On September 26, 2009, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Letter to the Galatians, Part 3.”

The services can be heard at  www.cognetservices.org (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

On September 28, 2009, we will celebrate the annual Holy Day of the Day of Atonement. Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Our Fight with Satan.”

The services can be heard at  www.cognetservices.org (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

There will be no Updates for the next two weeks, due to the Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day. Our daily services during the annual Festival will be broadcast over the Internet. The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org.

The Feast brochure for the Festival in San Diego, with the time of our daily services and daily activities, is posted on the Web.

For more information on the annual Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day, please read our free booklet, God’s Commanded Holy Days.

The regular publication of our weekly Update will resume on October 15.

I remember going to my first Feast of Tabernacles as a child of 12. I did not have a clue what we were getting ourselves into, especially since we had only been attending church services for a few months. We went to our assigned feast site which was Big Sandy at the time, and camped in Piney Woods.

As a child, with no money, one of the first Scriptures that caught my eye and had great personal meaning for me was Deuteronomy 14:26 where it speaks of the Feast of Tabernacles, saying, “And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.”

You may have to constantly tell your child to clean up his room, brush his hair before he goes to school, take a bath after playing in the mud, BUT you will not have to tell him twice that when he goes to the Feast, he can have WHATEVER his heart desires.

For me that year, breakfast consisted of chocolate milk and a six-pack of chocolate Donettes… every day! This was not because we were poor or that there were no other choices, but simply this was what my heart desired. Since I am older, my eating habits have changed. Now, during the feast, my heart desires a thick juicy premium cut of steak (and only one Krispy Kreme every morning).

Most of us have found that as we have matured, what we digest has changed. We started out with milk and moved on to heartier meats. In the same way, our spiritual lives should parallel this. We start with the milk of the Word and move on to the meat of God’s Word. We start with the simple principles, the ones a child can understand, and grow in grace and knowledge of the deeper understanding of the Ways of Righteousness, even being able to teach others as situations may permit.

We cannot afford to be as those Paul addressed in Hebrews 5:12-13: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.”

At the Feast of Tabernacles this year, we can and should take our second tithe and spend it on the desires of our heart as is commanded. But far more importantly, at this precursor to the Kingdom of God, we should desire and seek to be fed and nourished by the rich and plentiful spiritual banquet that will be available and be filled with righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17).

We begin this section with an interesting legal analysis by two constitutional attorneys, who were formerly employed by the Department of Justice, concluding that the proposed federal legislation of mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional. It would be indeed a political disaster for President Obama and his entire administration if new health care measures were approved by Congress and later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

President Obama’s decision, which was supported by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to abandon the defense missile shield in Europe, resulted in extremely mixed responses. The overwhelming concern in Germany is that Mr. Obama’s decision is a big gamble–with no guarantees from Russia. The underlying idea–as reportedly expressed before by Vice President Joe Biden and now echoed by Russia–that Iran does not pose a real threat appears to be just incredibly naive, at the very minimum. At the same time, we are quoting conflicting reports about Israel’s intentions towards Iran.

Even though President Obama promised change in regard to prisoner abuse, the sad reality is that such abuses are still continuing in the Bagram military prison in Afghanistan–and apparently in a much worse way than in Guantanamo. But as two articles point out, most of the detainees in that classified prison camp have been declared by the Pentagon to be “innocent” and could be released “immediately”–but they are not, while the Obama administration keeps very quiet about it. 

We are publishing several articles reflecting worldwide disappointment with President Obama, and also a widening rift between the USA and Europe on quite a number of issues, including in the area of “climate change” or “global warming” (even though not all Europeans agree with the concept of man-made global warming). The Financial Times states that “relations between the US and Europe…near breakdown,” and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung feels that there is no more trust in American leadership, while the Guardian opinionates that the leadership role of the USA is gone. At the same time, a rift is also developing between Europe and Israel, and the view is forcefully expressed that a “core Europe” is inevitable.

For more information on the future players on the world scene, please read our free booklets, “Europe in Prophecy” and “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America.”

We conclude with an article about the condemnation by the European Parliament of a Lithuanian law banning discussion of homosexuality from schools and potential restriction of publication of gay and lesbian magazines and prohibition of pride marches. The EU is showing increasingly its political muscles–including in areas of social behavior which the Bible declares to be wrong and “abominable” (compare Romans 1:18-32).

Mandatory Health Insurance Unconstitutional

On September 18, The Wall Street Journal published the following legal analysis by Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington D.C.-based attorneys, who served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations:

“Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington…

“The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: ‘[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.’ Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

“These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce… If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty…

“The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly… But there are important limits… Health-care backers understand this and… have framed the mandate as a ‘tax’ rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus’s (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an ‘excise tax’ of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

“But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a ‘tax’ that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by ‘taxing’ anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

“This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution’s Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights…”

Obama’s Big Political Gamble

Der Spiegel Online wrote on September 18:

“US President Barack Obama has scrapped his predecessor’s plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. German editorialists hope the move will encourage Russia to back tougher sanctions against Iran. But while some praise the decision as hopeful and brave, others dub it naive and dangerous…

“Germany’s Green Party interpreted the decision as an embarrassment for Merkel and her center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party… Guido Westerwelle, the candidate for the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP), welcomed the decision… and he called on Germany’s government to capitalize on the moment to push for the removal of US nuclear weapons based in Germany by 2013…

“German commentators focused on the political risks facing Obama. As they see it, Russia might not interpret the move as a conciliatory gesture to improve strained US-Russian relations but, rather, as a sign of weakness and green light to continue with its aggressive and uncompromising foreign policy…

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘That the president can venture to cancel the program shows courage, a willingness to take risks and decisiveness, though it might also mean that he’s taking a big political gamble. Obama’s biggest challenge is this: He has to quell the suspicion that he has buckled in the face of Russia. And he has to succeed in doing this not only in the US Congress, but also when it comes to America’s allies in Eastern Europe. They are afraid that some people in Moscow will be able to misinterpret the decision to cancel the missile defense shield as a sign of weakness and to be emboldened to promote their interests with tanks in other places in the same way they did in Georgia…’

“The center-left Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: ‘… Obama might have been thinking that canceling the plan would elicit some sort of quid pro quo from Moscow. The Russians are very happy about it… Russia’s claim that the planned missile defense system harmed strategic stability was never meant seriously. It was rather intended as propaganda and a way to influence a public that was very touchy about this issue. So this means it pays to play hardball.’

“Conservative Die Welt writes: ‘… it does raise the question of whether this policy is naïve and, in the end, dangerous. The other problem is that it leaves much of Central Europe disappointed. … People there are afraid of being abandoned again… After Obama’s failure to appear at the ceremony marking the anniversary of the beginning of World War II in Gdansk [Note: The White House declined to send a senior figure to Poland’s commemoration of the 70th anniversary outbreak of World War II on 1 September], this will be the second blow to their hopes…’

“Left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes: ‘… Poland’s goal was to get an American military base. With such a base, the US would have had to defend Poland not only because it was a member of NATO, but also because its military base was there. The majority of Poles are not convinced that NATO lives up to its name of being a “defensive alliance” anymore. And Poland’s government doesn’t have much faith in NATO either. If Poland were attacked, NATO members would debate things for two weeks before doing anything to help. With no missile shield, there will be no US base in Poland. As a result, Poland’s dream of having the US as a power that would protect it is shattered.’

“The Financial Times Deutschland writes: ‘What’s truly unusual about Obama’s decision is that he is taking a huge step toward Russia without having any guaranteed quid pro quo to show for it. It’s a rare thing for a US president to make a down payment like this. It either shows great courage in the face of risk or pure naiveté. Just how risky Obama’s bet is can be seen from Moscow’s celebrations of the cancellation of the missile plans. Diplomats are pounding their chests and boasting that Obama’s buckling was the logical consequence of their refusal to compromise on this issue. For Obama, it will be a very expensive decision. In terms of domestic politics, he is exposing himself to accusations of being a wimp and damaging the country’s security. In terms of foreign politics, he is snubbing two allies — the Czech Republic and Poland — who view the cancellation of the missile shield as a betrayal… Moscow has the upper hand now.'”

