Breaking the Sin Habit

These days, sin is such an old-fashioned word. Some of those of this current generation might even be pressed to ask the question what is sin. That’s because these days, almost anything goes and is acceptable. So to make sure we are all talking about the same thing, let’s first start out with the definition. “Sin is the transgression of the law,” the Bible says (1 John 3:4, KJV). In other words, sin occurs whenever we disobey what God commands us to do or forbids us.

As a minister of the gospel, here is something I have found to be true too often: Even for a person who has accepted Christ as his Savior, has been forgiven of his sins, and has received the Holy Spirit to help him live a holy life, it is possible to find himself bound by a sin habit that he finds hard to break. The reason this can happen is because we don’t stop being human when we become Christians. We still have desires, and not all of those desires are good. In fact, the Bible says that “each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed” (James 1:14, NIV). The clear message in this verse is that Christians are not perfect; like everyone else, they have evil desires that can lead them astray.

An important thing to understand about sin habits is that they don’t just happen. Rather, there is a process involved. A basic understanding of this truth is necessary, if we are to break a sin habit. In a nutshell, this is the process: “after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin” (James 1:15).

Let’s summarize this. First, we have desires that draw us away and entice us. But these desires in and of themselves do not constitute sin. The verse quoted above says that it is after those desires conceive that sin results. That means that in order for sin to occur, there must be an accommodating activity or environment to minister to our desires, and when these two are allowed to sufficiently interact, sin results.

Here is an example. Consider a person who has become a Christian but afterward, he still gets the urge to view pornography like he used to. Again, the mere desire to do so is not sin. But if he allows the wrong influences to effectively minister to that desire, conception will occur, of which the result will be that he will engage in pornography. The key to breaking the sin habit is to not allow the wrong things to minister to our wrong desires. We know when this process is happening, and we must be proactive in interrupting it, if we want to break a habit.

What we have talked about heretofore is not an ends but a means. You see, we can condition ourselves to become godly in any area of our life. That is the end goal. We get there by replacing those activities that minister to our wrong desires with biblically acceptable alternatives. With consistent repetition we can condition ourselves to respond to our temptation with these acceptable alternatives until this practice becomes the new norm. Maybe at first you won’t get it right every time, but with personal resolve, prayer, and the help of the Holy Spirit you can succeed in breaking your sin habit(s).

Copyright ©2011 by Frank King. All rights reserved.

Who Wins if the Government Shuts Down?

(Article first published as Who Wins if the Government Shuts Down? on Technorati.)

Though both Republicans and Democrats say they don’t want a government shutdown to occur, the likelihood of a shutdown is real. Most of the shutdowns in recent history have been relatively short. According to a Congressional Research Service report for Congress, released this month, from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1995, we have had nine funding gaps, and the resulting shutdowns have lasted for durations of up to three full days. Subsequently, the longest shutdown in history lasted a full 21 days from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996.

According to the report, the laws that require suspension of government services when appropriations have not been enacted allow for exceptions for “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” Hence, if a shutdown were to occur, essential services such as the following will stay in operation: border and coastal protection, law enforcement and criminal investigations, air traffic control and other transportation safety functions, and activities essential for ensuring continued public health and safety. On the other hand, those services considered nonessential and that are funded by annual appropriations would be affected, and we will feel the effects of such a shutdown.

Accordingly, both major political parties are trying to lay the blame on the other in the event that a shutdown occurs. Neither wants to look like the bad guys.

So if the government has to shut down, who wins?

To me, that’s a troubling question on several fronts. First of all, this is not a game where the goal of each team is to come out with the winning score. Secondly, the last time I checked, there was only one Congress of the United States. There may be two houses, and people with a number of different ideological convictions may be represented, but still there is only one Congress. This being a given that can’t be changed, it would be extremely naïve for any group within this one great body to think that it can push its agenda through with no tolerance for others with opposing views.

