Wednesday, 16 June 2010 04:13 PM EDT by Jack Hayford
The recent rash of marital failures among high-profile Christian leaders is forcing a showdown in the church. It isn't a showdown between those who have failed and those who might criticize them—it's a confrontation needed to face down a mind-set that, if left unchanged, will bring an onslaught of hellish delusion. It's time we take a hard look at why so many marriages—especially of those in leadership—are being torn apart. We need to know how to respond and what the consequences could be if decisive action is not taken now.
There simply is no way to describe the present situation in lesser terms: We are at a point of crisis. Failure has been evident across the entire spectrum, from renowned evangelical Bible preachers to charismatic evangelists, and from noted national youth leaders to ascending Christian TV superstars. Though the unprecedented increase in the number of broken marriages and moral failures occurring in general among church leaders is tragic enough, the crisis is amplified when high-visibility leaders go in and out of marriages.
Sheep follow shepherds, and multitudes mimic the more visible. Struggling couples reduce their own resolve to resist society's indifference toward divorce or immorality when the collapse of their spiritual heroes' marriages seems to justify, if not normalize, those same practices. Comfort, convenience and human counsel replace commitment, constancy and the place of the cross in the marriage.
Confused and biblically unfocused thinking is at the center of this crisis and has amplified its impact. It begins with understandable sympathy appropriately shown for fallen or broken leaders. Certainly, a loving concern for such leaders is fitting.
But unbalanced views of Bible-based disciplines have become prevalent in the church today. And so have intentionally neglectful attitudes that waive the application of biblical wisdom and truth, which is needed to rightly serve the moment and is essential to sustain the pure passion and dynamic vitality of the church. Several concerns rise out of this crisis.
First is the widespread unawareness of the priority of clearly stated biblical qualifications for ministry leadership. Companion to this is the lost emphasis on the intrinsic relationship between a spiritual leader's marital commitment and moral fidelity as fundamentally required for their continued ministry.
Second, many deny or refuse to apply biblical leadership standards when they have been violated. Whether the failure was due to marital stress or outright sin, feelings are allowed to rule rather than biblical principles, and true life-restoring ministry is pre-empted. Wise and righteous dealings in graciously removing a leader from ministry for healing, counsel or other supportive care are disdained as either impractical or "too hard to apply," and humanistic means are substituted for divine directives.
Third, if sound, scriptural administration of the issues surrounding the church, its leaders and their marriages is not soon arrived at with solidarity, there is reason to prophesy widespread deception on other issues as well. The "itching ears" characteristic forecast for the last days represents the mind-set of some of those in church leadership today. It's a setup for delusion with disastrous consequences. Faith and Commitment a few years ago Charisma reported the response of one highly visible church leader who divorced his wife only to remarry within a week: "God didn't call me to marriage," he stated. "He called me to ministry." His remarks were convincing enough to justify his actions in the eyes of the majority of his followers.
There are multiple ironies in such an unbiblical utterance given in such a compromised circumstance, but the bottom line rings out in tragic clarity—several thousand people bought it. Apparently they either thought the idea was a spiritual one, or they didn't care if it wasn't.
In contrast with the glibness suggesting a nobility in "dedication to ministry over marriage" is the truth of God's Word, which casts the issue in a vastly different light. According to the Scriptures, if a leader is married, two things are foundational: (1) the commitment he shows toward his marriage determines his right to lead as a servant of Christ in the church; and (2) the quality he reveals of his will to grow in his marriage determines the manner in which he will model as a representative of Christ to the church.
There is no escaping the two-edged truth unveiled in the New Testament. Because heaven's Bridegroom has come to earth to win a bride for Himself, the principles of both commitment (faith) and constancy (growth) are "locked" in the imagery of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. Further, no one is more accountable to learn and grow in the lifestyle of modeling this commitment than a leader given by Christ to serve His bride.
No gifts of a brilliant leader, however remarkable, ought to be allowed to substitute for the will to increase in the graces required for two different humans to grow together. No fruit of statistical achievement is a worthy replacement for the required development of the fruit of the Spirit needed for a husband and wife to learn to live together for a lifetime.
