More from Chuck Colson

Take  time to go to Chuck Colson's website--Breakpoint--and review the offerings for the past two days. Colson provides an interesting perspective on the solution to the problem. 

Chuck Colson and the Financial disaster

Chuck Colson verifies what I  wrote in an earlier blog about the financial situation in Washington and the mortgage industry.  Where do we find men and women with an ounce of integrity to deal with our country today? 

Accounting for Disaster
Wall Street, Congress, and You

September 23, 2008

I have said for the past year on "BreakPoint" that much of the financial crisis we are facing stems from moral failure—moral failure on the part of greedy Wall Street speculators, and moral failure on the part of ordinary Americans who bit off more mortgage than they could chew. And all of that is true.

But there is another cause of this crisis that we cannot ignore: the near-incestuous relationship between politicians and big-time government-supported financial institutions.

The near collapse and buyout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are prime examples of Washington corruption. For at least a decade, a few brave politicians have sought to reform these quasi-governmental behemoths, only to be beaten back by political power brokers. Why? Because, as they say, money talks.

Few politicians are unsullied. According to Politico.com, Fannie and Freddie spent more than $200 million lobbying Congress over the past decade. Among politicians, Barack Obama ranked number three in terms of campaign contributions received from the two agencies—more than $100,000. His chief advisor in the vice-presidential vetting process is a former CEO of Fannie Mae.

As for John McCain, to his credit, he has called for reform of both corporations. But according to the New York Times, his campaign manager "was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up" by Fannie and Freddie "to defend them against stricter regulations."

So what did Fannie and Freddie get for their lobbying efforts? Political cover and huge compensation packages for their executives, like Franklin Raines, who received $91 million over a seven-year period. And they were pushed by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank to dive into the incredibly risky sub-prime mortgage business.

Why would Frank and other politicians encourage that? Well, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, Congressman Frank "pushed through" an "affordable housing" trust fund in the Congress, a fund that "siphons off . . . as much as $500 million a year each" from Fannie and Freddie profits to another "fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests."

So while the politicians were busy padding their cozy little nests, the chickens have come home to roost, and U. S. taxpayers—you and I—need hip waders.

The first step in the cleanup is a massive $700 billion plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The government will buy up bad loans, some of which may be re-sold over time. The plan is necessary to stave off financial collapse.

Of course the people who are going to steer this plan through Congress are the very characters who brought us this crisis. And they are already looking for political and financial goodies they can hang on to the plan.

I've got a better idea. Those who steered Fannie and Freddie into the ground should return to the taxpayers their ridiculous compensation. And if there's criminality involved—either with corrupt executives or elected leaders—then let's have some indictments.  Churck Colson in Breakpoint

Training for Congress

An Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun
in one hand pulling a male buffalo with the other. 
He says to the waiter:   

  
"Want coffee."

The waiter says,  "Sure, Chief. Coming right up." 

  

He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee. 
The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, 
turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun, 
causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere 
And then just walks out.  


The next morning the Indian returns. 
He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling 
Another male buffalo with the other. 
He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter 

  
"Want coffee." 

  The waiter says "Whoa, Tonto! 


  
We're still cleaning up your mess from yesterday. 

  
What was all that about, anyway?" 




The Indian smiles and proudly says .. 

"Training for position in United States Congress: 
Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, 
leave mess for others to clean up, 
disappear for rest of day.

 
 

 

The Death of Freedom

Os Guinness told us a year ago that the secret to America's greatness was the ability to dialogue, to openly discuss issues and allow everyone to present his/her ideas without fear of rejection or reprisal. Dr. Guinness observed that we have lost that ability in our nation. Instead of dialogue the stress is on being politically correct. Many subjects are rapidly becoming off-limits.

See the following article from Mark Steyn:

Lights Out on Liberty

Mark Steyn
Author and Columnist

Mark Steyn's column appears in the New York Sun, theWashington Times, Philadelphia's Evening Bulletin, and theOrange County Register. In addition, he writes for The New Criterion, Maclean's in Canada, the Jerusalem Post, The Australian, and Hawke's Bay Today in New Zealand. The author of National Review's Happy Warrior column, he also blogs on National Review Online and appears weekly on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show. He is the author of several books, most recently America Alone: The End of The World as We Know It. Born in Toronto, Mr. Steyn lives with his family in New Hampshire.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 13, 2008, while Mr. Steyn was in residence as a Eugene C. Pulliam Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

ON AUGUST 3, 1914, on the eve of the First World War, British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey stood at the window of his office in the summer dusk and observed, "The lamps are going out all over Europe." Today, the lights are going out on liberty all over the Western world, but in a more subtle and profound way.

