Category Archives: Ministry

Articles, Education, Prophecy, Teaching

BREXIT Prevails

THE QUESTION:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

Remain a member of the European Union  [   ] 

Leave the European Union                           [   ]

On the morning of June 24, 2016, the United Kingdom and the world woke up to the news that on the previous day the electorate, 52% to 48% with a 72% turnout, voted to leave the 28-member European Union (EU). Britain’s 43 years of membership is coming to an end. A four-month long, bitterly fought campaign between those that wanted to remain in the EU (called Bremain) and those who wanted to leave (Brexit – British exit) has culminated in a shock result – Brexit prevailed, though it was the underdog (BREMAIN had the support of key British political leaders, business leaders, billionaires, globalists, international allies, and EU partners). This is only the third time in Britain’s long history that there has been a referendum and it can clearly be labelled ‘historic.’
Democracy at work: First, we should all derive satisfaction that the UK EU Referendum was clearly democracy in action. Prime Minister David Cameron, who announced his resignation soon after the results, promised the people an ‘In or Out’ Referendum. On a matter of such fundamental importance, the nation was given a chance to have their say. In addition, membership in the European Union is voluntary and member states can choose to leave without armed conflict.
The Economy: Why did 52% of the electorate vote to leave the EU? One issue was economics. There is much dissatisfaction over the annual contributions Britain has to make to the EU ($16 billion in 2014). Recently, Brussels sent London an unexpected invoice because the UK economy had done better than expected. In addition, there are all kinds of rules and regulations that hamstring the economy and smack of protectionism.
Immigration: A second concern was immigration. As part of the responsibility of EU membership is that citizens of member states have the right to live and work in other member states (similar to citizens of Australian and American states can live anywhere in the country). Today, 13% of the residents of Britain are foreigners, a couple of million clearly being citizens of other EU countries. Perhaps what helped to tip the balance was British concern over the collapse of Europe’s borders during the great migrant rush of 2015, with 1.1 million unauthorised aliens coming into the continent.
Sovereignty: The biggest issue of all had to be national sovereignty versus being part of a European superstate. When the British voted in a 1975 European referendum, they were promised that no law from Brussels (headquarters of the EU) could be imposed against the will of Britain’s elected representatives. In other words, Britain was told that it had a veto. Yet, as more countries joined the union and new treaties negotiated, that veto became null and void. Since the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, the UK lost its veto 40 times in over 40 different areas. Over the years, the UK was outvoted again and again in the Council of the European Union, while it also lost 101 cases and won only 30 in the European Court of Justice.
Even more shocking is that most of the UK laws are made by Brussels, not Westminster. According to Jeremy Paxman in a BBC documentary and Toby Young of The Spectator, 59% of UK law came from the EU. And who made these laws? Not by the European parliament in Strasbourg, where 73 out of 751 Parliamentarians (MEPs) are British. They are made by the 28 unelected European commissioners. The parliament either accepts, rejects, or amends. Like the ‘law of the Medes and Persians,’ once the law is enacted, it cannot be repealed. Anyone who takes the notion of democracy seriously should find this very disturbing.
United States of Europe: The European Union was started after two disastrous world wars with the intent to unite the continent economically and politically for the sake of peace and prosperity. While it had fine ideals, its real goal has always been a European superstate, ‘ever-closer union,’ or, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel calls it, ‘more Europe.’ Already the EU has a common court, central bank, currency, president, criminal justice system, military, open borders between states (Schengen), passport, flag, and parliament – all these are the trappings of a nation-state.
A United States of Europe means that member states are reduced to mere provinces in Super Europe. What would happen to the British monarch, as well as the other European monarchies? In addition, the EU, though espousing democracy, has become very socialistic, regulatory, bureaucratic, post-Christian and postmodern organisation. Serious problems like broken borders, entitlement funding crises, non-robust military, regulation overload, and more, have caused a rethink about EU membership even beyond Britain’s borders.
As shared in an earlier article, the re-paganisation of Europe under the EU, and the reintroduction of mythological Europa riding the beast, has been a cause of concern for some British Christians. They have engaged in intense prayer and fasting for this referendum. They chose to ‘vote in the heavenlies’ by prayer before voting on earth at the ballot box.
National Identity: Ultimately, the British electorate was being asked about what kind of country they want for the future. Is Britain merely a little island off the coast of Europe which, having been stripped of its empire, needs to ‘get over it’ and accept is new and reduced status in an enlarged Europe?
Or is it still a great leader, with the world’s sixth largest economy, fourth largest military, and permanent seat of the United Nations Security Council. It contributions to civilisation are enormous:
The English language;
Parliamentary democracy;
Constitutional monarchy;
The Commonwealth of Nations;
Abolition of the slave trade;
Spawn the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions;
Twice helped defeat Euro-fascism;
Hosts great financial hub in London;
Common law;
Rule of law;
Christianity and mission;
Sport (cricket, bridge, snooker).
All these things – and more – have spread worldwide.
For those who voted to Leave the EU, far from being xenophobic and narrow-minded nationalists, BREXIT is about helping the UK, who has already given so much to the world, to stand on its feet and take its rightful role in Europe and the world. Now that the choice has been made, let’s support the UK in its brave new future.