The Wall Street Journal added on September 18:

“President Barack Obama’s decision to drop plans to deploy a ballistic-missile defense shield in Central Europe — drawing immediate cheers in Moscow and criticism elsewhere — is a gamble by the U.S… The move fits into a broader Obama administration strategy of attempting to win over opponents through engagement. But as with the effort to engage Iran, the strategy runs the risk of appearing to give away too much to tough negotiating partners who may simply pocket any concessions…

“Russian officials insisted they hadn’t agreed to any quid pro quo to secure the U.S. policy shift… Moscow doesn’t see abandonment of the Bush administration’s missile plans as a concession to respond to, but as ‘a mistake that is now being corrected,’ said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO… ‘This is a recognition by the Americans of the rightness of our arguments about the reality of the threat, or rather the lack of one,’ from Iran’s missiles, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the international affairs committee of Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, told state television. ‘Finally the Americans have agreed with us,’ he said.”

 

Will Russia Impose Sanctions on Iran?

The Wall Street Journal wrote on September 24:

“President Obama scored a potential victory in his diplomatic engagement with Iran by gaining what appeared to be a commitment from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to exact economic sanctions against Tehran if it doesn’t compromise on its rapidly expanding nuclear program. The severity of sanctions Russia would agree to remained unclear, however… Russian support for sanctions is viewed as crucial in pressuring Tehran to relent. ‘The Russian position is simple…Sanctions rarely lead to productive results. But in some cases sanctions are inevitable,’ Mr. Medvedev said following a meeting with Mr. Obama on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.”

Iran No Threat?–Get Real!

Reuters reported on September 18:

“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a lie on Friday, raising the stakes against Israel just as world powers try to decide how to deal with the nuclear ambitions of an Iran in political turmoil… Ahmadinejad’s anti-Western comments on the Holocaust have caused international outcry and isolated Iran, which is at loggerheads with the West over its nuclear programme… Germany said Ahmadinejad was a ‘disgrace to his country.’… White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Ahmadinejad’s comment ‘only serves to isolate Iran further from the world.’

“Ahmadinejad won support from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah which fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006. ‘Our belief and creed … remain that Israel is an illegal entity, a cancerous tumour, that must cease to exist,’ Nasrallah said in a televised address…

“Ahmadinejad repeated on Thursday that Iran would ‘never’ abandon its disputed nuclear programme to appease critics… Next month’s major powers talks with Iran offer no clear relief to Israel, which wants world powers to be prepared to penalise Iran’s vulnerable energy imports but sees Russia and China blocking any such resolution at the U.N. Security Council… Russia, which has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, last week ruled out oil sanctions against Iran…

“At home, Ahmadinejad is facing strong opposition which erupted into unrest following his disputed re-election in June… The June vote, which was followed by huge opposition protests, plunged Iran into its worst political crisis in three decades and revealed deepening rifts within its ruling elites.”

Israel and Iran–What’s Going On?

Reuters reported on September 21:

“Israel has not given up the option of a military response to Tehran’s nuclear programme, senior officials said on Monday, after Russia’s president said his Israeli counterpart assured him it would not attack Iran.

“Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon was asked by Reuters if that comment by Israeli President Shimon Peres [whose role is largely ceremonial], as reported on Sunday by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, was a guarantee there would be no Israeli strike on Iran. Ayalon replied: ‘It is certainly not a guarantee. I don’t think that, with all due respect, the Russian president is authorised to speak for Israel and certainly we have not taken any option off the table.’

“Echoing that, the chief-of-staff of Israel’s armed forces, Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, later told Army Radio when pressed on whether Israel could attack Iran: ‘Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table’…

“Russia plays a role in the stand-off between Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who made an unannounced visit to Moscow this month, has been keen that Russia not sell anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran and also that Moscow support international sanctions against Iran. Last week, a former senior Israeli defence official told Reuters that Israel would be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if the international powers had not agreed by the end of this year on crippling sanctions to force Tehran’s hand.”

Prisoner Abuse Continues in US Prison Camp

Der Spiegel Online wrote on September 21:

“US President Barack Obama has spoken out against CIA prisoner abuse and wants to close Guantanamo. But he tolerates the existence of Bagram military prison in Afghanistan, where more than 600 people are being held without charge… Bagram is ‘the forgotten second Guantanamo,’ says American military law expert Eugene Fidell, a professor at Yale Law School… And what does Obama say? Nothing. He never so much as mentions Bagram in any of his speeches. When discussing America’s mistreatment of detainees, he only refers to Guantanamo…

“The Bagram detention facility, by now the largest American military prison outside the United States, is not marked on any maps. In fact, its precise location… is classified… Bagram is located in the middle of the Afghan war zone… all the detainees there have been classified as ‘enemy combatants’ rather than prisoners of war, which would make them subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention… ‘In my view, having visited Guantanamo several times, the Bagram facility made Guantanamo look like a nice hotel,’ says military prosecutor Stuart Couch, who was given access to the interior of both facilities…

“From the beginning, Bagram was notorious for the brutal forms of torture employed there… At least two men died during imprisonment. [In regard to one] of them, a 22-year-old taxi driver named Dilawar… his interrogators had already known — and later testified — that there was no evidence against [him]…

“To this day, there are hardly any photos from inside Bagram, and journalists have never been given access to the detention center… According to an as-yet-unpublished 2009 Pentagon report, 400 of the Bagram inmates are innocent and could be released immediately… Some have been there for years, without knowing why…”

“Obama Administration Has Completely Failed…”

On September 21, Der Spiegel Online published an interview with New York-based human rights lawyer Tina Foster, “who began representing Guantanamo inmates in 2005. She realized that many of them had spent time in Bagram prison and had been seriously abused there. In 2005, she travelled to Afghanistan for the first time. There, she met hundreds of relatives of Bagram inmates who asked why the world was interested in Guantanamo but nobody seemed to care about abuses at Bagram. Since then she has worked exclusively with Bagram detainees.”

In the interview, Foster stated that the “Obama Administration has completely failed” to keep their promises. She explained:

“Unfortunately, the US government did not change its position on Bagram when Obama took office. The government still claims that our clients are not entitled to any legal protections under US law. It maintains that even those individuals who they brought to Bagram from other countries, and have held without charge for more than six years, are still not entitled to speak with their attorney, and they are arguing now that they are not entitled to have their cases heard in US courts…

“There is absolutely no difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration’s position with respect to Bagram detainees’ rights. They have made much ado about nothing, in the hope that the courts and the public will not examine the issue more closely… Some of our clients have been at Bagram since its early days, and they still are not being told what the charges are against them, or given the ability to challenge those allegations in any fair legal proceeding…

“What most people don’t realize is that Bagram has always been far worse than Guantanamo. One thing that has not been stressed enough in media accounts regarding Guantanamo is that much of the abuse that the Guantanamo prisoners suffered actually happened at Bagram. Many of our former clients were subjected to sexual humiliation and assault akin to Abu Ghraib-style torture. In terms of torture and abuse, Bagram has a far worse history than Guantanamo. There are at least two detainees who died there after being tortured by US interrogators… according to the military’s own autopsy report… Bagram has always been a torture chamber…

“I think General Stone’s report [saying that many of the detainees in Bagram are innocent] confirms what we have learned over the years from our clients — most of the people at Bagram are being imprisoned unjustly. General Stone reviewed the military’s own records and determined that, of the 600 current detainees at Bagram, there are 400 innocent people that the US government should not be detaining… What is completely baffling is why these 400 innocent individuals have not been released…

“I voted and campaigned for Obama, like all the other folks here in the US who wanted to see this country recover from the illegal and unjust policies of the Bush administration. When I heard Obama’s announcement to close Guantanamo, I breathed a sigh of relief that perhaps this extremely ugly chapter of American history was finally being put to an end. Unfortunately, since then, the Obama administration has completely failed in delivering the change that was promised… The reality is that the Bush and the Obama administrations have the same position on the rights of detainees in Bagram.”

“Obama the Impotent”

The Guardian wrote on September 22:

“Much hope has been invested in Barack Obama’s ability to strike a new course for the US following eight years of Bush administration unpopularity. Yet many in the US and abroad are impatient with the pace of progress under the Obama administration…

“Besides the ongoing battle over healthcare, this week sees two showdowns between Europe and the US that will reveal further slippage in American global leadership. The first showdown comes today at a UN special session on climate change in New York City; the second will come at the end of the week at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, where America and Europe will butt heads over financial system reforms designed to ensure that the AIGs of the world can never again cause an economic collapse.