Another reason why I find the very question I posed as troubling is because if there is a government shutdown, it means that Congress has not done its job. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, but Congress. For it will not have passed a responsible federal budget, or an interim continuing resolution, to keep the government in operation. So my answer to my question is that nobody wins if the government were to shut down. For how can we declare a winner in a case when all that has been accomplished is that Congress has failed to do its job?

Copyright ©2011 by Frank King. All rights reserved.

How Serious is America About Fixing Her Budget Crises?

(Article first published as How Serious is America About Fixing Her Budget Crises? on Technorati.)

The nation has been closely watching the budget showdown currently taking place in Madison, WI. In an attempt to address a budget shortfall through June 30, and a projected $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget, Governor Scott Walker is calling on legislators to pass a bill requiring workers to pay for more of their health care premiums and pension contributions. The bill also would eliminate most of public employees’ collective bargaining rights. And workers are saying to the governor, they aren’t having it. Accordingly, many of the public school teachers have refused to return to class and teach. Also, fourteen democratic lawmakers have fled the state to prevent voting on the legislation from happening.

The reason all eyes are upon Madison is because, like Wisconsin, most states are faced with making painful budget cuts to get spending under control. The Madison protests will most certainly resonate in other states as they work through their budget process. Regardless to whether you side with Governor Walker’s approach to the crisis or with the public workers’ reaction, here is the bottom line: Across the nation, some unpopular decisions must be made to accomplish fiscal health, some sacred programs will die in the process, and there are going to be some unhappy people.

This same dynamic is playing itself out on the federal budget level as well. We still have no budget passed for the current fiscal year. As for President Obama’s proposed budget for 2012, which trims an estimated $1.1 trillion dollars from the deficit over the next decade, the GOP says this does not go nearly far enough.  Eventually, huge entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare will have to be factored into the equation as well. Again, some unpopular decisions must be made to accomplish fiscal health, some sacred programs will die in the process, and there are going to be some unhappy people.

The question is, what kind of stomach do we have for what needs to be done to bring our nation to fiscal health? All Americans want the budget problems fixed, but most don’t want to feel any extreme pain. For instance, based on a survey conducted last month by the Opinion Research Corporation, seven in ten Americans say that deficit reduction is less important than preventing cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education programs and veteran’s benefits. At least six in ten feel the same way about unemployment benefits and roads and mass transit.

This survey suggests that reality has not hit home as yet, for many of us. But denial does not negate reality. Business as usual is not an option. Painful and unpopular budgetary decisions will have to be made--from the state house to the White House.

Copyright ©2011 by Frank King. All rights reserved.

Prayer That Gets Results

Why does prayer not work for us any better than it currently does? It’s certainly not because God has no interest in what we have to say. Think about it. We know He is interested in hearing from us because He is the one who came up with this thing called prayer, and the sole purpose of prayer is for us to communicate with Him. Moreover, we are commanded to pray always (Luke 18:1). So why would God come up with the idea of prayer, command us to pray, and not be interested in our prayers?

Since the above scenario does not jibe with reason, I have concluded that the solution to the problem has to do with us. Furthermore, I believe that two Christians can pray the exact same prayer to the same God and get different results. So now am I saying that God is a respecter of persons? The answer is no; absolutely not (Romans 2:11).

But consider this verse: “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16b). That is the rendition from the King James Version (KJV). The New International Version (NIV) records it this way: “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” In this post, I will use the KJV because I want to zero in on a couple of key words that the KJV makes it easier to refer to. Please note that this verse makes it clear that the type of prayer being referred to “avails much,” meaning it accomplishes a lot.

According to the abovementioned verse, effective prayer is powered by two forces: a righteous man and effectual fervent prayer. Of course, every one of us who has been born again through faith has been declared righteous. But that does not necessarily mean we walk in righteousness as a way of life. And it is the latter that the verse is referring to. That’s why I said earlier that two Christians can pray the exact same prayer to the same God and get different results. In other words, if one believer is committed to walking in righteousness and the other is not, God’s response to their prayers will be different.