Much of the West is far too comfortable with state regulation of speech and expression, which puts freedom itself at risk. Let me cite some examples: The response of the European Union Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security to the crisis over the Danish cartoons that sparked Muslim violence was to propose that newspapers exercise "prudence" on certain controversial subjects involving religions beginning with the letter "I." At the end of her life, the Italian writer Oriana Fallaci—after writing of the contradiction between Islam and the Western tradition of liberty—was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and most other European jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely offensive, but criminal. In France, author Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim and other "anti-racist groups" who believed the opinions of a fictional character in one of his novels were likewise criminal.

In Canada, the official complaint about my own so-called "flagrant Islamophobia"—filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress—attributes to me the following "assertions":

America will be an Islamic Republic by 2040. There will be a break for Muslim prayers during the Super Bowl. There will be a religious police enforcing Islamic norms. The USS Ronald Reagan will be renamed after Osama bin Laden. Females will not be allowed to be cheerleaders. Popular American radio and TV hosts will be replaced by Imams.

In fact, I didn't "assert" any of these things. They are plot twists I cited in my review of Robert Ferrigno's novel, Prayers for the Assassin. It's customary in reviewing novels to cite aspects of the plot. For example, a review of Moby Dick will usually mention the whale. These days, apparently, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the government's human rights investigators (who have taken up the case) believe that describing the plot of a novel should be illegal.

You may recall that Margaret Atwood, some years back, wrote a novel about her own dystopian theocratic fantasy, in which America was a Christian tyranny named the Republic of Gilead. What's to stop a Christian group from dragging a doting reviewer of Margaret Atwood's book in front of a Canadian human rights court? As it happens, Christian groups tend not to do that, which is just as well, because otherwise there wouldn't be a lot to write about.

These are small parts of a very big picture. After the London Tube bombings and the French riots a few years back, commentators lined up behind the idea that Western Muslims are insufficiently assimilated. But in their mastery of legalisms and the language of victimology, they're superbly assimilated. Since these are the principal means of discourse in multicultural societies, they've mastered all they need to know. Every day of the week, somewhere in the West, a Muslim lobbying group is engaging in an action similar to what I'm facing in Canada. Meanwhile, in London, masked men marched through the streets with signs reading "Behead the Enemies of Islam" and promising another 9/11 and another Holocaust, all while being protected by a phalanx of London policemen.

Thus we see that today's multicultural societies tolerate the explicitly intolerant and avowedly unicultural, while refusing to tolerate anyone pointing out that intolerance. It's been that way for 20 years now, ever since Valentine's Day 1989, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against the novelist Salman Rushdie, a British subject, and shortly thereafter large numbers of British Muslims marched through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed. A reader in Bradford wrote to me recalling asking a West Yorkshire policeman on the street that day why the various "Muslim community leaders" weren't being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they'd been told to "play it cool." The calls for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The policeman told him to "Push off" (he expressed the sentiment rather more Anglo-Saxonly, but let that pass) "or I'll arrest you." Mr. Rushdie was infuriated when the then Archbishop of Canterbury lapsed into root-cause mode. "I well understand the devout Muslims' reaction, wounded by what they hold most dear and would themselves die for," said His Grace. Rushdie replied tersely: "There is only one person around here who is in any danger of dying."

And that's the way it's gone ever since. For all the talk about rampant "Islamophobia," it's usually only the other party who is "in any danger of dying."

War on the Homefront

I wrote my book America Alone because I wanted to reframe how we thought about the War on Terror—an insufficient and evasive designation that has long since outlasted whatever usefulness it may once have had. It remains true that we are good at military campaigns, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our tanks and ships are better, and our bombs and soldiers are smarter. But these are not ultimately the most important battlefronts. We do indeed face what the strategists call asymmetric warfare, but it is not in the Sunni triangle or the Hindu Kush. We face it right here in the Western world.

Norman Podhoretz, among others, has argued that we are engaged in a second Cold War. But it might be truer to call it a Cold Civil War, by which I mean a war within the West, a war waged in our major cities. We now have Muslim "honor killings," for instance, not just in tribal Pakistan and Yemen, but in Germany and the Netherlands, in Toronto and Dallas. And even if there were no battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if no one was flying planes into tall buildings in New York City or blowing up trains, buses, and nightclubs in Madrid, London, and Bali, we would still be in danger of losing this war without a shot being fired.

The British government recently announced that it would be issuing Sharia-compliant Islamic bonds—that is, bonds compliant with Islamic law and practice as prescribed in the Koran. This is another reason to be in favor of small government: The bigger government gets, the more it must look for funding in some pretty unusual places—in this case wealthy Saudis. As The Mail on Sunday put it, this innovation marks "one of the most significant economic advances of Sharia law in the non-Muslim world."