“Europe has been increasingly critical of America’s failures to live up to its global responsibilities… On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to reverse the Bush administration’s terrible ecological record. Yet so far the world has seen more symbolic gestures from the Obama administration than accomplishments. Its biggest achievement so far has been an example of disappointment…

“That’s the start of President Obama’s week. At the end of it, President Obama will appear at a meeting in Pittsburgh of the G20, a bloc of both developed and developing nations, representing 85% of the world’s economic output and most of its population. On the table will be what reforms to help avoiding a repetition of the financial panic and global economic collapse that is perceived as having originated on Wall Street… Here again, Europe is leading, while the Obama administration is dragging its feet…

“The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly cede its place at the head of the line. It appears that the wheels may be coming off the world’s post-war leader, and not even Barack Obama can stop it happening.”

Everyone Is Saying No to Obama

The Jerusalem Post wrote on September 22:

“Everybody is saying no to the American president these days. And it’s not just that they’re saying no, it’s also the way they’re saying no. The Saudis twice said no to his request for normalization gestures towards Israel… The North Koreans said no to repeated attempts at talks, by test-launching long-range missiles in April; Russia and China keep on saying no to tougher sanctions on Iran; the Iranians keep saying no to offers of talks by saying they’re willing to talk about everything except a halt to uranium enrichment; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is saying no by refusing to meet with Binyamin Netanyahu until Israel freezes all settlement construction; the Israelis said no by refusing to agree to a settlement freeze, or even a settlement moratorium…”

EU Unhappy With USA Over “Climate Change”

The Financial Times wrote on September 21:

“A growing rift between the US and Europe is overshadowing Tuesday’s United Nations climate change summit in New York… The downgrading of expectations comes as relations between the US and Europe, which started the year of talks as allies, near breakdown. In Brussels, European Union officials have grown increasingly frustrated at the US stance, saying it has fallen short on both its level of ambition to reduce emissions and on offering aid to developing nations… European officials say the Obama administration lacks focus because its top talent is wrapped up in the all-consuming debate over healthcare.”

Der Spiegel Online added on September 22: “… the climate debate has run aground in the US… Even President Obama’s own party is withholding its support…” It added on September 23:

“Chances of Climate Success in Copenhagen ‘Headed Toward Zero’… The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes: ‘Disenchantment with Obama reigns at the UN. And understandably so… criticism of Obama — and particularly those coming from European governments — ranges between hackneyed and dishonest…’

“The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: ‘On his trip through Europe in April, Obama’s message of change and hope put many under a spell. But now, six months later, there is disenchantment among the majority of Americans and — though to a lesser degree — also among people around the world… In Copenhagen, people will put about as much trust in American leadership as they do in believing that the US will live up to its promise to close Guantanamo by January.'”

Czech President Klaus Against Climate Change Campaign

Reuters wrote on September 22:

“Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday… ‘It was sad and it was frustrating,’ said Klaus, one of the world’s most vocal skeptics on the topic of global warming. ‘It’s a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem,’ he said. ‘It’s simply not dignified.’ At the opening of the summit attended by nearly 100 world leaders, 13-year-old Yugratna Srivastava of India told the audience that governments were not doing enough to combat the threat of climate change.

“Klaus said there were increasing doubts in the scientific community about whether humans are causing changes in the climate or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring phenomena. But politicians, he said, seem to be moving closer to a consensus on climate change. ‘The train can’t be stopped and I consider that a huge mistake,’ Klaus said… However, new proposals by China and a rallying cry from U.S. President Barack Obama did little to break a U.N. deadlock about what should be done.

“Klaus published a book in 2007 on the worldwide campaign to stop climate change… In the book, Klaus said global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world’s economic and social order.”

Relations Between EU and Israel Getting Worse

The EUobserver wrote on September 21:

“Relations between Sweden, the EU presidency-in-office, and Israel have gone from bad to worse after Israel accused Sweden of breaking an EU ban on contact with Hamas… Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad on 14 September told EUobserver that high-ranking officials from EU countries, including people ‘very close’ to EU leaders and foreign ministers, meet with the militant group on a weekly basis. He mentioned visits from France, Spain, Germany, Italy, the UK and Luxembourg, but not Sweden… Swedish-Israeli relations already suffered in August, when Sweden declined Israeli demands to censure a Swedish newspaper article accusing Israeli soldiers of selling the bodily organs of dead Palestinians.”

Core Europe Inevitable

The EUobserver wrote on September 21:

“Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has suggested that if the Irish people vote against the Lisbon Treaty a second time, a group of European Union member states should move to create a ‘core Europe’ in order to implement the treaty… The concept of a ‘core Europe’ moving ahead toward further integration rears its head regularly when movement forward on a particular policy is blocked by a minority of member states.

“Various politicians and academics have advocated the idea that an inner core of EU member states drive forward with deeper integration via the development of a new organisation, often described as a European Federation, alongside the existing European Union. Some experts believe that even if the Irish approve the treaty, such a move remains inevitable as the union expands beyond 27 member states… The UK’s foreign secretary in this period, Jack Straw, backed the idea that the UK should be part of this core…”

The EU Has Their Say on Homosexuality

The EUobserver reported on September 17:

“A Lithuanian law banning discussion of homosexuality from schools and that could restrict publication of gay and lesbian magazines and proscribe pride marches has been condemned by the European Parliament. A firm but not overwhelming cross-party majority adopted a resolution criticising the Baltic country’s new [law]… The bill, which goes into force in March next year, covers all manner of outlets such as websites, exhibitions, demonstrations and other public events if they can be accessed by children… A total of 349 [EU] deputies voted in favour of the resolution [condemning the bill], with 218 against and 46 abstaining.

“UK Green MEP Jean Lambert, a co-signatory to the resolution said: ‘The European Parliament has sent a clear message to the Lithuanian government that homophobia has no place in the European Union… This law contravenes the EU Treaties, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be urgently repealed on these grounds.'”

We will be trying to answer this question as best as we can. In the past, the Worldwide Church of God attempted to strike a proper balance as to what is appropriate and inappropriate clothing, but in the process, some might have gone overboard at certain times by leaning too much to the “right” or to the “left.” Occasionally, the Church was even accused of promoting a yard-stick religion, while at other times, it was perceived to allow for appearances which were clearly not in line with biblical standards.

The following write-up is a conglomeration of discussion and communication, between the ministry and their wives, of the Church of the Eternal God and their corporate affiliates, the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship in Canada, and the Global Church of God in the UK. We believe that it will be sufficient for the wise, but if particular additional questions should arise on an individual basis, please address those to the ministry and their wives (or widows of late ministerial husbands). We also need to keep in mind that we must NEVER condemn or judge self-righteously our spiritual brother and sister for what is being worn (compare James 4:11-12; 2:1-4, 13). If a matter needs to be addressed on an individual basis, the ministry will do so. We are all learning to become more and more perfect in the eyes of God, and to increase in stature with people, and this process requires time and patience.

We have generally addressed, in a previous Q&A, proper attire during Church services. In this Q&A, we will add a few more explanatory specific comments.

As a general principle regarding proper clothing, we need to reflect God’s standards at all times, when appearing in public. As Church members today, we have to ensure that we are not conformed to this world in any way (Romans 12:2). We are to concentrate on things which are “noble” (Philippians 4:8). God’s people are to abstain from fleshly lusts (1 Peter 2:11). We read that we are to “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts” (Romans 13:14). Christ warned men not to look at a woman with evil thoughts or “to lust for her” (Matthew 5:27-28). Even though degrees of this tendency might vary, it should be common knowledge that especially men are more “attracted” and receptive to the outward “appearance” of women, from a sexual standpoint, than women might be to men in that regard. Christian women must be aware of this “male” tendency at all times, and should not dress in such a way as to be causing or contributing to “evil desires” arising in the minds of men. God warns us that we sin against our brother when we create a stumbling block for him (Romans 14:13; Matthew 18:6).

