KeepiNDFaith!

There is a legend of a man who was lost in the desert, dying of thirst. He stumbled on until he came to an abandoned house. Outside the dilapidated,windowless, weather-beaten, deserted shack was a pump. He staggered forward and began pumping furiously but no water came out. Then he noticed a small jug with a cork at the top and a note written on the side: "You have to prime the pump with water, my friend.

P. S. And fill the jug again before you leave." He pulled out the cork and saw that the jug was full of water. Should he pour it down the pump? What if it didn`t work? All of the water would be gone. If he drank the water from the jug, he could be sure he would not die of thirst. But to pour it down the rusty pump on the flimsy instruction written on the outside of the jug?

Something told him to follow the advice and choose the risky decision. He proceeded to pour the whole jug of water down the rusty old pump and furiously pumped up and down. Sure enough, the water gushed out! He had all he needed to drink. He filled the jug again, corked it, and added his own words beneath the instructions on the jug: "Believe me, it really works.

Betty Miller shares her daily devotionals which are based on the book of Proverbs in the Bible.

The Wisdom of God
Verses for the Day:

Proverbs 29:19-21 (KJV):19 A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer.20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.21 He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length.
Proverbs 29:19-21 (AMP):19 A servant will not be corrected by words alone; for though he understands, he will not answer (the master who mistreats him).20 Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a (self-confident) fool than for him. 21 He who pampers his servant from childhood will have him expecting the rights of a son afterward.
Thoughts for the Day:
These verses from Proverbs give us instruction as to how a servant or employee should be treated, and also warn us there is more hope for a fool, than a man who is hasty with his words. A man who does not control what he says, and blurts out his thoughts and words in haste, will have a fate worse than a fool. A wise man will control his speech and be careful about the things he speaks.
In verses 19 & 21 we find advice about dealing with servants or employees. Just because an employer tells his servant to do something, he may not have his wholehearted response if he is not treating him fairly. People will respond to those in authority according to how they are behaving toward them. If the master or boss is mistreating them by unjust pay or harsh treatment, the servant will not fully hearken unto their words. We are also told that the employee who is hired when he is young, and is pampered and treated like family, will also expect to receive the rights of a family member. The Bible gives instructions for both masters and servants. Here is what the Word of God says to the servants (employees) and to the masters (employers).
Ephesians 6:5-9:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Servants or employees are addressed to be obedient and follow the instructions of their masters and to do their work with respect and singleness of heart. They are instructed to serve their masters as they would serve Christ. They are also to do this with proper motives not to please men, but to please the Lord. If all employees would do their work as unto the Lord, they would not be guilty of some of the common practices in jobs today. We can determine what kind of servant we are by:
(1.) Examining what motivates us to work. Love of money, fear, duty and necessity are some of the world's reasons to work. Our reason should be one that is motivated by love for our Lord.(2.) Taking short cuts that will lessen the finished product because of laziness or impatience. This wastes time because a job is done the quickest way and not the best way.(3.) Hiding mistakes that are costly to others because of fear or pride.(4.) Stealing from our employer which increases his operating costs, that in turn, causes company wages or bonuses to be less. (5.) Working in a careful manner to avoid carelessness to prevent accidents. Safety rules need to be obeyed which help lower insurance costs.(6.) Communicating properly when we have a problem with the boss, instead of gossiping about him to other employees?(7.) Being responsible and disciplined, workers who are dependable and loyal.(8.) Avoiding slothful habits, such as tardiness and absenteeism without a cause. (Pretending to be sick just because we do not want to go to work is outright deception).(9.) Lying about our qualifications when applying for a job causing the employer to believe we can do more than we are actually trained or qualified to do. (This puts the employer at risk because of inferior work that will be produced.)(10.) Walking out on a job without proper notification.
Masters or employers are instructed to treat their servants or employees with respect as well, and not to threaten them or favor one over another. They should be just in their dealings with each of them, treating them the way they would want to be treated. They should also be responsible for:
(1.) Compensating each with fair and just wages and benefits.(2.) Treating all workers fairly, without being a respecter of persons.(3.) Furnishing comfortable and good working conditions for their help.(4.) Observing the Sabbath rest for all employees as well as themselves. (Workaholics will eventually experience burnout and God knew, as human beings, we all need a day of rest and refreshing in the Lord.)(5.) Terminating employees unfairly because of greed. (Often loyal older employees are replaced by younger ones at a lesser salary to avoid retirement benefits and the higher earned salary of the older worker). (6.) Correcting their workers when necessary with kindness and grace.
Although these lists are by no means complete, this will give us a starting place to examine if we are living a Christian life in the marketplace. Notice the examples used in this list are character related and unless people come to God and allow Jesus to change their evil nature, our nation will continue to plunge into a deteriorating workplace. We as Christians should be examples in leading the way of good work ethics in the marketplace. It is sad that many Christians fail to do this and our witness in the world is not Christian at all, as we act like the rest of the world.
Prayer for the Day:
Dear Heavenly Father, Thank You so much for instructing us in our business relationships. Lord, may we serve one another in love, regardless of our position. If we are working serving our employer, may we be the best employee we can be, by realizing that our service to them is also our service to You. If we serve in the capacity of a boss, then may we be one who is just, fair and honest in all of our ways, treating our employees with kindness and respect. Lord, we invite You into our workplaces and businesses. May our work be holy work because You are there. I ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