At about the same time, The Times of London reported that "Knorbert the piglet has been dropped as the mascot of Fortis Bank, after it decided to stop giving piggy banks to children for fear of offending Muslims." Now, I'm no Islamic scholar, but Mohammed expressed no view regarding Knorbert the piglet. There's not a single sura about it. The Koran, an otherwise exhaustive text, is silent on the matter of anthropomorphic porcine representation.

I started keeping a file on pig controversies a couple of years ago, and you would be surprised at how routine they have become. Recently, for instance, a local government council prohibited its workers from having knickknacks on their desks representing Winnie the Pooh's sidekick Piglet. As Pastor Martin Niemoller might have said, "First they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character, and if I was, I'd be more of an Eeyore. Then they came for the Three Little Pigs and Babe, and by the time I realized the Western world had turned into a 24/7 Looney Tunes, it was too late, because there was no Porky Pig to stammer, 'Th-th-th-that's all folks!', and bring the nightmare to an end."

What all these stories have in common is excessive deference to—and in fact fear of—Islam. If the story of the Three Little Pigs is forbidden when Muslims still comprise less than ten percent of Europe's population, what else will be on the black list when they comprise 20 percent? In small but telling ways, non-Muslim communities are being persuaded that a kind of uber-Islamic law now applies to all. And if you don't remember the Three Little Pigs, by the way, one builds a house of straw, another of sticks, and both get blown down by the Big Bad Wolf. Western Civilization is a mighty house of bricks, but you don't need a Big Bad Wolf when the pig is so eager to demolish the house himself.

I would argue that these incremental concessions to Islam are ultimately a bigger threat than terrorism. What matters is not what the lads in the Afghan cave—the "extremists"—believe, but what the non-extremists believe, what people who are for the most part law-abiding taxpayers of functioning democracies believe. For example, a recent poll found that 36 percent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 believe that those who convert to another religion should be punished by death. That's not 36 percent of young Muslims in Waziristan or Yemen or Sudan, but 36 percent of young Muslims in the United Kingdom. Forty percent of British Muslims would like to live under Sharia—in Britain. Twenty percent have sympathy for the July 7 Tube bombers. And, given that Islam is the principal source of population growth in every city down the spine of England from Manchester to Sheffield to Birmingham to London, and in every major Western European city, these statistics are not without significance for the future.

Because I discussed these facts in print, my publisher is now being sued before three Canadian human rights commissions. The plaintiff in my case is Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a man who announced on Canadian TV that he approves of the murder of all Israeli civilians over the age of 18. He is thus an objective supporter of terrorism. I don't begrudge him the right to his opinions, but I wish he felt the same about mine. Far from that, posing as a leader of the "anti-hate" movement in Canada, he is using the squeamishness of a politically correct society to squash freedom.

As the famous saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. What the Canadian Islamic Congress and similar groups in the West are trying to do is criminalize vigilance. They want to use the legal system to circumscribe debate on one of the great questions of the age: the relationship between Islam and the West and the increasing Islamization of much of the Western world, in what the United Nations itself calls the fastest population transformation in history.

Slippery Slope

Our democratic governments today preside over multicultural societies that have less and less glue holding them together. They've grown comfortable with the idea of the state as the mediator between interest groups. And confronted by growing and restive Muslim populations, they're increasingly at ease with the idea of regulating freedom in the interests of social harmony.

It's a different situation in America, which has the First Amendment and a social consensus that increasingly does not exist in Europe. Europe's consensus seems to be that Danish cartoonists should be able to draw what they like, but not if it sparks Islamic violence. It is certainly odd that the requirement of self-restraint should only apply to one party.

Last month, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of Sharia to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." Within days of His Grace's remarks, the British and Ontario governments both confirmed that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions are receiving welfare payments for each of their wives. Kipling wrote that East is East and West is West, and ne'er the twain shall meet. But when the twain do meet, you often wind up with the worst of both worlds. Say what you like about a polygamist in Waziristan or Somalia, but he has to do it on his own dime. To collect a welfare check for each spouse, he has to move to London or Toronto. Government-subsidized polygamy is an innovation of the Western world.

If you need another reason to be opposed to socialized health care, one reason is because it fosters the insouciant attitude to basic hygiene procedures that has led to the rise of deadly "superbugs." I see British Muslim nurses in public hospitals riddled with C. difficile are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Which is a thought to ponder just before you go under the anaesthetic. I mentioned to some of Hillsdale's students in class that gay-bashing is on the rise in the most famously "tolerant" cities in Europe. As Der Spiegel reported, "With the number of homophobic attacks rising in the Dutch metropolis, Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays."

Gee, whiz. That's a toughie. Wonder what the reason could be. But don't worry, the brain trust at the University of Amsterdam is on top of things: "Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity."

Bingo! Telling young Moroccan men they're closeted homosexuals seems certain to lessen tensions in the city! While you're at it, a lot of those Turks seem a bit light in their loafers, don't you think?

