Viewing 1 - 9 out of 16 Blogs.

Page:  1 | 2 | Next >  Last >>

10 Questions for Human Resources

Tags: Jobs

Today I finished my series through the five solas. I have only posted notes from one other sermon in the series, By Christ Alone. I thought I would post the outline for today’s sermon.

The glory of God is a topic that takes up a lot of room in the Bible. The word glory or glorify occurs over 350 times and most of these somehow refer to God. Scripture teaches that God’s actions are intended to proclaim his glory. Humans as well are created to demonstrate his glory. All of us will fulfill that purpose whether we want to or not - God will gain glory from every human being. But in today’s world people do not seem to recognize that we were created for the glory of God. In this sermon I wanted to help people understand what glory is, that God works for his glory, that we are to work for his glory, and that we glorify God through worship. True worship should take place always, every day that we live. It is not just a Sunday morning thing.

At any rate, on to my sermon outline.

Understanding technology is one thing. But it’s not all-important or the only thing we need to be concerned about.

As someone with a media background (been in print journalism since my college days… and then online), I think getting an effective voice and spreading our ideas has more to do with writing, understanding how the media can act as a force-multiplier (specially in the world of development), and being able to effectively express ourselves.

We all know that before now every where, women are not given the chance to discover themselves to be what they want to be.

The general believe everywhere is that a woman’s place is in her husbands home that is where they feel she can displce all the God given talent that she has there is this believe that she can’t be useful in any other place but there. So most culture believe training a woman those days, was just a waste of time and resources thats why when a woman is educated up to the primary level she is asked to stop there while her brothers go further to the higher institution. And she is married off from there some parents even tell those women that want to be educated further to continue from their husbands houses while they bear him kids.

And this men they get married to with they fear that the women will get to know more than thy do now refuse to allow them continue even if they have promised to let them continue after they married them.

But time has shown that educating a woman is no mere waste of time and those parent who did it have lived not to regret it, but to thank God that they did.

That is why today I want to talk about women in Nation Building and the remarkable things they have done.

In our homes or houses today women are the ones who see to it that things are managed well and that things go the way it ought to go, this type of passion that this women have in managing their home’s is what they also carry to their work place to work with, even those who are not married also have this passion of i must make things go right.

I think God just gave all women that passion that was why he did not make it a all men world.

When we look at NAFDAC, no one ever thought about it or its importance in out nation until a woman got there, and because of the passion she has as a mother she was able to stand up and say the danger fake drugs is commiting in our Nation has got to stop dispite all the difficulties she faced she still continue the strugggle to stop the fake drug minace in our nation like a mother fighting to save the live of her children. And she has successfully done it well i want to believe it only a woman that can be patient and decicated enough to have such passion.

Ndi Okereke Onyuike of the Stock Market has been able to revolutionize the stock market for good.

We have other examples of women wha rae done excellence in their chosen fields such as Ngozi Onkonjo Iweaha, Obiageli Ezekwesile, and Nenadi Usman and our Oreoluwa Shomolu of w-tec.

Then there’s is the case of Ellen Johnson - Sirleaf, president of Liberia, we also have Zimbabwe’s Wangari Maatnai, the Nobel prize winner. These have included the example of the West and Asia where women like Britian’s Margaret Thatcher, Israel’s Golda Meir, India’s Indira Ghandi, Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, and lately Germany’s Angela Merkel have done or are doing well.

All these have been referenced in the case for the involvement of women in the leadership of State that constitute the continent. But we have to consider the issue of whether our men have satisfied our fundamental expectations of leadership. We have seen a leadership that cannot be said to be satistactory, save one or two pop-ups of good one’s like Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Anwar Sadat of Egypt.

Political perennialism (sit-tightism) abuse of power, violations of human rights, mismangement of ther economy, and under development have been Sordid realities of the past four decades when we have men in the saddle of power.

The fact of an emerging spectrum of feminine leadership resources across the continent is no longer controvertible. Each country in Africa is birthing women professionals that possess requisite leadership protentials that can catapult the continent the new heights where they given a chance.

Gender equality presupposes giving a chance to a marginalized gender (in this case, women).

The saddle of leadership is long overdue to be ceded to the feminine gender, wher we to eschew prejudice, bias chauvinism subjectivism and other less than wholesome oddities of the human nature, it would be obvious in no time how much progress would be made by this great continet in the area of good goverance, infrastuctural development, rule of law, economic stability and progress, health education e.t.c.