Watch on the WestA Newsletter of FPRI’s Center for the Study of America and the West
Pope John Paul II and the Dynamics of History
The 2000 Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs
Volume 1, Number 6April 2000
by George Weigel
George Weigel, a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, is the author of the international best-seller, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II, which is published in English by HarperCollins. This essay was adapted from the Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs delivered on February 22, 2000. FPRI thanks John M. Templeton, Jr., for sponsoring the lecture.
We are here this afternoon to discuss the international impact of a man who is neither a politician, a diplomat, or an international relations theorist, but rather a pastor, an evangelist, and a witness to basic human rights. Yet it is also appropriate that we explore “the Pope’s divisions" under the auspices of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, for this institution has always understood that ideas have consequences in history, for good and for ill.
Pope John Paul II has had a considerable impact on contemporary history. Yet one may well wonder whether those who think about international relations, professionally or as an avocation, have begun to come to grips intellectually with the meaning of John Paul’s international accomplishment— or what that accomplishment suggests about the contours of world politics in the 21st century.
So my plan here is to sketch, briefly, the Pope’s accomplishment as I have come to understand it as his biographer, using three examples; then I shall indicate, again briefly, some lessons from this accomplishment for the future; and finally, I shall suggest where the new intellectual terrain lies for those interested in ethics and international relations.
I.
To understand John Paul II’s concept of the dynamics of international relations, indeed, the dynamics of history itself, requires us to go back to the small Polish town of Wadowice, c. 1928. There, a young Polish boy named Karol Wojtyla learned the great lesson of modern Polish history: that it was through its culture — its language, it literature, its religion— that Poland the nation survived when Poland the state was erased for 123 years from the map of Europe. History viewed from the Vistula River basin looks different; it has a tangible spiritual dimension. Looking at history from that distinctive angle-of-vision teaches the observant that overwhelming material force can be resisted successfully through the resources of the human spirit— through culture — and that culture is the most dynamic, enduring factor in human affairs, at least over the long haul.
Karol Wojtyla, whom the world would later know as Pope John Paul II, applied this lesson of the priority of culture in history in resistance to the two great totalitarian powers that sought to subjugate Poland between 1939 and 1989.
He applied it to a variety of resistance activities against the draconian Nazi Occupation of Poland from 1939 until 1945. If the Nazi strategy to erase these Polish-Slavic untermenschen from the European New Order began with an attempt to decapitate Polish society by liquidating it cultural leadership, then one effective means of resistance was to keep Polish culture alive— and this Wojtyla tried to do, at the daily risk of his life, by his participation in a host of cultural resistance groups: the underground Jagiellonian University, clandestine literary, theatrical, and religious activities, a pioneering movement of civil renewal called UNIA.
As a priest and bishop in Krakow, he applied a similar "culture-first” strategy to resistance against the communist effort to rewrite Poland’s history and redefine Poland’s culture. Wojtyla had no direct “political” involvement between 1948 and 1978; he could have cared less about the internal politics of the Polish communist party. But his efforts to nurture an informed, intelligent Catholic laity were examples of what a later generation would call “building civil society”— and thus laying the groundwork for an active resistance movement with political traction.
Pope John Paul II has applied this strategy of culturally driven change on a global stage since his election on October 16, 1978.
