Can we foresee potential results from our decisions?

In the futuristic thriller World War Z, Brad Pitt plays a U.N. envoy who battles a world-wide zombie apocalypse. He discovers that Israel has successfully walled off their nation to stop the onslaught of the undead.

Discussion with the politician responsible for the successful defense uncovers an approach to problem solving named “the tenth man.” [See movie clip hereNumerous incidents in history have led the Israelis to conclude if all the information points in an obvious direction it is the responsibility of “the tenth man” to stand in opposition to the majority, no matter how improbable is the claim.

Our decisions are hardly ever that graphic, nor the outcomes so dire! Yet, the movie clip causes us to ask the question, “How do I make a decision in the face of adversity or against overwhelming opposition?” Scripture is clear that cultivating discernment is crucial.

Discernment in Proverbs is the means to foresee potential results from our decisions. Sometimes we are called on to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, or to maintain the status quo over against a venture into the unknown.

Discernment begins with the moral order of God. Mathematicians depend on immutable logic. Scientists study based on a stable, ordered world. Musicians create because they can count on melody, harmony, and rhythm. God made His world to work in a certain way which helps us know how to live in it. Solomon showed that discernment came from research. Hard work was necessary to uncover the “secrets” of God’s creation (1 Kings 4.29-34; Proverbs 29:2).

Solomon’s decision making was established on God’s perspectives. For example, the king discerned a mother’s true love based on the suggestion that a child be sawn in two (1 Kings 3.16-28). In Solomon’s case, he knew that a mother would never allow her child’s death and would rather give the baby to another than to have the little one die. Testing the worth of things based on their outcome is exactly what Romans 12:2 means when it says we are to “discern the will of God.”

Other New Testament examples show the power of biblical discernment. Ephesians 5:8-10 says we are to apply a test to examine, discover or approve “what is pleasing to the Lord.” Philippians 1:9, 10 confirms that our love should include discernment benefiting others. Hebrews 5:14 calls on the believer to “distinguish between good and evil” because she has been “trained by constant practice.” 1 John 4:1 commands us to “test” all viewpoints, illuminating false ideas by biblical truth.


How do we test for discernment? Proverbial wisdom offers a five point plan. A discerning person

  1. Seeks knowledge (14.6, 15.14, 18.15)

  2. Accepts rebuke (19.25)

  3. Makes wisdom a part of her (14.33)

  4. Develops interior character (16.21)

  5. Stays silent unless one can speak with wisdom (10.13, 27:28)

Kurt Vonnegut made a unique proposal. Indianapolis native, author of such novels as Slaughterhouse Five, Cat’s Cradle, and Breakfast of Champions, Vonnegut suggested that presidents should have a “Secretary of the Future” in their cabinet.[1] The unique, prescient idea would cause people to ask, “What if?” Do we think futuristically about our decisions before we make them? Do we consider what unintended consequences might arise as a result of our decision? Do we recognize that in a finite, fallen world even our best decisions may be fraught with difficulties? We may not face a zombie apocalypse or be part of a presidential cabinet. But we can all consider our decisions based on biblical discernment. [See “Afterword” below]

This essay also appears at Emerging Scholars Network (here). Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church (video). Picture credit: snappygoat.com, wikipedia.com, hdwallpaperg.com, reddit.com, gen-wallpaper.blogspot.com



Questions for Reflection

Why is God’s way of living better than a purely human view of morality?

Who can help me develop a discerning mindset?

What decision do I face now that could be helped by biblical discernment?

When do I make time to reflect on decision making which is forward thinking?

How do we put discernment into practice in our homes, churches, communities?

Prayer Dear Lord. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you. Give us attentive spirits to follow Your Spirit. Give us unseen helps that help us make sense of what we see. Give us the assurance that when we cannot be sure of our decisions, we can be sure of You. Amen (A prayer based on 2 Chronicles 20:12)

[1] http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW140_full.html

Campus Episodes (Part One)

“She kept dropping F-bombs throughout her talk.”

Episode #1

My text notification chirped. She was writing from a classroom lecture.

“I’m in a world language course. In our random reading this week we read the story of Adam and Eve. The professor told the class it was a myth that teaches women are useless, scapegoats for world evil. This is not the first time our language studies prof has denigrated Christianity and the Bible. In a class that is supposed to be teaching me a world language we just spent an hour discussing the inappropriateness of the Bible’s sexism.”

My response included the obvious question “Is this a Spanish class or a theology class?”

I sent my young protégé a link to my teaching (here) attacking the “Genesis as myth” claim.

The text exchange left me wondering how often other professors speak outside the framework of course objectives, turning Spanish class into an attack on Christianity.

As it turns out, I didn’t have to wait long to find out.

Episode #2

Depending on your point of view, “multiculturalism” can be welcoming or hostile.

In one class, “hostile” would be the proper definition.