Secondly, the King James Version refers to “effectual fervent” prayer. These two words are rendered from one Greek word which means to be operative, as in "to work." A clear implication in this statement is that not all prayer works. So it’s not true that it does not matter how we pray. Sometimes, the way we pray makes it impossible for God to positively respond to our petitions. And so if we can identify and eliminate these hindrances to our prayers being answered, we will move in the direction of more effective prayer. Here are a few hindrances:

• Self-serving prayer-- “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (James 4:3).

• Prayer void of faith-- “Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord” (James 1:6-7).

• Iniquity in our heart--“If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Psalm 66:18).

These are three major hindrances to effective prayer. Any of them can creep into our prayer life very easily. But if we are vigilant to eliminate them, and if we walk in righteousness, the Bible promises that our prayers will avail much.

Copyright ©2011 by Frank King. All rights reserved.

Energy Drinks are Bad for Children and Adolescents

(Article first published as Energy Drinks are Bad for Children and Adolescents on Technorati.)

To people who feel run down, or who haven’t been getting enough sleep lately, or for students who need to stay up all night cramming for exams, or the person trying to work two full-time jobs, energy drinks might seem like a godsend. But think about it; I mean really think about it. These drinks are loaded with caffeine, sugar, sweeteners, etc. You know those bad things that nutritionists tell us to avoid or limit the consumption of. Yet these are the very ingredients that come together to give us the so-called energy drink.

According to the February  2011, online issue of Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, sales of energy drinks are expected to top $9 billion dollars in 2011. Half of the energy-drink market consists of children (<12 years old), adolescents (12-18 years old), and young adults. That’s a lot of liquid energy, and according to the Academy of Pediatrics, energy drinks can pose serious threats to children and youths. Of the 5448 US caffeine overdoses reported in 2007, 46% occurred in those younger than 19 years of age.

Caffeine is the main active ingredient in energy drinks. Many of these drinks contain 70 to 80 mg per 8-oz serving, approximately 3 times the concentration in cola drinks. The caffeine content of some energy drinks can be as high as five times that of cola drinks.

Although the US Food and Drug Administration limits caffeine content in soft drinks, which are categorized as food, there is no such regulation of energy drinks because they are classified as dietary supplements. However, energy drinks were recently given unique reporting codes so that the prevalence of related overdoses can now be tracked by US poison centers.

It seems to me that this should be a no –brainer. No drink with such high concentrations of caffeine, coupled with sugar, sweeteners, and health risks, should be the drink of our youths. They can get energy the old-fashioned way. You know like go to bed at night and get ample sleep, eat sensibly, and exercise. The last time I checked, that plan still worked and had no bad side effects. Parents do well to instill these disciplines in their children. In the aforementioned journal, it was concluded, “Energy drinks have no therapeutic benefit, and many ingredients are understudied and not regulated.” Finally, note that energy drinks are not to be confused with sports drinks, which are totally different.

What is Love? (Reflections on Valentine's Day)

I am posting this just three days before Valentine’s Day. This is the time when love is in the air. The problem with that statement is that people have such twisted definitions of love. Some months ago, a study was done, and according to the results, almost 40 percent of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete. That one finding says volumes about our idea of love. In other words, if the trending view is that marriage is becoming obsolete, that suggests that a growing number of people do not view marriage as a core objective of love.

First, let me state up front that I am addressing this subject from a Christian perspective. Why? One, because I am a preacher. Two, because God is the one who came up with the idea of marriage. He decreed that, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Moreover, the Bible says, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6). Hence, in God’s view, marriage is a core objective of a man leaving his parents and cleaving to a woman.

Assuming there is some validity to the study I mentioned above, a clear message would be that the world has its own concept of love. For instance, two people “love” each other because they both desire a relationship in which they can have affairs with other individuals outside their own relationship; or two people “love” each other because they have similar social interests, and they live for the moment of spending time together in public; or a younger woman “loves” a much older man because she sees him as a father figure, and he gives her the sense of security she has been looking for, etc.