Articles, Education, Prophecy, Relationships, Teaching

FROM ‘DE FACTO’ TO ‘DE JURE:

FROM ‘DE FACTO’ TO ‘DE JURE:’
Finding Legitimacy in an Immoral World
Kameel Majdali
‘Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.’ –Hebrews 13:4

DE FACTO: Existence without legal or ecclesiastical recognition or sanction.
DE JURE: Existence by right according to law.
The clerk handed an overseas tourist her visa application. Immediately her eye spotted the section called ‘Marital Status,’ from which she could choose one of five options. These included:
[   ]  Single;
[   ]  Married;
[   ]  Divorced;
[   ]  Widowed; and…
[   ] De Facto.
Unclear on the last option, she asked the clerk what it meant. ‘De facto is when a couple lives together without being married,’ he replied.
‘Oh,’ she blurted out, ‘where I come from, we call that ”living in sin.‘”
Cohabitation or ‘The De facto Factor’
One of the disturbing, yet prevalent, trends in the western world is the practice of de facto relationships, also known as ‘cohabitation’ (Note: these terms will be used interchangeably). Whether you call it ‘de facto,’ ‘living in sin,’ ‘live-in girlfriend,’ ‘cohabitation,’ ‘common law,’ or even ‘trial marriage,’ a generation ago it was the exception; it was considered unacceptable, even wrong.
Today this phenomena is on the rise and considered a legal status. One recent statistic in Australia suggested that a whopping 80% of the couples that wed in a single year have lived together in a de facto relationship prior to the wedding (2014, cited by the Australian Bureau of Statistics).[1] A (liberal) Christian denomination in 2001 struck premarital sex and de facto relationships off their sin list, as part of being ‘consistent with society’s ways.’
Acceptance of de facto-living came as a gradual process with the rise of secular humanism and decline of Judeo-Christian moral standards. The culture wars, sexual revolution, contraceptive pill, abortion on demand, postmodernism with its denial of absolutes, have all contributed to this situation. No doubt Hollywood has played a major role in the proliferation of cohabitation. Glamorous high profile actors, usually after one or more failed marriages, move-in with another famous movie star, father children and live a celebrated lifestyle, egged on by gossip columnists who offer bite-size instalments for news-hungry, celebrity-obsessed fans.
Three Types of De facto Relationships
For Most, A Temporary Arrangement: Motivations for cohabitation seem to follow several streams. The first involves those who have never married and have no intention of doing so. They want readily available sex, shared financial resources, and companionship in the home. These living arrangements tend to be temporary; only 18% of these will be together after 5 years. This attitude can be described as a ‘de facto spirit,’ meaning they want the privileges and pleasures of marriage without the commitment and responsibility.
Never married but want to: The second type are also those who never married and are interested in eventual marriage but have a ‘try before you buy’ mindset.
De Facto before Remarriage: Third are those who have undergone divorce, suffer from the ‘once bitten, twice shy’ syndrome, and hence choose a de facto relationship as a necessary precursor to remarriage (if there is to be a marriage). Some older couples may choose to live together outside of marriage so as not to endanger any pension entitlements. Others, afraid of giving up their freedom and identity, choose to cohabitate with their boyfriend or girlfriend. If things don’t work out, they reason, all one needs to do is ‘move out’ without all the complications divorce brings. It’s that simple.
           