Making concessions for th feminine gender to have a shot of leadership does not erode the headership or leadership of men over them nor does it make a woman not to be a woman. Let the woman of Africa have chance at leadership so we can move forward. You educate a woman you educate a Nation.

I've been reading Creative Capital, the biography of General Georges Doriot, Harvard Business School professor and President of American Research and Development (ARD), the first institutional venture capital firm.

I came across some words of wisdom that he imparted to his business school students and I think they are wonderful. So I'll pass them on.

One should not only be able to criticize but should always have a suggestion to make.

Don't challenge others' statements, have them repeat them over again.

Conditions which are best for workers will give best production!

Ask about prospects who didn't buy product.

Always challenge the statement that nothing can be done about a certain condition.

I love all of these, but I really love the first and last ones.

It seems to me that the reasons people have for marrying these days are not logically convincing.

The only reason that could be convincing is if you are religious, (though not logically, because there is very little logic in religion), and want to be united in the eyes of God.

However, more and more people have civil ceremonies, or only marry in church because it is expected or tradition to do so, not out of any real devotion.

So if God is not a factor, then why bother marrying at all?

The argument that was presented to me, when I asked some of my friends, was that a marriage was a deep emotional commitment between two people. People want to proclaim their love for one-another in front of their friends and have a party.

I can understand that, but what is the difference between just standing up in front of your mates and yelling, ‘We love each other, and we’ll stay together always!’

Yes, there is a marriage certificate that you get to sign and take home (whoopee) and the state will recognize you as a couple. That’s nice, but it is just a piece of paper, and you can get that same recognition without marrying, as in a de-facto relationship.

Even the legal benefits of marriage are not substantial, and are essentially the same in a de-facto.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea of marriage is very romantic, and sweet.

But I also think that it is completely unreasonable to expect someone to promise to love you forever.

Even with the best intentions, and I’m sure people who marry have the very best intentions, you cannot promise something like that.

What if you fall out of love with your spouse? Then you would have broken the promise that is the very basis of your union.

At the very most you can promise to try to love somebody, or take care of them, or treat them with respect. And some people believe that this is what marriage eventually becomes under any circumstances; affection and friendship. But that again poses the question: if you think that this is what marriage is going to turn into, then why bother at all?

Surely it is just as fulfilling to live together, build a family together and grow old together without marriage as it would be if you were married. The piece of paper, the official recognition of your union, won’t affect the relationship on a personal level.

It seems to me that it is an old-fashioned ritual, and cannot be argued for in any reasonable sense. Emotions seem to be the main drivers, rather than logic, and people seem quite happy for it to be this way. They want the fairytale; “all is well that ends well”.

This goes way back to some discussions with Steve from &&&& Church People. Now I don't claim that Lutheranism fixes everything. You'll find the same human flaws in the Lutheran Church that you find everywhere else. But I would like to make the claim that it is virtually a different religion from what goes on at a megachurch. (Steve, feel free to mentally add "or so we believe" after any statement.)

The difference comes down to two of the fundamental questions that define religious communities as communities: "Who are we?" and "What are we doing?" The Lutheran answer is sacramental, which makes the Lutheran understanding of "church" different from that of evangelicalism different in kind rather than in degree.

"Who are we?" Our definition as Christians is baptismal. In baptism, we believe that God forgave our sin, thus defining us as his family, binding us both to himself and to each other. Because this sacrament is God's word and work rather than ours, it's not something we can undo or unmake any more than you can undo your earthly family. You can run from it and reject it, but you can't unmake it.

"What are we doing?" Evangelicals go to the megachurch to get jazzed on praise & worship, hear some healthy principles for living, engage in some kind of activity/workshop, or get connected to some kind of small group? Lutherans go to church to hear the Gospel and celebrate the Lord's Supper. Forgiveness is at the root of both, and is shaped in different ways. Lutheran preaching is preaching Christ and declaring peace in his name. It prepares us for the Lord's Supper, in which we believe Jesus himself gives us his body and blood to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. If God creates creates and defines the community through baptism, then he sustains it through the Supper.

So why's this make it a different religion?

First of all, it defines the church service as the place where Christ meets his people to forgive their sins, to give them his gifts. This makes the very idea of leaving church to get closer to Jesus absurd to a Lutheran, though this thought is frequent among disaffected evangelicals. Do I find Jesus giving me his body and blood elsewhere? No. Was I baptized into reading the Bible by myself? No. And at the same time, this sacramental definition of the church to some degree trivializes the institutional aspects--so maybe the last pastor was a jerk, the denominational bureaucrats are conniving politicians, and the guy in the pew next to me is a fake. Well, they're not the reason we're here. They don't define us. The Lutheran Church is not a cult of personality, whereas megachurches by definition have to be.