Ephesians 5:22-33 not only points to the demanding nature of commitment needed by a husband and wife to make a marriage work, but it concludes with these sweeping words: "I speak concerning Christ and [His] church" (v. 32, NKJV). Forty years of experience and observation of leaders has taught me one profound fact in this regard: A married leader will eventually, and inevitably, treat Jesus' bride the way he treats his own. Likewise, a parent will teach and lead the family of God the same way they lead their own children.
The Ephesians 5 idea of true faith in Christ and His faithful commitment to His own is inextricably linked throughout God's Word to the figure of a faithful, growing marriage. Jesus communicated this idea in His parable of the returning bridegroom (see Matt. 25:1-13).
His use of the figure fills the bridegroom-bride relationship with more than passion: The central issue is fidelity to a promise on the groom's part and constancy of devotion on the bride's. Time can dampen fervor, but true love transcends emotion and remains committed.
The depiction of living faith as a marriage is found throughout the Bible, beginning with the type symbolized in Eve's creation from Adam's side, which foreshadowed Christ's begetting His bride through His wounded side. And it sustains until the finale, for we all anticipate our first stop beyond this world's history at a grand dinner called the marriage supper of the Lamb (see Rev. 19:9). The message: Tribulations rise and fall, but joy will come in the morning--hang tough!
In Jeremiah 3:14, God's commitment to the backslider is, "'I am married to you'"--a statement that calls a leader to seek to sustain his or her marriage even though society argues, "If it's not fun anymore, trash it."
It's a tender issue, and we certainly are never to condemn a divorced or fallen leader. But neither can we permit a casual treatment of their tragedy, for God's Word is never to be lightly regarded on these points. How a believer lives unto Christ is measured in terms of marital fidelity, and how a leader leads in His name is to be judged by the same.
Leadership Standards
Though often cavalierly dismissed by the careless or uninformed, the Word gives requirements that serve as a grid for measuring a spiritual leader's readiness to lead. First Timothy 3:1-15 and Titus 1:5-16 list standards incumbent upon every leader who would serve in the church. This is true regardless of what office they fill, as listed in Ephesians 4:11.
The positional terms in Timothy and Titus--"bishop" (episkopos, overseer); "deacon" (diakonos, minister); and "elder" (presbuteros, mature leader)--form a cluster of at least a dozen behavioral requirements that, at the very least, establish a minimal standard for spiritual leaders. They span everything from being non-argumentative, non-combative and humbly teachable to being a faithful spouse and a good parent.
Equally important is the context—which calls for time to verify these qualities (see 1 Tim. 3:10) and slowness to confirm a person to leadership (see 1 Tim. 5:22). Further, if through a problem, a stress, a tragedy or a personal failure a leader pointedly violates or is unable to fulfill the biblical standard, he or she is to be relieved of ministry—at least for an extended season.
If for no other reason than to grant a needed period for spiritual and emotional healing, this policy ought to be regarded today. Reinstatement may eventually come, since the hope of recovery is characteristic of God's redemptive ways, but not without an extended season of recovery.
An even more thoughtful look at these leadership qualifications reveals that they have more to say about marriage responsibilities than is immediately obvious. Certain direct statements do declare absolute requirements, such as faithfulness in marital commitment (see 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6) and orderly leadership in raising children (see 1 Tim. 3:4-5, 12; Titus 1:6).
But indirectly, most of the list also applies to marriage. For example, being "hospitable" (see 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8) represents an attitude of prioritizing time with one's spouse and family as much as it does welcoming people into your home. Being "gentle" (see 1 Tim. 3:3) and "not quick-tempered" (see Titus 1:7) calls for a private loving, as Christ loved the church, toward one's husband or wife (see Eph. 5:25-29) just as much as for a public graciousness or self-control with members of the congregation.