Our Suicidal Urge

So don't worry, nothing's happening. Just a few gay Muslims frustrated at the lack of gay Muslim nightclubs. Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in Toronto? Yawn. Nothing to see here. True, if you'd suggested such things on September 10, 2001, most Britons and Canadians would have said you were nuts. But a few years on and it doesn't seem such a big deal, nor will the next concession, or the one after that.

The assumption that you can hop on the Sharia Express and just ride a couple of stops is one almighty leap of faith. More to the point, who are you relying on to "hold the line"? Influential figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury? The politically correct bureaucrats at Canada's Human Rights Commissions? The geniuses who run Harvard, and who've just introduced gender-segregated swimming and gym sessions at the behest of Harvard's Islamic Society? (Would they have done that for Amish or Mennonite students?) The Western world is not run by fellows noted for their line-holding: Look at what they're conceding now and then try to figure out what they'll be conceding in five years' time. The idea that the West's multicultural establishment can hold the line would be more plausible if it was clear they had any idea where the line is, or even gave any indication of believing in one.

My book, supposedly Islamaphobic, isn't even really about Islam. The single most important line in it is the profound observation, by historian Arnold Toynbee, that "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder." One manifestation of that suicidal urge is illiberal notions harnessed in the cause of liberalism. In calling for the introduction of Sharia, the Archbishop of Canterbury joins a long list of Western appeasers, including a Dutch cabinet minister who said if the country were to vote to introduce Islamic law that would be fine by him, and the Swedish cabinet minister who said we should be nice to Muslims now so that Muslims will be nice to us when they're in the majority.

Ultimately, our crisis is not about Islam. It's not about fire-breathing Imams or polygamists whooping it up on welfare. It's not about them. It's about us. And by us I mean the culture that shaped the modern world, and established the global networks, legal systems, and trading relationships on which the planet depends.

To reprise Sir Edward Grey, the lamps are going out all over the world, and an awful lot of the map will look an awful lot darker by the time many Americans realize the scale of this struggle.

Shame on the bailers!

The Super Bailout

The legislature is moving toward a 700 billion dollar bailout of the mortgage business. Part of the fable attached to it is that eventually we will get the money back. I would question this project even if I thought the purest of motives was behind it. But I have a greater concern. It is simple. Every time there is money involved, we also find a host of people who are more than willing to help themselves to it.

For example, benefit concerts were held for those who had lost loved ones in the 9/11 disaster. Much of that money simply disappeared. Very little of it made it to the people who were supposed to be helped. Entrepreneurs quickly saw an opportunity to make a quick buck and did so.

Every week we get calls from veterans organizations that call upon us to help veterans. It is a known fact that these telemarketing programs allow very little of the money they take in to get to the people for whom it is intended.

A young college girl in a skimpy outfit showed up at my door on Saturday wanting to tell me about how she was going to win a trip to Ireland and $5000.00 to go to school on. It all depended on collecting the necessary points. In a sultry voice, she said to me, "Would you like to know how I make points?" I told her I wasn't interested and she looked like I had just broken her heart. But I am familiar with this scam as well. Young people are conned into believing that they will raise big bucks and take great trips based upon the number of magazines they sell. But no one ever wins. Eventually this girl along with many others are going to be broken hearted because they were taken in.

In the September 10, 2008 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle an article discussing the waste by FEMA in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina reported:

"A report by the Homeland Security Department's office of inspector general, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, is the latest to detail mismanagement in the multibillion-dollar Katrina hurricane recovery effort, which investigators have said wasted at least $1 billion.

The review examined temporary housing contracts awarded without competition to Shaw Group Inc., Bechtel Group Inc., CH2M Hill Companies Ltd. and Fluor Corp. in the days immediately before and after the August 2005 storm that smashed into the U.S. Gulf Coast.

It found that FEMA wasted at least $45.9 million on the four contracts that together were initially worth $400 million. FEMA subsequently raised the total amounts for the four contracts twice, both times without competition, to $2 billion and then $3 billion."

Again, there were people more than willing to steal from the U. S. Government and most likely will go totally unpunished for the theft. These were people who took advantage of a disaster and pocketed the profits while the people who needed help were left low and wet (in contrast to "high and dry").

Now the government wants to come up with $700,000,000,000 to bail out the mortgage companies who foolishly issued mortgages for inflated loans that the recipients had little or no hope of repaying. For a while I was receiving from reputable lenders offers of $250,000-500,000 loans. If I paid my entire salary on such loans I could not keep up with the payments. Why would any business in its right mind (or left one for that matter) make such outrageous offers to people? Now they want the government to bail them out.

Seven hundred billion dollars offers unbelievable sums to those who are willing to steal under any circumstances. My humble prognosis is that if that money is made available at least one-half of it will be lost to corrupt politicians and bankers. Congress will call for hearings. There will be the traditional browbeating, but when the day comes to an end, a lot of people are going to be a great deal richer at the expense of my children and grand children.