Is it? (Short answer: No)
Are There Any Benefits?[2]
Just because something is commonplace and permitted by society does not make it healthy and right. After all, cigarette smoking is legal but it can cost your thousands of dollars a year and have a detrimental effect on your health. Gambling also is legal and look at the trail of trouble and sorrow it has left.
           
Some claim that a de facto relationship helps prepare a couple for marriage and prevents divorce. Does it? Research suggests otherwise: couples that live in a de facto relationship before marriage are more likely to divorce than couples that wait until marriage. One statistic said that of couples who were married twenty years or more, 56% of those who lived as a de facto couple before marriage ended up in divorce, while 29% of those who never cohabited before marriage ended up in divorce. According to the Jubilee Report on cohabitation: ‘The idea that first cohabitations that lead to marriage do not result in an increased rate of divorce is not reflected by this data set: prior cohabitation with a spouse is associated with 60 per cent higher risk of divorce (emphasis mine).
Another study concluded that 75% of married couples were still together when their child turned 16; only 7% of de facto couples can make the same claim. That’s a ten-fold increased for the married couples. In Britain, the direct annual cost of family breakdown is GBP 41.7 billion. The Daily Mail Online, ‘Married Parents Ten Times More Likely to Stay Together,’ Sarah Harris (February 2010).[3]
TO BE CONTINUED:
In Part 02, we will look at the other negatives as well as how to go from ‘de facto to de jure,’ and how to gain legitimacy with God and people.


 FACTS ABOUT COHABITATION[2]

•       Over half of all first marriages are proceeded by cohabitation (University of Wisconsin document)
•       Cohabitation doesn’t reduce the likelihood of divorce–in fact it leads to a higher divorce risk. One study showed 46% higher risk (1992 Journal of Marriage and Family).
•       No positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has ever been found, not even sexual compatibility, as usually suggest (1993 Journal of Marriage and Family)
•       Cohabitants tend not be as committed as married couples, or prepared to work on their differences (1995 Journal of Family issues)
•       Particularly problematic is the area of serial cohabitation. It generates a greater willingness to dissolve later relationships. (1993 Journal of Family Issues)
•       About 60% of cohabitation ends in marriage (1989 National Study of Cohabitation
•       In general, cohabiting relationships tend to be less satisfactory than marriage relationship-s, with cohabiting couples reporting lower levels of happiness, sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, as well as poorer relationships with parents (Bumpass, Sweet & Cherlin’s 1991 study)
•       After five years, only 10% of cohabiting couples are together. They do not tend to permanency (Bumpass & Sweet’s 1989 study)
•       Married couples have substantial benefits over the unmarried in terms of labour force productivity, physical and mental health, general happiness and longevity (1994 American Journal of Sociology)
•       Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples is more than three times the married rate. (1990 Psychiatric Disorders in America)
•       Physical and sexual abuse of a spouse is much higher. One study showed evidence of being twice as high (1991 Journal of marriage and family)
•       Abuse is 20 times higher for children with cohabiting, but biological parents, but 33 times greater if the parent was cohabiting with a non-parenting male partner (1993 Family Education trust: London).
•       The 1996 poverty rate was 6% with married parents, but 31 % with cohabiting parents (1996 Journal of Marriage and the Family).
–taken from Leadership NOW! January 2000, page 12.