The fact is, spiritual leaders are expected to meet a higher standard than the world sets for its leading figures. If these requirements are not being met in at least an initial and growing way, the married leader's potential for placement is to be disallowed.
Perfection or full maturity is not mandated, but neither is it enough that the leader be exempted from the standards simply because he or she is "so anointed" (so was Balaam). Nor is it enough that a leadership position be given to a person simply because he or she "has so much insight into the Word" (so does the devil!).
Our society lauds and pays its athletes, entertainers and persuasive leaders just as long as they "keep the show on the road"--but that's not the measure God calls the church to apply. Character, not merely charisma, is the mark of a spiritual leader.
And when he or she is married, the test of that character is proved in the fabric of fidelity to vows and in the self-sacrificing will to serve marriage above ministry. To lower this expectation is extremely risky.
Reversing an Evil Trend
I am persuaded by a portent of danger in our midst of a frightening vulnerability to damning error if this bent toward neglecting the basic and practical standards God sets for leaders continues: If we continue to entertain confusion on these points, we will give place to a satanic darkness that will issue in a plague of spiritual death.
This is no idle warning. The wolf is already at the door, and he's wearing sheep's clothing. Already there have been leaders duped by a demonic doctrine secretly being taught by a former so-called charismatic leader. This false teacher spread a destructive heresy that suggests "immorality is impossible within the kingdom of God."
The concept is a bizarre twist on "kingdom teaching" that argues that after a person has entered God's kingdom they transcend earth's order and are thereby exempt from its laws--even God's. I will not dignify this corruption by explaining the convolutions and distortions of Scripture that underlie this error.
This stands as contemporary evidence that there are those who literally teach immorality and dilute marital commitment, exactly as the Word warns regarding the last days (see 1 Tim. 4:1-2). This is precisely what Jesus so forcibly opposed in the churches at Pergamos and Thyatira (see Rev. 2:14, 20-25).
We are wise to heed this warning. Unless the church shakes herself awake where seducing spirits are luring her away from a "first love" for the values of marital commitment and moral fidelity, a false definition of God's Person will supplant the pure glory of His real presence and give place to destructive delusion.
So what can be done to reverse this horrific trend and bring God's order back to the church?
First, heeding the Word--and with a renewed God-fearing alertness and Holy Spirit-enabled recommitment to marriage standards among church leaders--we must resist the devil. Where the infiltration of worldly marriage standards for spiritual leadership has given place to the penetration of evil that is destroying the foundations of so many Christian homes, a turnaround can be effected.
Psalm 11:3 says, "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" But Isaiah 58:12 says the Lord will enable us to "raise up the foundations" again. A return to the Word will give place to the Spirit's purifying and restoration.
Second, the issues of biblical requirements must be taught and administrated not only with evenhanded patience and grace but also with faithfulness to the truth. This is not a call to legalism but a call from a growing sloppiness called "grace in the name of love," but without love's commitments or grace's power. Neither love nor grace should ever be a label used to bandage over our neglect or self-indulgence.
Third, let us pray for fallen leaders earnestly, while pursuing practical means to help strengthen and secure them in their marriages. I believe the following possibilities would make a tremendous difference in reversing the current trend and bringing healing and restoration:
For example, all training for ministry leadership should commit to shaping ministry candidates for their marriage as well as for their ministry. In God's eyes my fidelity to my wife is as important as my integrity in handling His Word or my purity in relating its truth. All Bible schools, training centers and seminaries must become responsive to this call.
Next, all Christian media should accept the responsibility to monitor, minister, admonish and administrate with reference to God's standards for a leader's marriage and morality. Most networks, publishers and broadcast stations do this, but some do not. By God's grace a uniform standard must be raised, showing it is not enough that a leader merely be "successful" or that they "sell," but that they be "found faithful" (see 1 Cor. 4:2).
Finally, all congregations, denominations and other fellowships of churches should aggressively provide and fund nurturing resources for pastoral couples. It is not enough to provide "burn clinics" for those who have been wounded or fallen—there is a cry today to advance means of preventive care.