This is a project to help the rich and famous, not the poor, the down and out, and the people who are going to lose their homes this year.

9/11 seven years later

Anniversary of World Trade Center bombing—A Black Swan Event

Nassim Nicholas Talib, author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, provides insight to the significance of this event. It has some powerful lessons, but I am not going to deal with them now.

As part of an exam today I asked students to reflect on what happened on this day seven years ago. Most of them would have been 13 or 14 years old. Out of 20 students few seemed to have any appreciation for what took place. Some were not aware of the number of aircraft involved and none knew that 3000 people died in all the disasters.

Student observations

Several students recognized the new status that "terrorists" received. They also recognized that some people have a tendency to label all Arab peoples as terrorists, which is unfortunate and unfair. It is much like the time when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Immediately the Japanese in the continental United States, many of whom had been here several generations, were persecuted and moved to interment camps where they would spend their existence until the end of the war.

We also have the wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq in the war against terrorism. But terrorism knows no battlefield. Anyplace can be the battlefield. The enemy can attack without warning and is difficult to control when we use conventional warfare tactics.

For a short period of time churches experienced significant growth, but it was not long lasting.

Good observations: "This event changed our nation forever."

"It showed the world what catastrophic damage a few people can cause."

"However, security, travel, and basic American freedoms have been altered."

Talib noted in his book we tend to spend our time analyzing what happened with the intent that we will keep it from happening again. For example, the intensity of airport security. Also the price of oil and petrol at the pumps. And the effect on Wall Street. But that is the nature of a Black Swan event. It comes in an unexpected fashion and thus there is no way to prepare to deal with it. Instead we have to deal with the aftermath.

The student who said, "This event changed our nation forever," saw the real picture. I'm sure studies will come out this week discussing the difference what it was like before 9/11 and what it is like after 9/11. The highest price we have paid is the loss of personal freedoms in the name of security.

The terrorists could not have found a more effective way to wage war than what they did. We are still attempting to bring them under control. They are still popping all over the globe and terrorizing people. If history has anything to say about this, we discover the terrorists usually win. A major change in the style of warfare gave the colonists the edge over the British who were still fighting wars in the old fashioned way. Terrorists exploit the statement, "All is fair in love and war." There are no rules. The one who is successful will be the winner regardless of the tactics.

Give Glory to God

A famous evangelist from the 19^th century put it well when he said, "Prayer honors God, it dishonors self."

The Pharisees were noted for prayers that were designed to bring glory to themselves. They wanted people to notice that they were at prayer. Even by the way they dressed and acted they were desiring the glory of men. Of course, it is easy to condemn them. They are a convenient target especially since they lived 2000 years ago and are really incapable of defending themselves.

One of the troubling things that we find in our generation is the general disregard for the Bible and its message. I realize that I am definitely out of synch with this society. I am not a pluralist nor do I have a strong desire to be politically correct. For example, you have to be careful about how you use the term "Blackberry" which is actually a high-powered cell phone and pocket computer. Already some members of the African-American society have taken offense at the name. In my history the term "blackberry" referred to a fruit on the vine that made great jam, jelly and ice-cream topping. I did not see any racial connections with it.

We find other teachers, usually claiming to be Christians, who tell us that we can demand things of God. Especially noteworthy is the health and wealth gospelers who are telling people God owes them and all they need to do is ask for it. In other words God can be manipulated to meet my own desires and wants. I come from the old school that says we do not demand anything from God. Everything we have comes from God to begin with, and we are never to demand anything. Even in prayer, we are in the asking mode, regardless of how desperate we might be. James reminds us in 1:5-8 and 4:1-4 about this.

 

When we see Jesus we realize that in his prayers his concern was for the glory of God. Three things should be evident in our prayers:

• Who God is
  
• What God wants
  
• How He can be glorified
  
• "Those who teach otherwise are not preoccupied with the extension of Christ's kingdom or the glory of God's name but with the enlargement of their own empire and the fulfillment of their own selfish desires. Such teaching attacks the heart of Christian truth—the very character of God."
  

 

Jonah learned how to pray in the belly of a great fish. Jonah may have thought that he had the right to demand that God deliver him from the disaster he had created for himself. Instead he chose to give glory to God.

 

1     ¹Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God ^afrom the stomach of the fish,

     2     and he said,

"I ^acalled out of my distress to the Lord,

And He answered me.

I cried for help from the ¹depth of ^bSheol;

You heard my voice.

     3     "For You had ^acast me into the deep,

Into the heart of the seas,

And the current ¹engulfed me.

All Your ^bbreakers and billows passed over me.

     4     "So I said, 'I have been ^aexpelled from ¹Your sight.

Nevertheless I will look again ^btoward Your holy temple.'