The student sat across from me at the lunch table. “I was just attacked in my class for being a white Christian dominating other cultures.”

The young woman told us at the lunch table, “She kept dropping F-bombs throughout her presentation. It was pretty obvious she was trying to intimidate the class. Her eyes locked on each individual around the room. Her angry gaze was meant to demean, humiliate, making students submit to her way of thinking.”

This kind of rhetoric and abuse from speakers on college campuses is not new (examples here).

“Imagine a Muslim student being asked to tolerate this kind of abusive rhetoric,” I replied.

She shook her head up and down. “What really got me, though, was her conclusion. ‘Go be who you are’ was her final admonition. It totally contradicted everything she had just said!”


Episode #3

Students do a lot of reading in college, as well they should.

But sometimes the reading can challenge basic beliefs that Christian students hold.

Just last week I spent a couple of hours with a young man helping him with an article he had to read for class. The essay was positing that the Christian understanding of humans being sinful, corrupt in our thinking, is outdated and wrong. In fact, the prof intoned that students needed a more “up-to-date, educated reality of peoples’ diverse motivations.” The emphasis of the class was to suggest that human beings are basically good that we should, and I quote what the student heard in class, “be set free to follow our own secular ways.” The professor went on to say that the Christian viewpoint just wanted to control people, calling this “a religious stigma.” Of course, the professor said nothing about his own “control” which was actually “stigmatizing” students’ Christian beliefs!

My young friend and I had a rousing discussion which, I understand, turned into quite a rousing discussion in the class after our talk.

I LOVE talking with Christian young people at college about their studies and what they are hearing in the classroom. If you know of a Christian college student in Indianapolis who could benefit from these kinds of discussions, let me know. MORE “Campus Episodes” next week!


Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church (video).

Picture credit: snappygoat.com, www.easyfreeclipart.com


Pro-Science, Pro-Life

Science and human life.

Both depend on an origin outside human decision.

The Atlantic published “Pro-Life, Pro-Science” this past Thursday (here). Emma Green documents the obvious science behind neonatology studies.

March for Life, 2018. LifeNews.com

She suggests that pro-life groups are “winning” the debate on abortion since science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history” quoting pro-life mother Ashley McGuire. Citing the latest scientific advances McGuire contends there is a fundamental

Shift [in] the moral intuition around abortion. New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause. They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives.

In a “science obsessed” culture, Green’s article is powerful. She points out that the debate has shifted in the last decade away from science supposedly supporting abortion. McGuire continues

When you’re seeing a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks, smiling, clapping, it becomes harder to square the idea that that 20-week-old, that unborn baby or fetus, is discardable.

Yes, we live in an age when science is dominant. “Studies show” and “doctors tell us” preamble any news broadcast with the latest knowledge about space exploration, communicable diseases, water usage, genetic engineering, or robotics. Global warming advocates point to their interpretation of data contending for environmental legislation. Flu shots are said to be the physician preferred response to winter viruses. Businesses tend to run productivity on so-called quantitative “big data,” knowledge based on numbers.

Yes, scientific advances have given a louder megaphone to the pro-life movement. For those of us who are unabashedly pro-life we are grateful for affirmation of what we already knew was true.

And there is the rub. “Truth,” “rights,” “life,” and “science” are all dependent upon an ethical origin.

I do not need science to tell me that my grandchildren, while in the womb, were human, needing protection, care, and compassion.

The pro-life movement does not depend upon science for its truth.

All human life has worth, value, and dignity ONLY because there is a transcendent source of ethics.

As a Hebraic-Christian thinker I attest without question nor equivocation that The Personal Eternal Triune Creator of the universe is the source of human life.

On this, the sordid anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the day given to remember the murder of 60 million of our fellow citizens by judicial fiat, I once again speak for the voiceless. Any pro-death positions – infanticide, euthanasia, abortion – should rule the day if humans arbitrate truth, rights, life, or science. But justice issues begin with our beginning. If we are not truly human in the womb, than we are not truly human outside the womb.

I am glad science can affirm the pro-life position.

But I am pro-life not because of science but because God said, “Let us make humans in our image.”

January 22nd marks the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled “Roe v. Wade” which is gave women the “right” to decide to abort a child through the 28th week of pregnancy. As I have stated many times in the past, I will always speak unapologetically for life.

I also celebrate the lives of many of my students – not to mention my daughter and son-in-law – who have given birth, adopted, provide compassionate services for single moms, give nursing care, and have generally sacrificed time, treasure, and talent on behalf of those who cannot care for themselves.

Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church (video). Picture credit: snappygoat.com, lifenews.com


Nine out of ten times we will agree.

Speaking with Christian brothers in a recent on air interview, I made the suggestion above.

It was a group of men whose political, cultural views were widely varied.

As we discussed issues, it was clear that we all adhered to the same biblical principles, we all held the same philosophical perspectives, we all agreed that certain things were right or wrong.