I don’t question the love such couples have for each other because of the chemistry between them, but the love God has decreed that a man and woman are to have for each other goes so much deeper than that. It is a love that embraces the idea of a man and woman spending a lifetime together in a legally recognized union. It is also a love that calls them to save themselves sexually for that special person they want to spend a lifetime with. Yes, I know that sounds so old-fashioned. This kind of love will find little or no reception in the sexually revolutionized society we currently find ourselves in.

What I have said heretofore is not meant to suggest that the first person a young Christian meets in his first experience with dating should be viewed as an obligation to marry her. There is nothing wrong with a Christian dating for years prior to marriage. God gives us the liberty to decide if we will get married at age 20 or at age 50. In fact, He even gives us the liberty to forgo marriage and choose to just serve Him. At any rate, we do well to seek His timing and direction for finding the right person for yoking ourselves with.

Our society continues to drift from God in its concept of “love” and romance. Some of our youths engage in “friends with benefits” activity. Our states are becoming increasingly open to legalizing same sex marriages. And so people toss very loosely the phrase “we love each other.” And it creates all this love-chatter in the air on Valentine’s Day.

A (Black Man's) Perspective on Black History

(Article first published as A (Black Man's) Perspective on Black History on Technorati.)

As African Americans, we must never forget the blood, sweat, and tears that paved the road upon which we currently walk. Our rich history helps us to appreciate more deeply the freedoms we now enjoy. They were not simply given to us, though based on the stated ideals of our country these freedoms should have been a given for all Americans.

Born in South Georgia in the 1950s, I attended segregated schools until my second year in high school, which was in 1971. Desegregation did not come easy for us. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered our local school board officials to desegregate our public schools.  From that time until 1971, seventeen years, our school officials dragged their feet and did nothing significant to respect the court. The school board’s failure to obey the law resulted in the courts taking over and beginning mandatory busing to achieve desegregation. This was met with riots and unrest in the schools. During the ten years following the mandatory busing, the public schools lost about 10,000 students, mostly whites, as their parents withdrew them. To make a rather long story short, it was not until 1994, that the school system was deemed sufficiently desegregated and was released from control of the courts.

Living through that experience has given me a great appreciation for the liberties I now enjoy as an African American. My perspective does not belong to most black youths of the current generation. To them, things have always been as they currently are. By and large, African American youths are not limited to black public schools, historically black colleges and universities, certain eating establishments, types of employment, or neighborhoods in which to live. I believe that as an African American parent, I do well to instill in my children an appreciation for black history. It adds value to the journey we have traveled as a people. For only through knowing where we started from can we know how far we have advanced. Imparting this body of knowledge to my children gives them a more wholesome perspective on the great opportunities they now have to pursue their dreams in life.

Blacks in America have come a long way, but we have not fully arrived. Our ancestors gave their lives to make ours better. We must take their accomplishments to a new level. That is, we must leverage the yield of their contributions, and add to them our own so we can meet the challenges of our current and even future generations.

We largely owe the celebration of Black History Month to a black scholar by the name of Dr. Carter G. Woodson. Noting that history books largely ignored the accomplishments of the black American population, he established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History in 1915 and later founded the Journal of Negro History. In 1926, he launched Negro History Week as an initiative to bring national attention to the contributions of blacks throughout American history. Negro History Week later became Black History Month.

Who is My Neighbor?

Jesus and a person schooled in biblical law had an interesting conversation. It was in reference to the commandment that we should love our neighbors as we do ourselves. And then the Bible says this: “But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). In other words, he asked Jesus to define who one’s neighbor was, hoping Jesus would answer it in such a way that it justified the man’s personal concept of a neighbor. You know this man was in for the disappointment of his life. Really, he should not have gone there but he did.