In addition, especially ladies should be aware of the fact that human nature (which we ALL still have) may want to parade the physical beauty of their bodies to others. But this would be contrary to God’s definition of true love (compare 1 Corinthians 13:4). [This tendency can also be found in men, of course, which would be equally wrong.] As one minister’s wife stated:

“As a teenager, my parents helped me understand why my peers chose clothing and makeup that would attract attention. Many girls felt powerful and enjoyed it when they drew male attention. At the root of the matter was vanity and self-centeredness. Whom was I trying to impress? It was difficult to be a non-conformist when you just wanted to fit in. The power of peer pressure is a strong influence, and a paradigm shift was required to make the decision to ensure undue attention wasn’t directed to myself. I needed to be concerned with what God thought rather than my peers and replace that false sense of self-esteem. More important than the habit of appearing modest that my parents instilled in me was the fundamental lesson of keeping God at the core rather than vanity and self-centeredness. I really grew emotionally and developed some positive character traits and a dress sense that I continued into adulthood.”

The over-riding questions that we should ask ourselves are why are we dressing the way that we are, and is it modest and becoming of the example that we should be setting for those around us? Whether we are at a pool party or at Church services, there are standards that we should be living up to. We need to ask ourselves brutally honest questions, such as, is what we are wearing too revealing or too diverting? While human nature enjoys the attention that inappropriate dress can bring, this should not be our focus. We are to be looking inwardly and developing the mind of God.

All of this means that ladies must avoid dressing in a manner that encourages immoral and wrong thoughts in men and sets a poor example for other women. This applies to proper clothing in public at all times, and not just at Church services or social Church functions. We read that everything should be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). It is important to realize that God is always watching us, including, how we dress outside the privacy of our homes.

On the other hand, we also need to strike a balance between being “cutting edge” in fashion and so far behind that we draw undue attention to ourselves. Once our dress and appearance becomes distracting in either sense, it has gone astray from God’s purpose of pleasing Him and of becoming “a Jew to the Jew and a Gentile to the Gentile,” in order to win some (1 Corinthians 9:19-20; 10:32-33). However, this is not to say that we should wear inappropriate clothes just because “everybody else” in the world may do so. We are to come out of the world and be different (compare 2 Corinthians 6:17-18).

The moral decline of society has brought about immodest fashions. We hasten to add that this is true for clothes worn by both women AND men.

For instance, Christian men should not wear clothes which might give the impression that they might be homosexuals. For example, in certain parts of Europe, it is perceived as being perfectly alright for men to wear flimsy bathing suits, which would be looked at as offensive in large parts of the USA, except for certain communities. So, appearance, especially of men, is important for the additional reason of not wanting to give wrong impressions to others–lest people draw wrong conclusions.

The bigger problem, however, is without doubt the clothes not to be worn by Christian women, and since we were asked by several ladies to give specific guidelines, we are setting forth the following, for your prayerful consideration:

It may be difficult to find tops that don’t reveal cleavage, but great care should be exercised in that area. If a blouse is too low, it can be layered with a tank top underneath. Women should stay away from clothing that is skin-tight (top or bottom), and if the dress or skirt is above the knee cap when she is standing upright, then it is too short. Skirts should come just below the knee cap; otherwise, when a lady sits down, the skirt rides up mid-thigh and too much skin is showing. Dresses that have low necklines are to be avoided at all times and care should also be exercised in regard to dresses that could be revealing when bending forward. This is especially true when a lady has to bend over to care for a child or pick up something off the floor.

Bathing suits worn at the beach or at a pool should preferably be one-piece (barring extraordinary circumstances), as most two-piece bathing suits are just too revealing. However, a one-piece bathing suit can also be quite revealing (or even more so); so again, great care and honest evaluations should be exercised in this matter. In addition, the overall physique should be taken into consideration as well. There comes a point, especially in obese or old(er) people, when it is unpleasant [or perhaps even somewhat embarrassing] to look at their far-too-revealing clothing.

As we said, these are guidelines which should be taken into consideration by Christian men and women at all times. The overall goal for us as God’s spiritually begotten children is to please Him and not to give offense to anyone, and to overcome our carnal human nature (which is oftentimes motivated by the “pride of life,” 1 John 2:16); the society around us and its evil influences on us; and Satan the devil who wants to conquer us with fiery darts of (self-)deception and temptation. We are told that God resists the proud, but that He gives grace to the humble; and that we are to submit to God and to resist the devil (James 4:6-7). Then Satan will have to flee from us, while God will enlighten us more and more with His understanding (2 Timothy 2:7) as to how to live “circumspectly” and conduct ourselves properly in this present evil society (Ephesians 5:15-16).

Our Feast brochure for the Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day was completed and will be printed to be distributed to Feast attendees upon their arrival at the Feast site in San Diego. The brochure has also been posted on the Web, for your initial review.

A new StandingWatch program was posted this week on StandingWatch and YouTube. It is titled, “Carter’s False Charges of Racism.” In the program, Norbert Link asks the question: Are you a racist because you disagree with President Obama’s policies? Former President Jimmy Carter seems to feel that way. He said in an NBC interview that an “OVERWHELMING PORTION of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” and that there is “a belief among MANY WHITE PEOPLE, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” Why are these charges so wrong, insulting, damaging and counter-productive?

Norbert Link’s new video-recorded sermon, “The Time of God’s Wrath,” was posted on the Internet.

Norbert Link’s new video-recorded German sermon, “Der Sinn des Fastens” (“The Meaning of Fasting”), was posted on the Internet.

On September 19, 2009, we will celebrate the annual Holy Day of the Feast of Trumpets. Morning services will be broadcast from Colorado, and afternoon services from California.

Dave Harris will give the sermon in the morning, titled, “A Time to Dream.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org. (9:00 am Pacific Time; 10:00 am Mountain Time; 11:00 am Central Time; 12:00 pm Eastern Time). Just click on Connect to Live Services.

Norbert Link will give the sermon in the afternoon, titled, “The Time of God’s Wrath.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org. (1:00 pm Pacific Time; 2:00 pm Mountain Time; 3:00 pm Central Time; 4:00 pm Eastern Time). Just click on Connect to Live Services.

God poses an interesting question in the book of Malachi. In Malachi 3:8, He asks: “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings.”

I don’t know of any Christian who would walk into a bank with a gun to make a “withdrawal.” He would not do this, since he would not want to blatantly violate God’s Law in such a fashion, and he would also be afraid of doing so for fear of being caught, prosecuted and jailed for committing such a terrible crime. Nor would any Christian sneak at night into his neighbor’s garden to steal vegetables and fruit, knowing full well that stealing is against one of the Ten Commandments. In addition, he knows that being caught and punished for committing such an act would ruin his reputation in the community. Yet, why is it that some Christians neglect to tithe altogether, or why do they sit at their office desk at home or the kitchen table and write a check in support of the Church that does not represent a full tithe–even though they realize that the tithing commandment is one of the basic requirements for a Christian?

It is not rocket science! One only needs to look at the amount on the salary check from the employer and move the decimal point one figure to the left, and that represents ten percent. A grade school child could be taught this.

Since there do not seem to be immediate consequences for their shortchanging God, some Christians conclude that it is somehow all right to pay God less than what is commanded. Others think that when they faithfully tithe a full ten percent of their increase, that is all that is required of them. They overlook that even then, they are still called unprofitable servants because they simply fulfilled their duty to God to tithe. But we rob God when we don’t faithfully tithe or when we don’t give Him acceptable offerings. It appears that the people described in the book of Malachi were shortchanging God in their tithes and that they were only giving “nominal” offerings–or that they did not pay any tithes and failed to give any offerings at all.

Tithing from the entire amount of our increase is a requirement, and so are offerings which are over and above God’s tithe. When giving an offering, we demonstrate to God where our heart really is. Both Cain and Abel gave offerings, but God rejected the offering of wicked and evil Cain, while accepting the offering of righteous Abel. It is interesting to note that there is no specific instruction as to how much of an offering we need to give–other than the fact that we are to consider and evaluate how much God has blessed us physically and spiritually. When we give an offering, we take advantage of the opportunity to show God how truly we appreciate His involvement in our lives, by giving cheerfully and not grudgingly (Deuteronomy 16:17; 2 Corinthians 9:7).