     5     "^aWater encompassed me to the ¹point of death.

The great ^bdeep ²engulfed me,

Weeds were wrapped around my head.

     6     "I ^adescended to the roots of the mountains.

The earth with its ^bbars was around me forever,

But You have ^cbrought up my life from ¹the pit, O Lord my God.

     7     "While ¹I was ^afainting away,

I ^bremembered the Lord,

And my ^cprayer came to You,

Into ^dYour holy temple.

     8     "Those who ^aregard ¹vain idols

Forsake their faithfulness,

     9     But I will ^asacrifice to You

With the voice of thanksgiving.

That which I have vowed I will ^bpay.

^cSalvation is from the Lord."

 

The story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego.—Daniel chapter 3, see especially vv. 13-18.

 

There is not a hint of demand. These boys were innocent of disobeying God, but they about to die for their faithfulness. Why not demand the protection of God? Note again vv. 16-18.

 

Daniel in the lions' den. Entrapment involved. But Daniel does not cry out to God to demand that he be delivered.

 

And with that we are going to begin considering the various parts of the Lord's prayer, because it is a prayer designed to bring glory to God.

Lance Armstrong

For all you bicycling fans. Lance Armstrong is going race again in 2009. That will shake up the racing world.  He ought to be good for two or three more Tour de Frances. 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/more/09/08/lance.ap/index.html

A Heart Set on God

 

John MacArthur reminds us that because we live in such a free and prosperous society we tend to put our security in ourselves and where we live rather than depending on God's grace. We have accepted the idea that we have the best in our physical blessings and are not really concerned about spiritual blessings. Why should I be concerned about my relationship with God as long as I have good health, enough money, a good home, good car, and for some of us, a good computer, one dog and one cat, a good wife and happy children?

 

Likewise we look at the church with the same eyes of prosperity. If things are going well we thank ourselves for doing such a good job. If there is growth then we are responsible for it and we confuse human success with divine blessing. The materialism of the world is present likewise in the church. Everything must have a numeric value to it or we are not interested. Many live as though God is not necessary. If we count the amount of time we talk to him, then he is not necessary at all.

 

Think about your own children. Arletta and I have five children and a foster daughter. We have nine grandchildren. Some of our children we hear from regularly, several times a week. We never hear from our foster daughter. Rarely do we hear from our grandchildren. Some of them have not even taken the time to say "Thanks" for expensive gifts. What does that say about our relationship. If we were pragmatic non-Christians, we might say to the non-communicators, "Someday, when the final will and testament is read, you may find yourself receiving a token dollar. You did not have time for us when we were alive and we have nothing for you in death."

 

People who choose to ignore God all their lives even though they claim to be Christians may find themselves in a similar boat, except that this boat is crossing the river Styx on its way to Hades.

 

MacArthur then adds, "Christians can actually behave like practical humanists, living as if God were not necessary. When that happens, passionate longing for God and yearning for His help will be missing—along with His empowerment." So we are called upon by Paul to "pray at all times" (Eph. 6:18) and to "devote yourselves to prayer" (Col. 4:2).

 

THE FREQUENCY OF PRAYER

• How often did Jesus pray?
  
  • Ministry lasted only three and a half years
    
  • Prayer was a daily habit
    
  • Often early in the morning
    
  • Usually alone
    
  • Had special places to pray, such as the Garden of Gethsemane or the Mount of Olives
    
  • "Prayer was the spiritual air that Jesus breathed every day of His life."
    

"He urged His disciples to do the same. He said, "Keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place" (Luke 21:36)."    

• Frequency of prayer in the early church
  
  • The 120 before the Day of Pentecost gathered in the Upper Room, "with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer" (Acts 1:14).
    
  • The first 3000 converts were noted for being involved in prayer.
    
  • The apostles believed prayer was their most important ministry (Acts 6:4)
    
  • The consistent practice of the Apostle Paul(Rom. 1:9–10; cf. 1 Cor. 1:4; Eph. 5:20; Phil. 1:4; Col. 1:3; 1 Thes. 1:2; 2 Thes. 1:3, 11; Phile. 4)
    
  • Paul: "Pray without ceasing." Also Phil 4:6, Col 4:2; Romans 12:12; Ephesians 6:18
    

 

 

Olivia Jean Paddock, great grandchild #1

Well we welcomed Olivia into the world Saturday Sept 6, 2008 at 7:17pm. She weighs 6 lbs 14 oz, 20 inches long and eats like no other. She has her dads blue eyes and big ole nose and toes. Her hair is sandy blonde. She looks like a doll you would buy at the store. She loves to be held and just stares at you the whole time. Here is  a couple shots of the son and grandma holding her. Nate has changed every diaper since she was born. She is the light of his life and to see his happiness and joy is over whelming. More to come later.
 