John Paul’s role in the collapse of European communism is now generally recognized, but it does not seem well understood. He was not, pace Tad Szulc, a wily diplomat skillfully negotiating a transition beyond one-party rule in Poland. He was not, pace Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, a co-conspirator with Ronald Reagan in a “holy alliance” to effect communism’s demise. He was not, pace the late Jonathan Kwitny, a Gandhi in a white cassock, running a non-violent resistance movement in Poland through a clandestine messenger service from the Vatican. Rather, John Paul shaped the politics of east central Europe in the 1980s as a pastor, evangelist, and witness to basic human rights
Primary-source evidence for this is found in the texts of the Pope’s epic June 1979 pilgrimage to his homeland, nine days on which the history of the 20th century pivoted. In those forty-some sermons, addresses, lectures, and impromptu remarks, the Pope told his fellow-countrymen, in so many words: “You are not who they say you are. Let me remind you who you are.” By restoring to the Polish people their authentic history and culture, John Paul created a revolution of conscience that, fourteen months later, produced the nonviolent Solidarity resistance movement, a unique hybrid of workers and intellectuals — a “forest planed by aroused consciences,” as the Pope’s friend, the philosopher Jozef Tischner once put it. And by restoring to his people a form of freedom and a fearlessness that communism could not reach, John Paul II set in motion the human dynamics that eventually led, over a decade, to what we know as the Revolution of 1989.
June 1979 was not only a moment of catharsis for a people long frustrated by their inability to express the truth about themselves publicly. It was also a moment in which convictions were crystallized, to the point where the mute acquiescence that, as Vaclav Havel wrote, made continuing communist rule possible was shattered. Moreover, it was not simply that, as French historian Alain Besancon nicely put it, “people regained the private ownership of their tongues" during the Solidarity revolution. It was what those tongues said— their new willingness to defy what Havel called the communist “culture of the lie"— that made the crucial difference.
To be sure, there were other factors in creating the Revolution of 1989: the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher; Mikhail Gorbachev; the Helsinki Final Act and its effects throughout Europe. But if we ask why communism collapsed when it did— in 1989 rather than 1999 or 2009 or 2019 — and how it did, then sufficient account has to be taken of June 1979. This is a point stressed by local witnesses: when I fist began to research this question in 1990, Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks, religious and secular alike, were unanimous in their testimony about the crucial impact of June 1979. That, they insisted, was when “1989" started.
(Parenthetically, it’s worth noting that the West largely missed this. Thus the New York Times editorial of June 5, 1979: “As much as the visit of Pope John Paul II to Poland must reinvigorate and reinspire the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, it does not threaten the political order of the nation or of Eastern Europe.” But two other Slavic readers of the signs of the times were not at all confused: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Yuri Andropov both knew that the rise of John Paul II and the deployment of his “culture- first” strategy of social change was a profound threat to the Soviet order.)
John Paul applied a similar strategy to a quite different situation when he went to Chile in 1987. Fourteen years of the Pinochet government, following the crisis of the Allende regime, had created deep divisions in Chilean society. There were raw wounds in the body politic because of human rights abuses and the recalcitrance of the Left; there was, in a phrase, no “civil society,” and that lack made a democratic transition impossible.
Therefore, John Paul, in collaboration with the Chilean bishops, decided that the public purpose of his 1987 pilgrimage to Chile would be to help reconstitute civil society through a reclamation of Chile’s Christian culture. The great theme for the visit would be that “Chile’s vocation is for understanding, not confrontation.” The papal pilgrimage would, as one of its organizers put it to me, "take back the streets,” which had been places of fear under Allende and Pinochet, and transform them, once again, into places of community. And people would be deliberately mixed together at the venues for the papal Masses: Chileans would be compelled, under the eye of their common religious "father,” to look at each other, once again, as persons rather than ideological objects. And it seems no accident that, some eighteen months after the papal visit had accelerated the process of reconstructing Chilean civil society, a national plebiscite voted to move beyond military rule and restore democracy.
