that they themselves don’t listen,” says Paul Donoghue, psychologist and co-author of “Are You Really Listening? Keys to Successful Communication” with Mary Siegel. So, “don’t presume you’re a good listener,” he says.

Be brutally honest with yourself and think about your own listening (or not-listening) behavior. You may be that colleague or sibling or friend who never really listens and not even know it! See if you have any of these poor listening habits below, or better yet, thicken your skin and ask a friend.

Distracting yourself. Sending one little text message as your co-worker is talking sends an enormous message to her: You’re not listening. And that hurts. Yes, perhaps you’re hearing the other person, or you think you’re getting the gist – you’re a multitasker after all! – but are you really concentrating on what was said? Probably not. Focusing on a text message, or your Instagram feed, or that dog over there or the shopping list you need to make is telling the speaker that those things are more important than what they are –

Interrupting. This bad habit is three things: Self explanatory, rude and a sign that you’re not listening.

Topping the speaker’s story. Imagine you’re excitedly telling a friend about a Washington, D.C., vacation you’re planning, when they decide to cut in: “I lived there for three years and have toured the National Mall a couple dozen times, and really prefer the Vietnam Memorial, though all the tourists typically opt for the Lincoln Memorial, which … ” There’s certainly nothing wrong with engaging in a conversation, but cutting into the speaker’s story to talk about yourself is a sign you weren’t digesting his or her message. With this “me too” habit, you’re pretty much saying, “You bring me the ball, and I’ll take it from you and start dribbling it,” he says.

Problem finding. Someone with this habit thinks, “I’m listening, but only enough to find a problem and fix it for you,” Donoghue says. Sometimes this person is so skilled in the habit that he or she will find problems that aren’t even there. “Oh, the trip to Washington is this month? Why would you go there in that summer humidity? And don’t even think about cooling down in the air-conditioned museums, they’re too crowded.”

Becoming defensive. If you’re the topic of discussion, you might hear criticism that may or may not be there. And so we get defensive. “And when we’re defending, we’re not listening,” Donoghue says.

Think about the last meeting, conversation or class you had. Did you display any of these habits above? Whether or not you did, know that everyone can improve his or her listening skills. And that’s exactly what listening is: a monumentally important skill used in marriage, friendship, parenthood, management and just about every kind of relationship. Without listening skills, we’re poor communicators, which is unfortunate, because it identifies communication as the “heartbeat of life.” Think about the last miscommunication you had, or the last time something didn’t go your way, and now think: How much of that had to do with not fully listening?

History of “O Holy Night” Christmas Hymn

 

We attended a concert at Grace Presbyterian church in Peoria this weekend and they shared some of the amazing history of the song “O Holy Night” to us. It was an interesting story so I thought I would go for the entire background of this beautiful song.

Written by Two Non-Christians

In the year 1847, a man named Placide Cappeau de Roquemaure was the commisioner/inspector of wines in a small town in France.  Known to be an avid poet, Placide was approached by a priest to compose a poem for a Christmas service in Paris.

Poet Pens It

Initially, Cappeau was not certain he’d be able to live up to the task.  After reading the Gospel of Luke for inspiration, he envisioned what it might have been like to have been in Bethlehem to witness the birth of Jesus.  From there, he penned the now famous words to “Cantique de Noel”, or O Holy Night.  

Composer Scores It

Upon delivering the poem in Paris, Cappeau determined that “Cantique de Noel” would be even more powerful if set to music.  For help, he turned to well known composer Adolphe Charles Adams.  At first, Adams was reluctant to participate.  As a Jew, the celebration of the Christian savior did not appeal to him.  Still, something about the words of the poem inspired him, and thus he endeavored to compose an original score unlike anything that had been heard before.  It only took Adams three weeks to complete the work, and it was immediately performed at a Christmas Eve mass.