Tad

Harry and Elaine Scates--missionaries par excellent

The following article was written in honor of Harry and Elaine Scates on their fiftieth wedding anniversary which they celebrated in Brazil. They are an excellent example of tent-making missions and commitment to God.

From: Harry Scates Date: 9/7/2008 11:31:42 PM To: HH SCATES Subject: A Love Story

This was written by Harry and Elaine's daughter Robin and was read at their 50th wedding anniversary celebration. Many of the people mentioned in this narritive were present.

HARRY AND ELAINE – A LOVE STORY

Source: Pes Formosos www.pesformosos.com for English click on the British flag

Married for fifty years and still in love. Fifty years in ministry together, and still active and fruitful. Forty-five years in Brazil and they still have a fire for missions in their hearts. Together, always together... united in dreams and fulfillments. Today we celebrate a Love Story which we all are part of. Right from the beginning we want to give all glory and honor to Jesus Christ our Lord, who has allowed us to take part in his redeeming plan. Thank God we are here as one family – God’s family! Let’s go back to our Love Story. Harry Dawes Scates and Helen Elaine Scates, for us here in Brazil, Ary and Helena, knew each other when they were still quite young. But, they only became good friends and fell in love at the age of 21. Three months after they had renewed their friendship they got married. A primary factor in this decision was their mutual commitment to serve the Lord in other lands. At the age of 26, (they are the same age with a 4 month difference) they came to Brazil by ship and arrived at the harbour in Santos after a 12 day journey. The date was January 04, 1963. But, how did it all begin? Well, Harry was born on February 14, 1937 in Palisade, Colorado, the fourth child (of six boys) of Erskine Edward Scates and Faith Marie Scates. His parents were people of faith and his father was the founder of many churches in western Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah and co-founder of Intermountain Bible College in Grand Junction. Harry accepted Jesus’ Lordship while still a boy he heard about Brazil for the very first time, through David Lloyd Sanders, a missionary who was a guest speaker at his church in 1947. Harry’s brother Richard used to say that he wanted to be a missionary. But, in 1950,Richard (Dick) passed away at the age of 16 due to a severe kidney disease and in the midst of the pain of that loss, Harry in tears said to the Lord that if Dick couldn’t be a missionary, he would take his place. Then at a summer church camp it became clear to Harry that the place he would serve the Lord was Brazil. Ever since then all his academic and professional preparation were directed to his calling. After high school he attended Mesa College and Intermountain Bible College. What about Elaine? This virtuous woman, with firm character, the second of 06 children was born on October 4, 1936 in Arthur, Nebraska to Chalmer and Coral Wade. Like everyone in her family she learned to work hard and at an early age, especially through the influence of her mother, she accepted Christ as her Lord and Savior. She prepared for Christian service by going to Moody Bible Institute in Chicago specializing in children’s education. She was always close to her folks and siblings and her sweetness and faith were captivating. After their wedding, Harry and Elaine moved to Grand Valley(Parachute),Colorado to pastor the Christian Church there. That’s where they received their practical ministry training. Later, Harry got a master’s degree in history at Kansas State Un. at Hays and after 3 years of marriage their first born, Robin Renee arrived. One year later they left for Brazil leaving behind their relatives and their nation, very much aware that they would never again come back to reside permanantly in the USA. The Lord had given them this conviction, that they were to be sown like seed into this new country that they had decided to love without first seeing it. After studying Portuguese for one year in Campinas, they were invited to help with the newly established church in the new capital, Brasilia. They served the Christian Church there under the pastoral covering of veteran missionaries David Lloyd and Ruth Sanders. In Brasilia, they adopted a beautiful baby boy, and they named him Todd Marcos. In 1965, another daughter was born, Ann Valette, and in 1968 another son, Lance Sergio. In January of 1969, under God’s guidance, the Scates family moved to Uberlandia, MG. They knew they were to start a new work there. God had given them a vision of a New Testament church with Holy Spirit power and love to win and unite people. Their conviction was that the Lord had told them to put roots down and learn to live off of the land. In order to do this they opened a private school to teach English as a second language. They named this school Escola Speak English, and initially Harry and missionary colleague Lynn Cleaveland taught. The Cleavelands helped out in several ways until they returned to the USA in 1974. A young Brazilian named Geser was their language lab technicion. When the children got old enough to go to school, Elaine helped out. This school served its financial purpose of providing a living for the family and it opened up contacts in the city during the17 years it was functioning. And with the profits from the school, the couple was able to buy several pieces of land behind the army base at a time when there was nothing but scrub forest there. Later on this property which was named Shalom was donated to the church that was to be birthed. From 1969 to 1975 many Bible study groups were formed. Harry and Elaine opened the first Christian bookstore in town, prepared a correspondence Bible Course, did radio evangelism, evangelized in the schools by projecting Christian movies and Harry and a team of men preached and taught regularly in the city jail. They were involved in social assistance of the most various kinds, but