We are fast approaching the Fall Festival Season, with the first of the annual Fall Holy Days, the Feast of Trumpets, beginning this Friday, at sunset. God commanded us to give offerings during this autumn season. Our offering on each annual Holy Day should not only be for the purpose of proving to God that we would never want to rob Him, but also to demonstrate to Him our deep appreciation for His blessings and for the privilege to be part of and support the most important Work on the face of the earth today–that of announcing, preaching and publishing the gospel or good news of the soon coming Kingdom of God to a sick and dying world. God knows and has decreed that His Work will be accomplished with or without our faithful tithes and generous offerings–but God has granted us the opportunity to participate in His great plan and purpose–and what a GREAT privilege it is!

It could not have come at a more inappropriate time: Exactly 70 years after Russia’s invasion of Poland (on September 17, 1939), President Obama announced that he had scrapped plans for a U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The reaction to this highly controversial decision was mixed.

While some economists are postulating the end of our economic and financial crisis, other voices warn that the “global economic crisis continues,” and that “unemployment is set to rise.” This week was the anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse “which helped create a market panic that turned the recession that began in late 2007 into the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.” In his speech, President Obama warned that some in the financial industry are choosing to ignore the lessons of the crisis. At the same time, it appears that one California judge is willing to explore the legal issues challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be U.S. President. A trial was tentatively set for January 26, 2010.

This is happening while Mr. Obama’s accomplishments, so far, were described by Politico as utter failures, and while America’s international powers are fading and the USA is no longer the richest region in the world. The health care debacle is bound to continue, and former President Jimmy Carter’s offensive and insulting comments were in no way helpful to President Obama. According to CNN, September 16, Mr. Carter said “that an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” and that there is “a belief among many white people — not just in the South but around the country — that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” The White House quickly rejected Mr. Carter’s accusations, stating that “US President Barack Obama does not believe current criticism of his policies is based on the color of his skin.”

In Germany, a nationally televised election debate between Chancellor Angela Merkel and Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Franz-Walter Steinmeier turned out to be a “snore” and a “big yawn.” Smaller parties were upset for not being allowed participation in the “debate.” While Steinmeier was perceived as having scored more points, Merkel is still viewed as the “most popular chancellor in German history.” But the outcome of the election by the end of September is far from certain, as about 45% of Germans are undecided as for whom to vote. In fact, according to the New York Times, “Voter enthusiasm [in Germany] has been so low throughout the campaign season that Bild last week offered the chance to win 1 million euros, or roughly $1.5 million, to someone who correctly guesses the outcome of the election and can prove that they actually voted.”

Mideast Peace is as distant as ever, as no agreement has been reached regarding Israel’s settlements, and an Israeli attack on Iran is becoming more and more possible or even probable. However, as BBC News reported, a frightening development can also be seen in Israel’s military which is being infiltrated by fanatical Jewish rabbis advocating a “Holy War” –or, as some in Israel put it — “Jihad.”

At the same time, the West’s fascination with Islam is reaching unprecedented levels. London’s mayor proposed that non-Muslims should participate in the Ramadan fast to understand Muslims better. However, the mayor did not suggest that “Muslims and Christians fast on Yom Kippur (the biblical Day of Atonement) in order to better understand their Jewish neighbors.”

President Obama Abandons European Missile Shield

The Associated Press reported on September 17:

“Czechs and Poles expressed rancor and relief Thursday that President Barack Obama had scrapped plans for a U.S. missile defense shield on their territories… Ex-leaders in the Czech Republic and Poland bristled at Obama’s reversal, saying it reinforced a growing impression that Washington no longer views the region as indispensable to U.S. and European security interests. Yet many ordinary citizens who had been skeptical of the shield’s benefits expressed relief that the system wouldn’t be built on their soil…

“The two countries’ governments had endorsed the plan to put 10 interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. The Bush administration had pitched the system as a strategic defense to counter a perceived threat from Iran. But the U.S. plan had deeply angered Russia, which expressed outrage that missiles would be stationed so close to its borders.

“Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer announced Thursday that Obama phoned him overnight to say that ‘his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory.’ Fischer told reporters that Obama assured him that the ‘strategic cooperation’ between the Czech Republic and the U.S. would continue, and that Washington considers the Czechs among its closest allies.

“In Warsaw, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Obama assured him in a phone call Thursday that U.S. plans to alter the missile defense project will not hurt Poland’s security…

“Scrapping missile defense comes as a huge setback to many Polish and Czech leaders, who viewed it as a way to strengthen their military ties with the U.S. as a form of defense against a resurgent Russia. Fears of Moscow run especially deep in Poland, highlighted by a key anniversary Thursday. Exactly 70 years ago — on Sept. 17, 1939 — Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union at the start of World War II.

“Thursday’s decision is another sign that ‘the Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before,’ said Mirek Topolanek, a former Czech prime minister whose government signed treaties with the United States to set up the shield. ‘It’s not good,’ said former Polish president and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa. ‘I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing towards this part of Europe,’ Walesa said. ‘The way we are being approached needs to change.’

“Aleksander Szczyglo, head of Poland’s National Security Office, characterized the change as a ‘defeat primarily of American long-distance thinking about the situation in this part of Europe’…

“Alexei Arbatov, head of the Russian Academy of Science’s Center for International Security, said Thursday the U.S. was giving in on missile defense to get more cooperation from Russia on Iran.

“‘The United States is reckoning that by rejecting the missile defense system or putting it off to the far future, Russia will be inclined together with the United States to take a harder line on sanctions against Iran,’ he said…

“In a speech in April in Prague, Obama said Washington would proceed with developing the system as long as Iran posed a threat to U.S. and European security… The decision to scrap the plan is sure to have future consequences for U.S. relations with eastern Europe. ‘If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it,’ said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with Czech Republic’s conservative Civic Democratic Party, which supported the missile defense plan.”

Der Spiegel Online added on September 17:

“US President Barack Obama’s decision not to construct a missile shield has hit Warsaw hard, but the move was not unexpected. Now Poles are seeking to convince the administration to at least install Patriot missiles in the country.

“Sept. 17 is not an auspicious date for Poland. In 1939 the Red Army marched into Poland from the east on September 17 and Hitler and Stalin divided the country between themselves. Up to today, Moscow still hasn’t issued a clear apology for the attack. Exactly 70 years after the invasion, Poland is being forced to accept another defeat: US President Barack Obama has shelved his plans to build a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic…

“Warsaw immediately rallied to Washington’s side during the Iraq war and even took up command of its own occupation zone along the Tigris River. But now, under Obama, many in Warsaw fear that US interest in its Eastern European allies is waning…”

Global Economic Crisis Continues…

On September 14, 2009, Der Spiegel Online published an interview with the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, in which he said:

“The financial crisis was a catastrophic event, but one created by human hand… In the minds of too many — not only regular people but also top politicians — the financial crisis is already behind us. That way of thinking is dangerous. The global economic crisis continues despite the fact that Germany and France saw some positive growth figures for the last quarter. However, unemployment is set to rise for at least another year, and will probably peak in mid-2010. So the financial crisis has not only been followed by an economic crisis, but also by a social crisis which has not yet reached its apex.”

The Financial Times added on September 14 that “Economist warns of double-dip recession.” It continued:

“The world has not tackled the problems at the heart of the economic downturn and is likely to slip back into recession, according to one of the few mainstream economists who predicted the financial crisis… William White, the highly-respected former chief economist at the Bank for International Settlements, also warned that government actions to help the economy in the short run may be sowing the seeds for future crises.”

The Telegraph wrote on September 14 about Ben Bernanke’s and the US Federal Reserve’s failure to deal adequately with the economic crisis:

“Both bank credit and the M3 money supply in the United States have been contracting at rates comparable to the onset of the Great Depression since early summer, raising fears of a double-dip recession in 2010 and a slide into debt-deflation…

“Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research said US bank loans have fallen at an annual pace of almost 14pc in the three months to August (from $7,147bn to $6,886bn). ‘There has been nothing like this in the USA since the 1930s,’ he said. ‘The rapid destruction of money balances is madness’…

“Similar concerns have been raised by David Rosenberg, chief strategist at Gluskin Sheff… ‘For the first time in the post-WW2 [Second World War] era, we have deflation in credit, wages and rents and, from our lens, this is a toxic brew,’ he said.