Church Stifles the Song

Churches across France embraced this amazing new hymn and it became a popular staple for choirs to sing at Christmas time.  However, Cappeau eventually left the Catholic church.  This information, combined with news that the music was written by a Jewish man, caused the Catholic hierarchy of France to ban the singing of “Cantique de Noel”, claiming it was too secular.  It baffles the mind how the worshipful lyrics to this song could ever be considered secular, but the church had spoken, and the song was no longer part of traditional services.

Brought to America

This did not silence the song forever.  Common folk continued to embrace it, and refused to let the church bury it.  They continued to sing “Cantique de Noel” in their homes and in social gatherings.  O Holy Night had gone from a mainstream hymn to an underground hit.  About ten years after the official attempt to bury the song by the Church in France, “Cantique de Noel” found its way to the ears of an obscure American writer, named John Sullivan Dwight.

 

Renames It

Dwight instantly felt moved by the lyrics and the grand, soaring score.  He determined that American audiences had to hear it.  Dwight felt that the song was the perfect marriage between the Good News of the Gospel, and the freedom that Jesus represented.  An ardent abolitionist, Dwight was overcome with the power of a particular verse:

“Truly he taught us to love one another;
his law is love and his gospel is peace.
Chains shall he break,
for the slave is our brother;
and in his name all oppression shall cease.”

Dwight translated the lyrics of “Cantique de Noel” into English, renaming it O Holy Night, and published it in a magazine.  The song found an audience in the American north, where it was celebrated as an anthem of freedom.

Song Leads to Wartime Cease Fire

Meanwhile, the song continued to be celebrated by the common man in France and various parts of Europe.  It is said that during the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, a French soldier jumped out of his trench in the middle of a fire fight, and sang three verses of “Cantique de Noel” while his fellow soldiers stared in amazement.  Upon completion of the song, a German soldier boldly emerged from hiding, approached the Frenchman and said, “Vom Himmel hoch, da komm’ ich her. Ich bring’ euch gute neue Mar, Der guten Mar bring’ ich so viel, Davon ich sing’n und sagen will,” which means “From Heaven above to Earth I come, to bring good news to everyone. Glad tidings of great joy I bring, of which I must both say and sing.”  The words are lifted from the old hymn “From Heaven Above to Earth I Come,” which was penned by Martin Luther.  The legend states that for the next 24 hours, in honor of Christmas day, both sides ceased fighting.

First Song to be Played on Radio

 

In 1906, the only type of radios that existed were wireless transmitters that picked up code. On Christmas Eve of that year, a 33-year-old university professor named Reginald Fessenden was tinkering in his office and proceeded to do something that had never been done before.  He broadcast a human voice across the airwaves.  Speaking into a microphone he’d rigged, Fessenden read Luke Chapter 2 from his Bible.  As he uttered the words, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed…” amazed radio operators on ships and over wireless code transmitters heard the Gospel being read through their speakers.  Those who heard those first words over the radio recall that they thought they were witnessing a miracle.

Meanwhile, Fessenden had no idea who, if anyone, was hearing his broadcast.  After completing his reading from the Gospel of Luke, he picked up his violin, sat close to his microphone, and played the familiar music to O Holy Night – making it the first song to ever be played over the airwaves.

Since 1847, when a poet in France penned his poem inspired by Luke’s Gospel, O Holy Night is a song that has managed to unite common people across France, inspire Americans as it highlighted the sin of slavery, unite soldiers on the battlefield, and break ground as the first song ever to be broadcast through a medium that would eventually spread the Gospel all over the world.

 

Do We Fail in Discernment?

 

 

 

Discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically.

This lesson is taught to us in 1st Thessaionians 5:21-22 when it says, “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”

According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required.

 

The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living.

You know what? It is discernment that many people, Charistians and non-Christians, fail. They stumble and show little ability to measure the things they are taught. In is the Christians that can’t discern the infallible standard of God’s Word, and they unwittingly engage in all kinds of un-biblical decision-making and behavior.

They are not armed to take a decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them throughout their day.

Discernment is in every facet of the Christian’s life.

Discernment — the ability to think biblically about all areas of life — is vital to an uncompromising life. It is important for the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

Sad that the Middle Class is bearing the brunt of this economy.