Finally, the Pope deployed a similar strategy in Cuba in January 1998. He did not mention the current Cuban regime, once, in five days. Rather, he re-read Cuban history through the lens of a Christianity that had formed a distinctively Cuban people from native peoples, Spaniards, and black African slaves, and he re-read the Cuban national liberation struggle of the 19th century through the prism of its Christian inspiration. Here, as in Poland in 1979, the Pope was restoring to a people it authentic history and culture. In doing so, he was also calling for a reinsertion of Cuba into history and into the hemisphere, asking the Cuban people to stop thinking of yourselves as victims (the theme of Fidel Castro’s welcoming address), and start thinking of themselves as the protagonists of their own destiny.
II.
Several lessons can be drawn from this analysis. First, the experience of John Paul II suggests that “civil society” is not simply institutional: a free press, free trade unions, free business organizations, free associations, etc. “Civil society” has an essential moral core.
Secondly, John Paul’s strategy reminds us that “power” cannot be measured solely in terms of aggregates of military or economic capability. The “power of the powerless” is a real form of power.
In the third place, the Pope’s impact demonstrates that non-state actors count in contemporary world politics, and sometimes in decisive ways. John Paul II did not shape the history of our times as the sovereign of the Vatican City micro-state, but as the Bishop of Rome and the universal pastor of the Catholic Church.
III.
Still, the present pontificate has left some gaps in our understanding that urgently need filling in the years just ahead. It is curious that this son of a soldier, who has expressed his respect for the military vocation on many occasions, has not developed the Church’s just war doctrine. This was most evident during Gulf War, but beyond such relatively conventional conflicts, there are new issues today at the intersection of ethics and world politics— the problem of outlaw states, the morality of preemption in the face of weapons of mass destruction, the locus of “legitimate authority” in the international community — that the Pope has simply not addressed, and others must.
The same can be said for “humanitarian intervention,” which the Pope identified as a “moral duty” at the FAO in 1992. But this “duty” was not defined. On whom does it fall, and why? By what means is it to be discharged? What about the claims of sovereignty? These are large questions that demand the most careful reflection.
IV.
John Paul II has been the most politically consequential pope in centuries. But his impact did not come through the normal modalities of politics. He had no army. His success did not, in the main, come through the normal instruments of diplomacy. In terms of the history of ideas, his “culture-first” reading of history is a sharp challenge to the regnant notions that politics runs history, or economics runs history. Does the fact of the Pope’s success suggest that we are moving into a period in which nation-states are of less consequence in “world affairs"? Or were the accomplishments I’ve outlined here idiosyncratic, the result of a singular personality meeting a unique set of circumstances with singular prescience and effect? There is much to chew on here, for students of international affairs, in the years immediately ahead. But that we have been living, in this pontificate, through the days of a giant seems clear enough.
You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety, attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and include our web address (www.fpri.org). If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.
If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed directly on our mailing lists, send email to FPRI@fpri.org. Include your name, address, and affiliation. For further information, contact Alan Luxenberg at (215) 732-3774 x105.