“It is unclear why the US Federal Reserve has allowed this to occur. Chairman Ben Bernanke is an expert on the ‘credit channel’ causes of depressions and has given eloquent speeches about the risks of deflation in the past. He is not a monetary economist, however…”

Anniversary of the Lehman Bros. Collapse

The Los Angeles Times reported on September 14:

“The president, speaking on the anniversary of the Lehman Bros. collapse… said some in the financial industry already are forgetting the lessons of the crisis, which was triggered when legendary investment bank Lehman Bros. collapsed into bankruptcy a year ago today. That failure helped create a market panic that turned the recession that began in late 2007 into the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.

“‘Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we’re still recovering, they’re choosing to ignore those lessons. I’m convinced they do so not just at their own peril but at our nation’s,’ Obama said…”

U.S. Power Is Fading…

The Associated Press wrote on September 15:

“A weakened United States could start retreating from the world stage without help from its allies abroad, an international strategic affairs think tank said Tuesday. The respected London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said President Barack Obama will increasingly have to turn to others for help dealing with the world’s problems — in part because he has no alternative.

“‘Domestically Obama may have campaigned on the theme “yes we can”; internationally he may increasingly have to argue “no we can’t”,’ the institute said in its annual review of world affairs. The report said the U.S. struggles against insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan had exposed the limits of the country’s military muscle, while the near-collapse of the world financial markets sapped the economic base on which that muscle relied. The report also claimed that the U.S. had lost traction in its efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program and bring peace to the Middle East.

“‘Clearly the U.S. share of “global power,” however measured, is in decline,’ the report said. The head of another respected London think tank, Robin Niblett of Chatham House, said the rise in the relative power of China, India, Russia and the European Union has made it harder for the U.S. to exercise its influence…”

USA No Longer Richest Region in the World

Der Spiegel Online reported on September 16:

“A new report on global wealth says that Europe has overtaken the United States to become the richest region in the world… The worst global recession in decades has left its mark on the world’s economic powers, but no nation has been affected quite as badly as the US wealth dropped by 22 percent.”

Baucus’ Health Care Plan No Solution

USA Today reported on September 16:

“The Democratic leader [Max Baucus] of a bipartisan group of senators released a long-awaited proposal Wednesday to revamp the nation’s health care system — an $856 billion measure that would require everyone in the USA to purchase health insurance by 2013… But the measure has not received Republican support.”

ABC News added on September 16:

“It’s not every day that you hear a Democratic senator charge that a fellow Democrat is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Jay Rockefeller… ripped into the health-care bill developed by Sen. Max Baucus…, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee… Rockefeller, who sits on the Finance Committee, said that he cannot support the Baucus bill unless it receives major improvements during the amendment process.”

America’s Misfortune with Its Recent Presidents…

Politico wrote on September 15:

“When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of America’s war on terror.

“Barack Obama’s initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bush’s was restrained… he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, ‘change’ during the campaign. For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bush’s reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of ‘czars’ to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors…

“Obama is trying to fundamentally alter the American economy by backing sweeping environmental, labor and health care legislation. He wants to change the way Americans consume energy, unionize and see their doctors. So far, he’s failing miserably… It’s entirely possible — nay, likely — that Obama will lose on all three big issues… his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues…

“What all this means is, barring some unforeseeable world event, Obama’s will probably not be a historic presidency. He will have some successes and a lot of failures…”

Will Mr. Obama’s Legal Qualifications as President Be Tried?

WorldNetDaily reported on September 8:

“A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court…

“The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved… The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and ‘possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief.'”

Germany’s TV Debate–The Big Yawn…

On September 14, 2009, Der Spiegel Online wrote about Germany’s only nationally televised election debate:

“Sunday’s TV debate between Chancellor Angela Merkel and her challenger Frank-Walter Steinmeier was billed as the highlight of the election campaign, but turned into a snore as the two uncharismatic contenders praised their cooperation over the last four years and avoided direct confrontation…

“The mass-circulation Bild newspaper ran the banner headline ‘Yes we Yawn!’ on its front page on Monday. It neatly summed up the public reaction and the general disappointment that there’s no Barack Obama in sight on the German horizon. Merkel and Steinmeier have shared power since 2005 in a coalition between her conservatives and the SPD. And judging by the way they avoided attacking each other on Sunday, it is plain that they wouldn’t be averse to prolonging the marriage for another four-year term after the Sept. 27 election.

“However, Steinmeier, the foreign minister, emerged as the winner on points because he delivered a better-than-expected performance while Merkel was stiffer and appeared more nervous than usual, especially in the first half of the debate, which was carried live on the four main TV networks… But it’s unclear whether that will do him much good given that the SPD is trailing the conservatives by more than 10 points in opinion polls with less than two weeks to go before polling day. As things stand, Merkel is widely expected to remain chancellor, either in a repeat of the current coalition or in an alliance with her preferred partner, the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP)…

“They only really disagreed on nuclear power, where Merkel wants to prolong the planned phase-out period of certain reactors, on Merkel’s plans for tax cuts and Steinmeier’s insistence on a minimum wage. On Afghanistan, where they were singing from the same hymn sheet only last week, Steinmeier now wants to lay the foundations by 2013 for a German troop withdrawal plan… That would include closing the first German army base as soon as 2011. Merkel refrained from setting any dates, merely reiterating Germany would stick to a planned international agreement on a withdrawal, proposed earlier this month by Germany, France and Britain…

“The opposition Greens, Free Democrats and Left Party are furious they weren’t allowed to take part in the debate, and dismissed it as a charade.”

The Financial Times added on September 14:

“Analysts see the television debate, watched by about 20m viewers on four networks, as a potential turning point in the hitherto lacklustre campaign, since only half of all voters have already decided whether and for whom they will cast their ballots…

“Ms Merkel, the most popular chancellor in German history, was more hesitant and less precise in her answers than her contender, often seemed taken aback by the questions and occasionally used inelegant formulations…

“A poll by Infratest-Dimap conducted during the debate for the ARD public-sector network showed viewers had found Ms Merkel more competent, but 45 per cent of undecided voters said Mr Steinmeier was generally more convincing, putting him eight points ahead of Ms Merkel.”

The New York Times wrote on September 15:

“The debate in Germany between Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Sunday was billed as a duel, but it will go down in history as “the duet” for the harmonious way the two candidates agreed on issues ranging from the financial crisis to Afghanistan. More than 14 million people got less than they bargained for when they tuned in to the only debate before the Sept. 27 parliamentary election that will decide whether Mrs. Merkel remains as chancellor… Voter enthusiasm has been so low throughout the campaign season that Bild last week offered the chance to win 1 million euros, or roughly $1.5 million, to someone who correctly guesses the outcome of the election and can prove that they actually voted.”

German Media Responses

On September 15, the German media commented as follows to the Merkel-Steinmeier “duet,” as reported by Der Spiegel Online, speculating that the duet might have been the prelude to a continuation of the present CDU-SPD grand coalition after the election:

“The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: ‘… both seemed aware that they may have to stay together after Sept. 27, if the election outcome doesn’t allow any other option’…

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘… It may have been enough for a shift, though: away from a conservative-FDP coalition’…

“The conservative Die Welt writes: ‘Steinmeier may have succeeded on Sunday evening to give the SPD the boost it needs to secure a continuation of the grand coalition.'”

Mideast Peace?

On September 13, The Associated Press reported the following:

“An ongoing disagreement between Israel and the U.S. over how to resume Mideast peace talks remains unresolved, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday… The Palestinians say they will not resume peace talks without a complete freeze. The international community views settlements as obstacles to peace since they are built on territories claimed by the Palestinians for a future independent state…

“Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is demanding hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for an Israeli soldier captured more than three years ago.”

Will Israel Attack Iran?

Haaretz wrote on September 12:

“In the rare moments when it’s not preoccupied with the decline of U.S. President Barack Obama in the polls and with the debate over its government’s proposed health-care reforms, the American press continues to deal almost obsessively with another pressing issue: the deadlock in efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program and the growing likelihood that the endgame will be an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“In the past few weeks alone, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal warned the president that the United States must put a quick halt to the Iranian nuclear program, because otherwise Israel will bomb the facilities. ‘An Israeli strike on Iran would be the most dangerous foreign policy issue President Obama could face,’ the paper wrote. Former vice president Dick Cheney revealed that while in office he supported an American strike against Iran, but was compelled to accept the approach of president George W. Bush, who preferred the diplomatic route.