 

The Middle Class – Its Rise & Decline

After World War II, American became the world’s first truly middle class nation. In the 30 years following the war, the real income of all American families, including the poor and near poor, doubled. The nation, by every economic measure, was becoming more equal. All that has changed.

For the past 30 years, the trend toward economic inequality has rolled back the post-World War II progress which had moved the nation toward a more equitable distribution of income and wealth. In the past ten years, the inflation-adjusted income of the median household fell 4.8 percent, the worst drop in at least half a century. And for many there is no income – more than 70 percent of Americans know someone who has lost a job. College graduates can’t find jobs. Americans are losing purchasing power and their net worth is falling. The value of their homes is shrinking. Their retirement security has eroded. Medical and educational costs are rising faster than the cost of living index. In 2009, 16.7 percent of the American population – 50.7 million people – was without health insurance, the highest since this record has been kept. One in four homes is now under water and over 4.2 million home loans are in or near foreclosure. Last year, there was an 11.6 percent increase in families consolidating and moving in together.

In contrast, the wealthiest ten percent of countrymen hold over 60 percent of total family assets. America’s richest one percent now hold more wealth than America’s entire bottom 90 percent. The last 20 years have witnessed the most colossal amassing of huge fortunes in U.S. history. The nation now boasts more than 400 of billionaires.

Washington Rigged the Economy

Since 1946, the effective federal tax for the richest Americans has fallen by 60 percent. Those benefiting the most from our economy in income and wealth are simply not paying in, in proportion to what they are taking out. Nevertheless, the top priority of Republicans in Washington has been tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporate and financial entities. Their Herculean efforts to restore the Bush income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and to repeal an estate tax affecting only the wealthiest two percent underscore the intensity of the ongoing class warfare and linkage between political polarization and economic inequality.

We seem to have degenerated into a form of social Darwinism. The prevailing national economic strategy of Washington has been to make business more profitable and less accountable and to reward the owners, investors and other wealthier Americans, at the expense of the great majority of workers and U.S. households. Workers have fewer countervailing protections. Their representation in Washington has been sold out. Organized labor’s economic clout to win higher wages and benefits is withering away. Businesses and wealthy individuals contribute billions to influence elections, outspending labor unions many times over.

The soaring compensation of senior corporate executives, the increasing number of American millionaires and billionaires, the material excesses of our public and private elites – taken together – have very few precedents in American history. It is reminiscent of the last stages of other great empires. Many of the nation’s elites, including its elected leaders, are unwilling to broach the subjects of inequality and class warfare – the very real struggle for a piece of the American pie. They appear to be asleep to – or purposely ignoring – these realities.

The absence of effective social and economic countervailing forces to address the ominous rise in inequality is increasingly a cause for alarm. Washington can no longer ignore the challenge to spread more equitably the benefits of economic growth – now enjoyed by those at the top – without undermining the economy that supports it. But where is the national debate? How do we hammer out new policies to alleviate the growing economic imbalances in our republic and thereby stem the social unrest that threatens the public landscape? The need is grave and immediate that we re-establish the economic opportunity and prospects for upward mobility that have for 200 years sustained the American dream and served as the bedrock for a stable democratic nation.

Wait, We are Suspending Coaches for Praying After Games?

 

Not only as a Christian, but as a general believer in something bigger than myself, reading and hearing about religious discrimination hits close to home. A few weeks ago, an assistant football coach was put on paid leave for praying during the games.

Coach Joe Kennedy was “booted from the locker room at Bremerton High School in Washington State,” according to Fox News’ article “High school boots praying football coach” by Todd Starnes. Kennedy was placed on administrative leave after refusing to stop his post-game prayers.

Kennedy is being represented by Liberty Institute, “the nation’s largest law firm dedicated to defending religious liberty,” according to the Fox News’ article. His attorney, Hiram Sasser, states the school district is “sending the message to all people of faith that they are not welcome.”