little fruit was gathered. It was time for much sowing, but still not time for the harvest. Many did not trust these foreigners and many times they were misinterpreted. But, they remained firm. They raised their four children teaching them to love God above all things and to love people regardless of colour, race or economic standing. They loved Brazil to the point they were willing to abnegate their American citizenship to become Brazilians. The law at that time did not accept dual citizenship. They wanted to vote, be like the people, and in many ways participate in the building of this great nation. Also, the country was under a military dictatorship and Harry was threatened by a local authority because he was hosting a meeting where the only crime was hearing the witness of an ex-drug trafficker they had won in the city jail and who had served his time. At that time, because they were foreigners, the family could be expelled from the country within 48 hours without any legal recourse. They decided to become Brazilians to make that possibility a little harder. (Today, they have both their Brazilian and American passports). As of 1975 Harry and Elaine together with new missionaries Jim and Carol Sturgeon and Jim and Sandy Bunch began to reap the first fruit that has remained to this very day. Jose Pereira and his wife Ana were baptised in June of 1975 and Marcia Batista in September of that same year. In 1976 something wonderful began to take place...dozens of young people began to come to Christ, and their lives were profoundly changed. This fire began to spread from some meetings held Saturday afternoons at a school. Robin Scates (16) was one of God’s instruments in lighting this fire. Most of these young people had no family reference and were helped by Harry and Elaine, who opened their home for these youth. They needed to be taught and needed orientation. Above all they needed a father figure... This revival and love time was remarkable! The church that was then birthed had a face: Love! Harry and Elaine’s care was a consolidating force in this Godly move in the lives of so many. Their home seemed to be a bus station... and many ended up living in this home-bus station. Some had no home and ended up being included in the family as children. The family went from 04 children to 09. Beginning in 1980, leadership training became the emphasis of Harry and Elaine’s ministry. Leaders and pastors were prepared for the local church and in order to open up new works in other cities in Brazil and in other countries. During those years the coming of pastor Iron Bernardes and his family was really important for the structuring of the church in areas in which Harry felt weak. (Evangelism, and Prophetic gifts). His humility in sharing the ministry with Iron turned the church into a richly blessed community with the flowering of many gifts among so many and it grew a lot. Beginning in 1983 and until now (2008) leaders were sent to the cities of Cuiaba, São Miguel, Anapolis, Ribeirao Preto, Maraba, Patos de Minas, Ibia, Coromandel, Capinopolis, Prata... and daughter and link churches from these and other cities and towns (almost 60) were adopted; Araguari, Uberaba, Belem, Brasilia, Ceilandia, São Paulo besides the churches in other nations such as France, England, Ireland, Spain, India. One can say that one of the main attributes of the couple’s life and ministry is that they are always PRESENT... they are accessible, they are wonderful friends, they are wise and humble. They are an example of a lasting marriage, of good parenting, of family values, of Christian ministry. Their hearts are generous and their acts full of compassion and love. They are always inclusive and hospitable. They are servants... Tonight we want to honor you! The city of Uberlandia has already honored you. The city’s ministerial council honors you as one of its founders. The local church that you founded composed of 3,500 members honors you. Your co-pastors honor you as father and mother of this ministry. Ministries of other cities and nations honor you. Your children honor you, they are an extension of your lives and ministry. Your grandchildren honor you for they carry a precious inheritance of faith, love, character and faithfulness. We were all marked by God through your lives. You have always given us your best and we want to give you our love. Your marriage Harry and Elaine is an example of companionship, mutual care and marriage covenant. Always together... be it walking around the park for exercises, or be it during the great number of trips around Brazil and to other nations. Wherever you pass by, your influence continues on, each person is treated as special. We feel special for being part of your lives, your family, your ministry... Time goes by... but your influence remains... you will never be forgotten... we will be together

Todd Scates

tmscates@yahoo.com.br

---

Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more!

Sarah Palin under siege

As I watched the news this morning on the sacred channel, source of all truth, wisdom, and culture--GMA--I realized that the media has decided that Sarah Palin is a dangerous entity. This bunch of hypocrites who push abortion and euthanasia, homosexuality, and blatant immorality now are complaining because Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant outside of marriage. Thus the younger Palin is being treated that girls in this condition were treated 50 years ago. Yet many of the media culture are either unmarried or openly approve such relationships. But this is a smokescreen for the real purpose in the attacks.

Why is Sarah Palin dangerous? She represents a real threat to the present status quo. So it is important to do all that can be done to destroy her image and discredit her as a person. Every potential adversary is being interviewed in Alaska to demonstrate that Sarah is not who she claims to be.

Why don't we have some interviews with people who don't like Senators Biden and Obama? Simple. The media wants them to win.