“Another Republican ultra-hawk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, maintains that additional sanctions alone will not be enough to make the Iranians abandon their nuclear ambitions. William Cohen, who served as secretary of defense during Bill Clinton’s second presidential term (1997-2001), says that ‘there is a countdown taking place’ and that Israel ‘is not going to sit indifferently on the sidelines and watch Iran continue on its way toward a nuclear-weapons capability.’

“The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, explains that ‘a very narrow window’ exists between the possibility of resolving the issue and an attack on Iran. An op-ed in The Los Angeles Times states (with some justification) that if Iran does not respond in September to the demands made of it, the world should brace itself for an Israeli attack…

“This month will mark a critical juncture in Iran’s race for nuclear capability. The timetable is getting ever shorter: Most Western intelligence services share the assessment that over the course of 2010, Iran will accumulate sufficient fissionable material to produce two or three nuclear bombs. If the Iranians succeed in dispersing this material among a large number of secret sites, it will reduce the likelihood that the project can be stopped…

“Israel is apprehensive that the Americans may delay a final decision until December. The impression gained by Israelis who have visited Washington lately is that Obama is gradually backing away from the Bush administration’s fundamental demand that Iran cease to enrich uranium as a precondition for beginning a dialogue…

“So, the moment of truth will arrive at some point between the end of 2009 and the middle of 2010: Should Iran be attacked? American experts agree that this would involve an Israeli strike. It is very unlikely that Obama will be the one dispatching American planes to Natanz. During the past year, military experts and commentators are increasingly coming around to the view that the Israel Air Force is capable of executing the mission…

“Iran is likely to respond to an Israeli attack by opening fronts nearby, via Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza… it’s clear that Israel will be subjected to extensive rocket attacks that can be expected to cover most of the country.”

Low Expectations for Breakthrough with Iran

The Financial Times wrote on September 14:

“The US and other world powers will next month meet Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator to test the seriousness of Iran’s proposal for talks and gauge its willingness to discuss its uranium enrichment programme… Javier Solana, European Union foreign policy chief, and Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Monday agreed to hold the meeting on October 1. The encounter, at an as yet undisclosed venue in Europe, will involve senior diplomats from the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China.

“Last week, Iran delivered a five-page proposal that ignored the controversial nuclear programme… The US, however, said it would put the nuclear issue on the table, even if Iran did not address it in its proposal. Iran insists that the nuclear file is ‘closed’ and not subject to negotiations…

“Western diplomats said late on Monday that although the US presence at the session would be an important signal of Washington’s willingness to talk to Iran, expectations of a breakthrough are low… Some European diplomats suspect Iran’s offer of talks on October 1 is a tactical move, aimed at wrecking talks by the E3 plus 3 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) on Iran at the United Nations next week, and delaying new sanctions… US and European governments have also been under pressure from Russia, which has made clear it was reluctant to endorse new sanctions against Iran.”

Is Israel Fighting “God’s Wars”?

BBC News reported on September 7 about dangerous developments of the involvement of military rabbis in Israel:

“Israel’s army is changing. Once proudly secular, its combat units are now filling with those who believe Israel’s wars are ‘God’s wars’. Military rabbis are becoming more powerful. Trained in warfare as well as religion, new army regulations mean they are now part of a military elite… This has caused quite some controversy in Israel. Should military motivation come from men of God…?

“The military rabbis rose to prominence during Israel’s invasion of Gaza earlier this year. Some of their activities raised troubling questions about political-religious influence in the military… As soon as soldiers signed for their rifles, he said, they were given a book of psalms… Before his unit went into Gaza, Rabbi Kaufman said their commander told him to blow the ram’s horn: ‘Like (biblical) Joshua when he conquered the land of Israel. It makes the war holier’…

“Rabbis handed out hundreds of religious pamphlets during the Gaza war. When this came to light, it caused huge controversy in Israel. Some leaflets called Israeli soldiers the ‘sons of light’ and Palestinians the ‘sons of darkness.’ Others compared the Palestinians to the Philistines, the bitter biblical enemy of the Jewish people…

“According to Reserve Gen Nehemia Dagan, what is happening in the army is far more dangerous than most Israelis realise: ‘… The morals of the battlefield cannot come from a religious authority. Once it does, it’s Jihad. I know people will not like that word but that’s what it is, Holy War. And once it’s Holy War there are no limits.’

“Many religious Jews object to the type of preaching heard during Israel’s recent Gaza operation. They say it perverts the true teachings of Judaism as well as contradicts Israel’s military code. Day to day, Israel’s army mainly operates in civilian areas – in Gaza, the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. The influences that Israeli soldiers are exposed to are extremely significant. How they view the Palestinians who live here is likely to affect the way they use their power and their weapons.”

Ramadan Fast for Non-Muslims?

IsraelNN.com reported on September 8:

“The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has recommended that non-Muslims take the opportunity of the month of Ramadan to fast, along with their Muslim neighbors, in order to promote ‘understanding between cultures.’ Johnson told members of a London mosque that with Muslims so much a part of London life, it would be befitting for non-Muslims to get to know their fellow Londoners’ customs and religion better.

“‘Whether it’s in theater, comedy, sports, music or politics, Muslims are challenging the traditional stereotypes and showing that they are, and want to be, a part of the mainstream community,’ Johnson said. ”That’s why I urge people, particularly during Ramadan, to find out more about Islam, increase your understanding and learning, even fast for a day with your Muslim neighbor and break your fast at the local mosque. I would be very surprised if you didn’t find that you share more in common than you thought,’ he said… ‘Muslim police officers, doctors, scientists and teachers are an essential part of the fabric of London.’ There are currently 1.6 million Muslims in Britain…

“Although perhaps the most original, Johnson’s is far from the only effort by Western politicians to honor Ramadan and Muslims. Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama hosted a Ramadan break the fast meal at the White House…

“There was no word on whether London Mayor Johnson was planning to suggest that Muslims and Christians fast on Yom Kippur in order to better understand their Jewish neighbors.”

In John 7:38, Christ spoke of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the apostle John added in verse 39: “But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom [better: which] those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

We need to understand the context. The New Testament Church would begin on the Day of Pentecost in 31 A.D., when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the early apostles and other true believers. Jesus had promised His disciples the gift of the Holy Spirit after His departure (John 16:7; 20:22). He again confirmed this promise after His resurrection, but before His ascension to heaven (Acts 1:8). When the Holy Spirit was given to His disciples on the Day of Pentecost, it was Jesus who poured out that gift from the Father, after He had been exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33).

Christ’s glorification and His ascension to heaven were necessary BEFORE the Holy Spirit could be given to His disciples. While He was alive as a human being, He told His disciples that He was WITH them, but He also said that there would come the time when He would be IN them. He referred, first, to His presence as a Man who was WITH them, but in the future, to the gift of His Holy Spirit which would dwell IN them (John 14:17). But in order for Christ to dwell IN His disciples (John 14:18; Galatians 2:20), through the Holy Spirit, He had to be first glorified with the glory which He had BEFORE He became a human being (John 17:5). As a mere human being, He could not live IN somebody else. That could only happen after He became again a glorified being.

When a true disciple of Christ receives God’s Holy Spirit, it is the Spirit of the Father AND the Son which emanates from both glorified God beings, and which dwells in the disciple (John 14:23; Romans 8:11, 14-17; Romans 8:9, second part; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19).

When Christ was here on earth as a Man, it was the Holy Spirit of God the FATHER that dwelled in Him. He did His mighty works because of the Father’s Spirit in Him (Acts 10:36-38; John 14:10-11). When He became a human being in the womb of Mary through the power of the Father’s Holy Spirit, He ceased to be a glorified being. He became flesh–He changed into flesh (John 1:14). With that change, His Holy Spirit–the Spirit emanating from the glorified God being called the Son, the second Member of the God Family–no longer existed! Rather, it was the Holy Spirit of the Father which was within Him, without measure, from His inception; and which was with and in Him throughout His human life. And we read that God the Father, through His Spirit, resurrected Christ from the dead (compare again Romans 8:11).