Sasser also said the school officials refused to meet with him and that he only spoke with their lawyer for half an hour, according to the article. It seems obvious the officials are avoiding Sasser and Coach Kennedy, which can lead to a questionable prosecution of how serious they are taking this matter.

I understand a lot of different people have different religious beliefs, which makes religious jurisdiction such a sensitive subject. After all, everyone has the right to believe what he or she wants.

However, Kennedy wasn’t leading a huge prayer organization during the football games. He was simply praying after them.

According to Seattle Times’ article “Bremerton coach’s prayers catch attention of Congress,” Kennedy prayed by himself at first, but a few other coaches, some players and even fans eventually joined him. He wasn’t telling people to pray with him and he wasn’t making others feel bad for not praying with him. All the praying was voluntary.

According to the Fox News article, “Liberty Institute has already laid the groundwork for a lawsuit against the school district – accusing them of religious discrimination.” Sasser said the school district is being “hostile towards Christianity.”

Leading schoolwide prayers have already been banned, including football games, and have been replaced with a moment for silence. Kennedy wasn’t performing this schoolwide prayer.

He was only praying amongst himself and any others who wanted to join. He wasn’t forcing his beliefs upon anyone.

When the U.S. was founded, it was considered taboo to not believe in anything. Times have changed, and it has become obvious the U.S. has people with a wide array of religious beliefs. Because of this, the most controversial debates in religion always seem to be about Christians “forcing their beliefs upon others.”

However, in this situation, this is not the case at all. According to Gallup’s poll in the article “In U.S., 77% Identify as Christians,” by Frank Newport, 77 percent of the adult population identified with a Christian religion in 2011.

It seems to me Christianity is being prosecuted for being the majority. I would never try to make anyone feel inferior or single them out for not believing what I do. However, the argument of “Stop forcing your religion on us,” is starting to sound a lot like “Stop believing in your religion because I don’t believe in that.”

An important part in the U.S. laws is to create an offense-free atmosphere, so everyone can get along as free citizens. The majority of people in the U.S. are Christians, therefore I can understand the feeling of being overpowered or forgotten, but that’s not how it is.

The U.S. is a safe and free place for all religions and beliefs, and it is a principle that must be protected, even in events as small as high school football games.

Known as the “Father of the American Revolution” and the “Firebrand of the Revolution,” Sam Adams was arguably the most effective verbal rabble-rouser in American history. He was a leader in the events leading up to the American Revolution and helped to found the Sons of Liberty.

He was also a steadfast Christian. In “The Rights of the Colonists,” which he wrote in 1772, he said:

“The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty…The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”

After signing the Declaration of Independence, he proclaimed:

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

In his February, 1795 Proclamation for a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, then Governor Adams said:

“That with true repentance and contrition of Heart, we may unitedly implore the forgiveness of our Sins, through the merits of Jesus Christ, and humbly supplicate our Heavenly Father, to grant us the aids of his Grace, for the amendment of our Hearts and Lives, and vouchsafe his smiles upon our temporal concerns.”

And finally, these are the words in his Last Will and Testament:

“Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins.”

This is a continuation of the article I wrote called,  “This Country was Established on a Christian Foundation” on November 15th.

On March 6, 1789, President Adams called for a national day of fasting and prayer for the country could “call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgression, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience. . .”

A few other quotes which demonstrate Adams’ thoughts about Jesus are below.

On April 18, 1775, a British soldier ordered him, John Hancock, and others to “disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England. Adams responded to him:

“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”

 

In an October 13, 1789 address to the military, he said:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, he said

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity”

It is easy to write off Trump as a narcissist, as a bully or a fool, but it is harder to write off his poll numbers. A surprising number of Americans have resonated with his message, and no matter how many more balk at the idea of him taking office, they shouldn’t ignore the reasons why so many in the nation consider voting for him. Right now Trump is being talked about more than ever,  a positive for him. In Trump’s mind, there is no difference between fame and infamy. And why should there be to someone who can rewrite their own history, revising their faults and failures into successes?