With such priorities pursued anew, a true visitation of miracle power can be expected. Jesus likes weddings. We know that because He chose one for His first miracle. It just may be that our giving His kind of attention to our marriages—especially to His expectations for those of us who lead—may give place to His last miracle visit! *
Jack Hayford is founding pastor of The Church on the Way and chancellor of The King's College and Seminary in Van Nuys, California. He has been married to Anna since 1954.
HONG KONG, June 17 — One in five Chinese marriages now ends in divorce with the rise in numbers put down to a “stronger sense of self.’’
More than 24 million people were married in mainland China last year — a rise of 2.28 million from 2008 — but there were also 2.47 million divorces, up 8.8 per cent year on year, according to a report just released by the nation’s Ministry for Civil Affairs.
The report also found that more older Chinese were getting married with the figure for those aged over 40 now accounting for almost 12 per cent of all those wed, while the number for those aged between 20 and 24 accounted for 37 per cent of all marriages, a drop of 10 per cent since 2005.
According to Tang Jun, from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the rise in divorce numbers is “almost a side effect’’ of China’s remarkable economic growth over the last decade.
“[People] are better educated than their parents, are more independent economically and have developed a stronger sense of self, which tends to wreck marriages more easily,’’ he told the China Daily newspaper.
Tang also pointed to a survey conducted by his organisation which claimed rising extramarital affairs had become a major cause of divorces in China, particularly in larger cities where women were less tolerant of affairs, he said.
He predicted divorce rates in China would soar in the next few years.
The rise in the number of older people getting married was attributed to both government policy, which since the 1970s has been encouraging people to wait until later, and the fact that the faster pace of life in China now meant that marriage was often delayed while work pressures were dealt with.
“Most of them [older people] had a previously failed marriage but it shows that the Chinese are becoming more open about remarriage,’’ said Tang.
And while the divorce rate in China may be climbing, the country still has a long way to go to catch up to its near neighbour South Korea which sees one in three marriages end in divorce, the second highest rate in the world behind the United States (around one in two). In Japan, meanwhile, approximately one in four marriages does not go the distance. — AFP/Relaxnews
by Dr. Tan Kee Kwong (former 3-term MP Segambut) - a personal view of the country’s financial state
As a private citizen now, I am just going through the main headlines in the papers this morning (June 11). I see all sorts of figures and fantastic projections. To me it is just USELESS! There is no money. As old Mother Hubbard said, “The Cupboard is bare.”
Malaysians, please ask yourselves. What has the government done for the past 54 years. The country’s finances have been so badly managed, lots of prestige projects that don’t add value to our beloved country. Worst of all, there is widespread perception of MASSIVE CORRUPTION.
A few examples which indicate to me that the government has no money:
Government contractors are complaining that many of them have not been paid for 6 months!
Roads in WPKL are in bad shape, there is no money to tar the roads!
Government grants to schools to pay for water, Telekom and TNB bills, even such small sums, are being cut by 20%!
Gratuity for some senior civil servants: in the past, it used to be paid in one lump sum on retirement; now they are asked to accept payment in 4 instalments!
Pension: all governments in the world are moving away from pensions; Malaysia also did the same many years ago. Yet because I believe that cash flow was so bad, some civil servants two years ago were asked to change from EPF back to the pension scheme. To me, that means that the government don’t even have immediate cash to pay EPF! Is it because if they opt back to pensions then it would be the future prime ministers’ headache?
To add to all this, the appetite of the UMNO rent seekers are getting very excessive. Some years back there was a tender exercise to supply laptops and overhead projectors for schools. The tender amount was about RM100 million. In one discussion, the middle man/”rent seeker” demanded RM60 million out of the RM100 million. The managing director of that company that was keen to tender almost fainted!
What all this means is that the government would never get value for money. We have been told by the Auditor-General that RM42,000 was paid to buy a laptop. Anyone can go to Imbi Plaza and buy the top end models for a maximum of RM8,000.