Second, it defines pastoral ministry completely differently. Ministry in evangelicalism has become about spearheading programs and launching sweet new ideas to rack up the numbers. The sacramental character of the Lutheran church leads to an understanding of the pastor as a steward of the mysteries of God. He might be an unfaithful servant, but he remains a servant nonetheless. One way or another, his fundamental job is to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, and his relationship to the people as "shepherd" is to give them God's gifts through those things. Lutheran pastoral activity is about proclaiming the forgiveness of sins, serving people at the Supper and directing them to a life defined by their baptism. That requires that he both knows and loves his people--not the faceless mass of people, but the actual individuals in the pew. That's why Lutherans who know their faith tend to be so opposed to the Church Growth Movement infecting some parts of our synod. They see how it takes the ministry and redefines it to be about programs and numbers instead of preaching and administering the sacraments. They see how it takes the pastor and removes him from his role of shepherd, which requires that personal touch, and turns him into a distant celebrity.

Third, it defines the congregation as forgiven sinners. Not sinners in various degrees of self-improvement, but sinners who need to be forgiven every Sunday. I don't think Lutheranism encourages the kind of fake piety associated with evangelicalism because we don't pretend that Christians don't sin. We preach it, teach it, and confess it at the beginning of every service. Not witnessing to five unsaved friends or belonging to a small group isn't what makes you a bad Christian--denying that you are a real sinner in need of real forgiveness is. Despising the sacraments (which is the same thing) is. And at the same time, it makes revelations of gross hypocrisy less earth-shattering--we always knew there were sinners here, so it's no big shock that sometimes some of them fall in the most scandalous way. It doesn't make it hurt less, but it doesn't cause us to question our whole religion because we never were told religion wouldn't be like that.

Fourth, it finds the power of God in the mundane and the weak. Just bread and wine? Just water? Well, that's where the kingdom of God is, and I'll one-up you--those things only are what they are because the Son of God died on a cross, and that's where you really see God's power and glory. Not in the Culture War of the Religious Right. Not in the messianic promises of Democratic presidential candidates. Not in Christian pop stars. And not in the power, popularity, or prestige of your CEO-pastor.

And as a fifth, minor point, it eliminates the need for "Christian trinkets," a.k.a. "Protestant relics." God has defined me as his own and sanctified my life in baptism. I don't need a "Tickle me Jesus," a "Lord's Gym" T-shirt, or a salvation board game to be a real Christian. I need God's word in baptism, I need Christ's body and blood, and I need to hear what he says about himself and me. That's why there's no Lutheran antecedent to Lifeway.

You'll never understand the Lutheran Church just by looking at it as "liturgical" (by the way, our liturgy beats anything Marty Haugen ever dreamed up) or at its tendency for smaller, more intimate congregations. Even those things are outgrowths of its sacramental character. And sure, you'll find Lutheran churches that have pretty much lost any sense of what it means to be Lutheran. You'll find the same flawed, annoying people. You'll find groupthink and power politics. But those things aren't what make the Lutheran Church what it is. Those things fade into the background when you see Jesus' sacramental activity and presence in and underneath it all. A faithless pastor might be a puppet of Satan--but that's all he is. A puppet. The sacraments he serves are still Christ's, the Lord's words, "Your sins are forgiven" and "This is my body" remain true, and so his word and presence in the Gospel, baptism and the Supper remain larger and greater than any surface problem the Church could ever have.

Tags: Religion

Obviously, laws affect society. To assert otherwise is to demonstrate one's own insanity, and besides, it's self-defeating. If laws don't change society, then whatever change you are arguing for in the law is ultimately irrelevant, so you should basically drop it. But of course, they do change society, and everybody knows it.

Anyway, I think redefining "marriage" to include pairs of people whose relationship has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation, whether in form or in function, will have unforeseen social consequences. I think it will be a short road to polygamy and to denying children up for adoption their need to have a mother and a father. That is one reason among many I'm against it. However, I sometimes find it ironic that Christians are far, far more vocal in opposing gay marriage than they are in opposing no-fault divorce, the lack of civil penalties for adultery, and the deinstitution of common-law marriage. You'll notice that in the Torah, God's laws for his people about marriage weren't "Marriage is just for a man and a woman. Otherwise, do what you want." There were lots of regulations designed to protect marriage and the family. Do many Christians today advocate laws that actually protect marriage?

Page:  1 | 2 | Next >  Last >>