There is a crux of the political whirlpool surrounding Trump. There is no real depth or sincerity to what he says, and yet many people support him regardless. Five times in his life he has changed political parties, and the fickleness he shows in regards to his politics is possibly overshadowed by the “tell it like it is” attitude. For instance, on June 16, speaking on the “The O’Reilly Factor,” he insisted that the only way to beat ISIS would be if the US had boots on the ground. Minutes later, he contradicted himself, suggesting there was another way.

So what do his supporters see in him? Part of his appeal is similar to Bernie Sanders’, in that potential voters view Trump as untainted by outside wealth. He has enough money to run his campaign without selling what’s left of his soul to corporate giants and they feel that makes him trustworthy.

Trump is also appealing because he is unfettered by the usual restraints on a politician. In mudslinging races, small gaffes can tarnish a candidate’s reputation if they’re too clean, but the sort of comments that could derail a campaign fall out of Trump’s mouth nearly every time he opens it. While this has alienated many voters, it has also solidified him as a politician who “isn’t afraid to tell the truth” or who “says what we’re all thinking.”

Finally, people like the fact that he is so crass and unpresidential—how could any candidate with that much obnoxious bravado possibly be scripted? In a lot of ways, Trump’s surprising popularity is a rebellion against the politically correct walk on verbal egg shells the race for office has become.

In the end, the people who will vote for Trump are the byproduct of a stark political landscape, one where people feel their voices cannot stand up to special interests’ money, and where every politician has to act like an inviolable saint when more than likely they are not.

For the record, I will NOT be voting for Donald Trump for the many of the reasons listed above.

As I get older and older I try harder not to fall into the trap of “because” and “that’s the way it’s always been done”. I didn’t like that when I was younger and don’t want that for myself at an advanced age. I know I will never be modern or hip but I at least can accept some of the social norms that are appropriate in society and doesn’t go against God and the law. One of the areas that I have come around on is dealing with women and their name change. You see, when a woman gets married to a man she drops her name and takes his because “that’s the way it’s always been done” in society. Well folks, THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

 

In 1972, women accounted for only about 38 percent of the labor force. Today, they make up closer to 47 percent. During the 1969-70 school year, only 92,481 master’s degrees were awarded to women, compared to 143,083 awarded to men. Those numbers have risen monumentally since, with the 2009-10 year seeing 417,828 master’s degrees awarded to women compared to 275,197 awarded to men. In 1970, only about 11 percent of Ph.Ds that year were awarded to women, compared to 2010, when the figure was closer to 50 percent.

Clearly, women are closing gaps in many fields. They are seen, and are seeing themselves, as equal to men in all fields. As the gaps close, women are getting more and more confident to try things that were seen previously as reserved only to men, and, even in some cases, doing better than men.

So, why is it still considered the norm for a woman to change her last name when she gets married to a man? The tradition came about with the archaic idea that women become the property of their husbands after marriage. That’s where the term “maiden name” comes from. A maiden, meaning a virgin, retained her birth name until her virginity was essentially sold to her husband, when she then became his “property” and thus adopted his last name.

Marriages were a way of securing yourself a comfortable future. The woman stayed home and bore children and were responsible for them. The man went out and worked to earn an income to support his family. These roles were a given and never really opposed. Marriage was just a glorified business transaction. Dowries, in which the woman’s family pay the man’s family to accept their daughter and support her, were part of this transaction in many cultures.

Dowries not the case anymore in America, though. Women are taught to be their own person from a young age. In many developed countries, women are encouraged to study higher education, develop their own talents and bloom into independent women. As of 2012, nearly 50% of married couples had dual incomes.

And, yet, it’s still the default to change your name after marriage if you are a woman.

A name is an identity. As one grows and matures, their name collects a personality and uniquely identifies them a person. What is it about a union between a man and a woman that makes women “property” in this day and age?

Let’s abandon this tradition. No one is anyone’s possession, and no one should be forced to change something so close to them. Don’t make women feel guilty for wanting to keep the name they were born with. They are still a whole person without their husband.

It should be a matter of choice for the woman and it not the business of others.