A story to compare Taiwan and Malaysia:
TAIWAN
MALAYSIA
1. Population
22 million
27 million
2. Land use
60% of Taiwan can’t be used, mountains
In Malaysia we have massive land resources, tanah terbiar or cultivated land left fallow up to two million acres
3. Crude oil
Not even one DROP
We produce oil in Kelantan, Trengganu, Labuan, Miri, Sabah; there have been reports that we have even given Blok L & M to Brunei, said to contain oil worth US Dollars 100 BILLION !!!!!!
4. Foreign reserves
Third highest in WORLD after China & Japan, even more than Singapore
Our ringgit is so weak
5. Govt debt
ZERO
RM380 Billion (according to reports)
So my dear friends, it begs the question. WHERE HAS OUR ENORMOUS WEALTH AND RESOURCES GONE?
Many years ago, I was a member of PAC (Public Accounts Commission) in Parliament. I remember very clearly that at one meeting of PAC in 2007, we called the Second Finance Minister to answer on the transformation of GLC’s. I demanded an answer to why the real accounts of Petronas were NEVER tabled in Parliament. Even we as members of PAC could not examine the accounts of Petronas. His feeble answer was Petronas was under a special akta (act) created by the prime minister, whereas he was only in charge of the ministry of finance. The only conclusion that I could reach for myself was that the government dared not tell us what happened to the massive profits that Petronas made all those years.
NOW WE UNDERSTAND MORE WHY DESPITE OUR MASSIVE WEALTH THE COUNTRY WILL BE BROKE SOON (according to report attributed to a government minister)
So my clarion call and plea to all Malaysians who love our country, WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! SAVE MALAYSIA NOW!
UPDATED @ 11:14:36 AM 09-06-2010 Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/tsu-koon-defends-pemandus-subsidy-data/
By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
June 09, 2010
Koh blames the discrepancies on semantics. — file pic
KUALA LUMPUR, June 9 — Pemandu chairman Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon defended today Pemandu’s subsidy statistics despite being openly contradicted by the finance ministry.
The Malaysian Insider reported yesterday that the Treasury disputed the findings made by Datuk Idris Jala and informed the BN Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) that the country’s total subsidy bill was only RM18.6 billion.
The Pemandu CEO had predicted Malaysia could be bankrupt by 2019 if it did not begin to cut subsidies for petrol, electricity, food and other staples, which he said cost the country RM74 billion last year.
Koh explained that the discrepancies between the subsidy figures by Treasury and Pemandu was due to the differences in the definition and classification of the expenditures.
“The Treasury’s figures refer only to direct subsidies, involving only the Treasury, while those of Pemandu’s include all indirect subsidies and from all public sources,” he told reporters during a press conference in Parliament.
He added that Pemandu’s report was more comprehensive than the findings by the Treasury.
“However, on making a very quick check, we discovered, for example, that [the] Treasury’s figures did not include [a] petroleum subsidy of RM12 billion by Petronas as the Treasury considered it was not borne directly by the government.
“Hence, the Treasury is looking strictly from their angle and their own budgeting concern. But the Pemandu lab looked at the overall picture. So, both are right in their own contexts,” he said.
According to Pemandu figures, the country’s total subsidy bill was RM74 billion, or equivalent to RM12,900 per household.
Pemandu said the government subsidises RM23.5 billion for fuel, RM4.6 billion for infrastructure, RM3.1 billion for food and RM41.8 billion for social welfare (health, education and higher education).
But the finance ministry said yesterday the country’s total subsidy was RM18.6 billion or equivalent to RM3,246 per household.
It said that RM7.1 billion was spent for fuel, RM800 million for infrastructure, RM2.9 billion for food and RM7.8 billion for social welfare.
------------------------------------------
Treasury disputes Idris Jala’s data
Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/treasury-disputes-idris-jalas-data/ By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
June 08, 2010
KUALA LUMPUR, June 8 — The Ministry of Finance disputed today findings made by Datuk Idris Jala and his Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) in his argument for immediate subsidy cuts, in a major embarrassment for the minister charged with overseeing the administration’s key performance indicators (KPIs).