Anyway, Jesus told a parable to answer the man’s question. From the context of the parable, the man who had been left for dead on the side of the road was a Jew. Strangely enough, three people passed the man by. One was a priest, with his holy self. The other was a Levite, who lived off the tithe of people such as the man lying on the side of the road. And the other was a Samaritan who normally has no dealings with Jews. The priest and the Levite crossed on the other side of the road, I guess so they wouldn’t become defiled, and passed the man by. It was the Samaritan who stopped and ministered to the man and took perfect care of him!

So then Jesus turns to the man who had posed the question and asks him who was a neighbor to the wounded man. “And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise” (verse 37).

Ouch! I can tell you that’s not the answer the man was expecting. Instead of feeling justified, he left feeling convicted. You see, the word neighbor in the verse is from the word plesion (PLEE-zee-on), which denotes one who is nearby. But Jesus does not limit the meaning to the people living in our immediate vicinity as we normally think of our neighbors.

Obeying this kingdom teaching can be a challenge for us at times. For instance, most of us have some preference for the type of neighborhood we want to live in. These preferences may be based on racial or educational parity, socioeconomics, etc. That’s all well and good; this is America, and we have the right to live among the kinds of neighbors we want to.

But here is the question. Are we at times like the man who came to Jesus trying to justify his narrow minded attitude? For instance, some people move in a certain neighborhood to get away from other segments of society, and they may feel justified in their condescending attitude toward those outside their social circle as long as they love those in their immediate vicinity and can say the love their neighbors.

But what Jesus is saying is that when we come in contact with someone who is in need, whoever that person is and wherever the place may be, and we know what we would want someone to do for us if we were in that same state of need, and God has so positioned us to minister to that person accordingly, at that point in time, that person is our neighbor. And if we don’t minister to the person in the same way as we would want someone to minister to us, then we don’t love our neighbor as we do ourselves.

God help us to obey this Great Commandment. Amen.

The Health Care Law; Good or Bad? What’s the Truth?

(Article first published as The Health Care Law; Good or Bad? What's the Truth? on Technorati.)

OK, so now the score is even at two each. I am talking about the ruling of federal judges on the constitutionality of the mandate in the new health care law requiring all Americans to purchase private insurance.  To date, four federal judges have ruled on the constitutionality of said mandate. Two have upheld it, and two have ruled against it. The two judges upholding it were appointed by a Democratic president, and the two ruling against the law were appointed by a Republican president.

Do you think that this is merely a coincidence? I certainly do not. Rather, I think what we have here is a political game being played where each side is vying for political points. If you listen to the majority of Democratic lawmakers, the health care law is a good thing. Listen to the majority of their Republican counterparts, and this is bad for our country. So much so that before the new Republicans were sworn into office last month to give their party the majority in the House, their first order of business was to vote to overturn the health care law—even though they knew it was a waste of time; that is, the votes did not exist in the Senate for repealing the law, and under no scenario would President Obama act to repeal his cherished accomplishment.

So is anyone interested in getting to and telling us the truth? Currently, I am convinced that somebody’s lying big time, or truth ain’t truth.

Case in point. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that repealing the law would increase the deficit about $230 million over the next 10 years. Did I mention that the CBO was nonpartisan, or at least supposed to be? Armed with this information prior to their vote to repeal the law, Republicans were not fazed. Rather, they judged the CBO’s estimate as flawed and in turn released their own report citing analyses from the House Budget Committee claiming that implementation of the health care law would add $701 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years. What gives? The two estimates aren’t even close.

Like the average American, I am not smart enough to make a fair assessment of the value of the new and very complex health care law. We pay our congresspersons very well to figure that out, thank you. But I am perceptive enough to know that if all the politicians are looking at the same data, and all of them claim to want to do what’s  best for our country, and they come out with different reads on the new law, and it so happens that when all is said and done they end up with merely two tales of the health care law, rigidly partisan, we are not getting the truth but politics as usual.