Christ was resurrected as a glorified God being, and from then on, His Holy Spirit emanated from Him again in the same way as it did prior to His human conception. That is why the apostle John said, in John 7:39, that the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. It was not only the Holy Spirit of the Father, but also of the Son, which would be given to true disciples AFTER Christ’s glorification.

We explain in more detail in our free booklet, “Is God a Trinity?”, on pages 11 and 12, that a better translation of John 7:39 is: “… for there was no Spirit yet,” or, even, “the Holy Spirit did not exist yet.” The context of that statement is the Holy Spirit OF CHRIST, and that Spirit did not exist yet, as long as Christ was a human being and not yet glorified. We explain in the above-mentioned booklet that only a GLORIFIED God being can give His Holy Spirit to others. For Christ to bestow His Holy Spirit on others, He needed to be glorified first. Christ makes this clear, when He said in John 16:7: “…if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him [better: it] to you.”

It is correct, of course, that the disciples did mighty works with the help of the power of the Holy Spirit–but that was the Holy Spirit of the Father. Even though the Father’s Holy Spirit was not IN them, it was WITH them. John 14:17 indicates that while Christ was here on earth as a Man, His disciples had help from God’s Holy Spirit, when they healed or cast out demons. Luke 2:25-27 proves as well that at that time, some people were led by the Holy Spirit of the Father–and that the Holy Spirit was “upon” them–but it was not yet IN them.

What John’s statement in John 7:39 means, then, is that in New Testament times, nobody who was born after Christ’s conception as a human being would receive the Holy Spirit until after Christ’s glorious resurrection. We read that John the Baptist had God’s Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb–but he was conceived six months BEFORE Christ’s human conception. One might ask what happened to the Holy Spirit emanating from Christ, which was dwelling in John the Baptist, when Jesus became a human being. But we need to remember that the Holy Spirit emanates from both God the Father AND Jesus Christ, and the Bible teaches that it is ONE; that is, it is the SAME Spirit, as God the Father and Jesus Christ are ONE in mind, goal, purpose and action.

Even though, upon Christ’s becoming a Man, the Spirit of Christ ceased to exist as emanating from the glorified Son–the second member and God being within the “Godhead” or Family of God. But the Spirit of the Father continued to dwell IN John the Baptist. However, as is pointed out herein, once Christ became flesh and blood, the Holy Spirit would not be given henceforth to human beings until after Christ’s glorification.

We also read that the Holy Spirit had been given to selected individuals in Old Testament times, such as Abraham, Moses, David and others. Again, this was the case because Jesus Christ was a glorified GOD being before His conception and birth as a Man, and so the Holy Spirit emanating from the Father AND the Son could be and was given in Old Testament times (Psalm 51:11). That it was ALSO the Holy Spirit of Christ that was IN some of the ancients–and not just the Spirit of the Father–is proven in 1 Peter 1:10-11, which says that “the Spirit of Christ… was IN them…”

We would also like to point out that, beginning with the establishment of the New Testament Church on the Day of Pentecost, God usually does not give anyone of His Holy Spirit, unless the person repents; believes in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice, as well as the gospel message of the Kingdom of God; is baptized by being fully immersed under water, as an outward sign of repentance and the burial of his old carnal nature; and a minister of God places his hands on the person (“laying on of hands”), thereby sanctifying him or setting him aside for a holy purpose; and prays to the Father, in Christ’s name, for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Even though one exception is recorded in the case of Cornelius (who received the Holy Spirit first and was subsequently baptized), there is NO PROMISE that God would grant His Holy Spirit to anyone today unless the required order, as described above, is complied with. This was not the case in Old Testament times, however. We do NOT read that any of those select few to whom God gave His Holy Spirit were first baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. But the fact that God dealt differently, procedurally speaking, with His disciples in Old Testament times should not prompt us to think that we are “free” today to ignore the requirements which God has clearly set forth for us, in order to be granted the gift of the Holy Spirit. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Baptism–A Requirement for Salvation?”

We should also emphasize that everyone who dies, while the Holy Spirit dwells within him, WILL be resurrected to immortal and eternal life, in the First Resurrection. This is true, regardless of whether he lived in Old or New Testament times. To reiterate, a person who dies “in Christ” will be in the First Resurrection, irrespective of how long the Holy Spirit has been dwelling in the person. Someone who dies after having been a true Christian for many decades, will be in the same First Resurrection to eternal life as someone who might have had the Holy Spirit for only a relatively short time. What is of decisive importance is that the Holy Spirit dwells in the person at the time of his or her death. Remember that Christ said that the first will be last and the last will be first (compare Matthew 20:1-16).

Of course, the fact that a newly converted person will be in the First Resurrection does not necessarily mean that his reward for overcoming his carnal nature, the evil world and Satan the devil will be the same as the reward for someone who overcame for many years. But both will be in the First Resurrection, and even the duration of having been “converted” might not be determinative for the greatness of the reward. Once God gives His Holy Spirit to a person, who may subsequently and shortly thereafter die as a converted true Christian, he or she HAS qualified in God’s eyes to be in the First Resurrection. Otherwise, God would not have let him or her die.

True Christians do not die because of time and chance! We must realize that God looks at the heart of a person, and when a person dies, while God’s Holy Spirit dwells in him or her, then he or she WILL BE in the First Resurrection, and God gives him or her the reward which God deems just, as He knows the end from the beginning and as He is judging the heart, zeal, desire and commitment of the person and the obedient actions flowing from a Christian attitude. This does not mean, of course, that we should delay baptism, so that we can continue for a while to “enjoy” forbidden sinful pleasures, thinking that as long as we get baptized just prior to our death, we will be “safe.” We can’t fool God, and we will reap what we sow. Playing games with God will not “get us” into His kingdom.

This brings up the question of the thief on the cross, who asked Christ to remember him when He would come into His Kingdom (Luke 23:42). The meaning of the entire episode is fully discussed in our free booklet, “Jesus Christ–a Great Mystery,” on pages 70-72, under the headline, “Did the Thief Go to Paradise on the Day of his Death?” We explain therein that Jesus promised the thief to be in Paradise when it would be established here on earth; when the city of “The New Jerusalem” would descend from heaven to this earth; after Christ’s return and after the First Resurrection to eternal life AND the Second Resurrection or the Great White Throne Judgment. For more information on the First and Second Resurrections, please read our free booklet, “Is That in the Bible? The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation!”, chapter 22, “The Resurrections,” pages 125-135.

Considering what was explained in this Q&A, we conclude that the thief was not promised to be in the First Resurrection, but that he was reassured that he would be in the Second Resurrection. Christ promised him that his imminent death on the cross did not end it all for him, and that he would have an opportunity to fully accept God’s way of life in the Great White Throne Judgment–and Christ also assured him that he WOULD qualify and BE in Paradise, here on earth, in the future. That he was not promised eternal life in the First Resurrection is evident from the fact that the Holy Spirit would not be given UNTIL after Christ’s glorification. At the time of Christ’s resurrection three days and three nights after His burial, the thief who died together with Christ, was in his grave, waiting for his resurrection to physical life in the Second Resurrection.

In conclusion, God has promised that His gift of the Holy Spirit would dwell in obedient Christians. As the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father and the Son, the Man Jesus Christ had to be glorified so that the Holy Spirit of the Father AND the Son could be bestowed on human beings. ONLY in the case of Jesus Christ–the “only-begotten Son”–was it sufficient that “just” the Spirit of the Father would be given to the human Jesus Christ. In every other case, it is the Spirit of the Father AND of the Son which is bestowed on a true Christian–and this fact explains the requirement that BOTH the Father AND the Son are glorified Spirit God Beings in order for Them to give to man of Their Holy Spirit.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

A new StandingWatch program was recorded last week and posted on StandingWatch and YouTube. It is titled, “Required Healthcare with Costly Fines?” The program discusses the following: In his nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009, President Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, while during his presidential campaign, he REJECTED this concept. In addition, he now advocated fining those uninsured Americans who “could afford” acceptable health insurance. But when he stated that his reforms would not insure illegal immigrants, he was called a liar by Rep. Joe Wilson. WOULD the reform benefit millions of undocumented workers? And what about the idea to FINE those individuals who opt not to purchase health insurance coverage?

Norbert Link’s new German sermon, “Gottes Posaunen,” (“God’s Trumpets”), has been posted on the Internet and on our German Web site (www.aufpostenstehen.de).