Treasury officers briefed Barisan Nasional (BN) backbenchers in Parliament today and indicated Idris (picture), the former Malaysia Airlines boss hailed as a hero for turning around the national carrier, had overstated his case for subsidy cuts with flawed statistics.
Using Pemandu findings Idris had predicted Malaysia could be bankrupt by 2019 if it did not begin to cut subsidies for petrol, electricity, food and other staples, which he said cost the country RM74 billion last year.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak also moved today to quell fears raised by Idris that Malaysia would one day go the way of Greece and Iceland and become a bankrupt nation by pointing out the government was taking steps to ensure that the country’s debts would be reduced.
Photo of a page of the ministry presentation to the BNBBC.
In a briefing for the BN Backbenchers Club (BNBBC), Treasury officers said the country’s total subsidy bill was only RM18.6 billion, and not RM74 billion as stated by Idris, for 2009.
According to Pemandu figures, the country’s total subsidy was RM74 billion, which is equivalent to RM12,900 per household.
Pemandu said the government subsidises RM23.5 billion for fuel, RM4.6 billion for infrastructure, RM3.1 billion for food and RM41.8 billion for social welfare (health, education and higher education).
But the Finance Ministry said today the country’s total subsidy was RM18.6 billion or equivalent to RM3,246 per household.
It said that RM7.1 billion was spent for fuel, RM0.8 billion for infrastructure, RM2.9 billion for food and RM7.8 billion for social welfare.
A copy of the briefing notes was made available to The Malaysian Insider.
The Treasury briefing is set to further alienate Idris as Najib has distanced himself from the former corporate captain’s warning and said that his estimations were merely based on Pemandu’s studies.
Former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has also ridiculed the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, saying that Idris was exaggerating.
The Malaysian Insider understands that Idris has come under fire from Cabinet colleagues because his remarks had undermined Najib’s government.
Pemandu is also holding a briefing for the BNBBC tonight after many BN leaders had expressed dismay over Idris’s bankruptcy remarks.
The briefing is aimed at explaining its findings and receiving feedback from members of the BNBBC.
Lawmakers from both BN and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) have agreed that an immediate implementation of any subsidy cuts would spell political suicide for the Najib administration with the next general election within the next 34 months.
Najib has also stressed that the public would have the final say on whether expensive subsidies would be cut.
There is nothing wrong in churches receiving money from the government if there are no strings attached. And there is no dilemma for the Methodist churches if they do the right thing with the RM1.5 million to dispel the controversy.
Goh Keat Peng was criticized for his letter (in Malaysian Insider on May 18) warning against accepting the money and called ‘arrogant’. But regrettably, ‘arrogant’ is not a fair description of a man merely speaking his mind and rightly warning the churches against money politics.
A humble chap – I have known him for many years – his involvement in politics came as a surprise, but timely. Goh has always been governed by his belief that Christians are the ‘salt of the earth.’ Being arrogant and forthright are worlds apart.
Thus his concern aired in public was understandable.
Perhaps it was the givers who did not understand. It is this sort of giving – the trumpeting of it that Jesus denounced. Christians are taught to give quietly, sincerely, unconditionally, without fanfare, and to receive unconditionally.
Still as Bishop Hwa Yung rightly wrote, Christians should not argue over it. The Sibu by-election is history. The money was problematic because of its timing as he rightly opined.
Nevertheless the incident can be an opportunity for the churches, as he suggested, to “let their light shine before men so they may see their good works and give glory to God in Heaven.”
What better way to do that than to give the money – all RM1.5 million given by the government to the poor?
After all Jesus taught that “it is more blessed to give than to receive” and the Bible is one continuous sermon on how God – Jehovah Jireh – gave to his people culminating in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross to save everyone.
Practicing Christian charity
And in his epistles the Apostle Paul spoke passionately about helping the poor. In fact when he spoke of giving, as in his letter to the Corinthians, it was all about the needs of the poor Jews who had become Christian and were persecuted and had no means of support because their properties were confiscated and many had lost everything.
Also remember that Paul was very careful in handling public money so that no one could accuse him of impropriety. His advice to Christians, whether in giving or receiving, is to appear to do the right thing ‘not only in the sight of God but men.’ (2 Corinthians 8:21)
When Abraham was donated burial land, he refused a handout and paid for it lest people thought they instead of God enriched him. Others may depend on the state but Christians are to rely on God.
But there is nothing wrong with the state giving money to churches as the conduit of its welfare programs for the poor. In many places the churches do a good job in social welfare work and there is nothing wrong with them getting money to carry out projects, as long as there must be no strings attached.
Jesus said, “You cannot serve two masters.”
“Choose God or money. If you serve one you will hate the other.”
So Christians not only open their hearts to God but their wallets – I mean to give – and money should never be a stumbling block. Those who still love money tread on thin ice.
It is okay to make money – honestly – and God blesses in a material way. But it is the love of money, not money itself that is the root of evil. We all need to guard against it – including churches. We also need to guard against the accolades of the world. Those who bask in man’s favour may find themselves out of favour with God.
Scourge of money politics
There are Christians in the BN government and Pakatan Rakyat. They may all be praying for God to be on their side but they should really consider if they are on God’s side. God does not side with those who do wrong.
There is no dilemma when you make a decisive moral stand.
It is no secret that money politics is the cancer and when you have the one who governed the country for 22 years admitting that in politics you can’t do without money, it figures why politicians give money to communities, even churches, during crucial elections.
Ultimately God is the one who puts one leader down and elevates another – not money politics. Sibu may be one proof yet since Lim Kit Siang declared it ‘a miracle.’ No one can thwart His (I mean God’s) purpose. So when God is in control nothing is out of control even as we can be discouraged by what happens around us.
After all, Jesus and Paul forewarned that “in the last days” things will get worse – people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of pleasure and money, insolent, God-haters, corrupt, and so on.
If one reads the lives of Daniel and Joseph in the Old Testament, they were godly men downtrodden by men but elevated by God to high positions who served ungodly governments. If Christians are to associate only with the godly, they would have to leave this world.
And who can forget Lim Guan Eng, when he was in prison and I wrote a poem for him then called ‘A Bright Star Shines’ believing one day he will rise above his persecutors because he was punished for doing good in helping a young Malay girl.
Christians are to work with those who are corrupt, dishonest – even the chief of sinners – in fact everyone; though in private they are to avoid bad company because bad company corrupts good character. So they themselves are not to be tainted by sin. They are to live as ‘lights shining in a dark world’ and not to be ‘overcome by evil’ but to ‘overcome evil with good.’
Enjoin good, abjure evil
We read of churches growing but their saltiness has yet to percolate significantly outside their church walls and pervade their communities, notwithstanding the outstanding contributions of those churches already engaged in helping others.
Christian piety must produce the fruit of good works outside the church. Instead of looking to receive money, Christians should be finding ways to give to others. They have no reason to be building white elephants when poorer Malaysians can do with help. And sacrificial giving is the best form of giving as in the story of the poor widow who gave all she had to live on.
Righteousness exalts a nation and I hope more Christians will learn to stand in the gap for the nation and boldly do many constructive things – in addition to what they do in church.
They are God’s agents for change – agents for good.
Join the BN government, join Pakatan Rakyat, join the NGOs – God gives everyone the freedom of choice – but above all they must not join in with those who do wrong. They have to use their influence to change society by being salt and light and setting the fine example.
It is better to give than receive, they should not forget.
The recent rash of marital failures among high-profile Christian leaders is forcing a showdown in the church. It isn't a showdown between those who have failed and those who might criticize them—it's a confrontation needed to face down a mind-set that, if left unchanged, will bring an onslaught of hellish delusion. It's time we take a hard look at why so many marriages—especially of those in leadership—are being torn apart. We need to know how to respond and what the consequences could be if decisive action is not taken now.
KUALA LUMPUR, June 8 — The 