The conclusion seemed obvious: our differences revolved around approach.

Our approach to issues has to do with how we

Treat others with whom we converse

Use language which invites not alienates

Speak publicly about those with whom we may disagree

Support another’s right to speak even if we disagree

Listen to those whose voice, culture, or background is different from our own

Consider the following examples.

Identity. Some want us to accept their self-identity based on their individual definitions of sexuality or gender. My agreement or disagreement with self-identity in the culture means little if I do not accept people as fellow human beings. Worth, value, and dignity are based on our being made in God’s image according to God’s creational law (Genesis 1:26-27). If I approach individuals as people rather than categories, reception may be reciprocal.

Government. There are those who vilify anyone with whom they disagree. Responses to the president, congress, judges, or law enforcement crosses the line of visceral hatred for some. I may be willing to listen to reasoned responses to people or policy but I will not abide disrespect of anyone. The biblical vantage point begins with the admonition to honor those in authority (1 Peter 2:13-17). If I approach authorities with a spirit of generosity – no matter their belief or behavior – my approach may bring with it an opportunity for collaboration and conciliation.


Media. If we are only given to one perspective on any given issue we will never be able to live with each other in cooperation. Those on the so-called “left” tend to read Slate, Salon, Huffington Post, The New York Times, NPR, or The Washington Post. Those on the so-called “right” tend to read The Drudge Report, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The Washington Times, City Journal, or First Things. Scripture clearly teaches that one should consider the second point of view after the first (Proverbs 18:17). If I approach other perspectives with an attitude of respect – without giving up my perspective – it could lead to everyone being heard.


Two weeks ago Warp&Woof Radio celebrated our 100th show at the state capital building in Indianapolis. Thanks to Matt Barnes and Tim Overton, HB Bell and I were able to interview a wide cross section of senators and representatives as they began their 2018 legislative session.


What struck me then and what continues to reverberate in my thinking is how much each elected official cared for their constituency. Each person brought forward what they wanted the general assembly to consider. What was true of each governmental official was their generous approach toward everyone, even those “across the aisle.”


Nine times out of ten we will agree with basic beliefs. It is often our approach to problems which divides us. May we first seek to find God-given, creational principles to live this life. Then may we discover the communication which will attract others to listen, to consider, and to respect approaches different than their own.

Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church (video).

Help Comenius reach its $40,000 giving goal in this new year! The Comenius Institute [501(c)(3)] (website hereDonate online (here), mark@comeniusinstitute.org, (text/talk 630.303.4891) Checks to “The Comenius Institute,” c/o Collaborate 317, 4202 N EMS Blvd #180, Greenfield, IN 46140 And ask Mark what Comenius would do with $1 million!

Picture credit: Snappygoat.com, personal pictures from HB Bell


The rich are judged by how they treat the poor.

Poverty is real, has real consequences, for real people, with real needs.

Poor people in particular are targeted as the “have-nots” in American politics.  Poverty seems always to be a “wedge issue” for debate.  One party will tend to label the other as “the party of the rich” speaking of themselves as serving the needs of the poor, when, indeed, American politicians tend to be rich: they bear the burden of poverty-politics.

Sex, money, and power are said to control the world. It strikes me as I read the Hebrew prophets, however, that the latter two issues are much more pronounced in God’s judgment than is sexual sin, which is almost never mentioned. Over and over again God rails against those that “have” misusing those who “have not.” [For an example of biblical-social-justice see my essay here entitled “Morality”.]

Scripture, on the other hand, labels people in a different way.  The economically powerful are to protect the economically weak. [For instance, read my essay here entitled “gleaning”.] God warned people that political leaders would come with economic conditions causing severe consequences (1 Sam 8:11-17). The awfulness of land-grabbing, lying, court-corrupting, murdering, self indulgent leaders is no where better captured than when Ahab stole land from Naboth (1 Kings 21).

Laziness may be cited as one reason for poverty in Proverbs (6:11; 10:4, 15; 13:18; 20:13; 22:1; 28:11; 30:8-9). However, Proverbs chapters 28 and 29 specifically indicate that the “ruling classes” bear responsibility for economic direction of a country. [See my essay here entitled “peace.”]

Uncaring attitudes for the poor that arise from wealth and privilege are cited as reasons for judgment (Isa 3:16-26; Amos 4:1-3; 8:4-6).  The exile of Judah was largely the result of economic injustice (Amos 2:6-7; 5:7-12; Micah 3:8-12), as was the flood (Gen 6:6, 11, 13). In Genesis 6:11 and 13 when God judged the “earth filled with violence” the Hebrew word hamas was used. God desires to fill the earth through human procreation (Gen 1:28; 9:1), whereas the greedy fill the earth by procreating violence (Ezek 8:17; 28:16). [1] The prophets use the same word to describe the exploitation of the poor by the rich (Amos 3:10; Micah 6:12).

Dishonesty (Amos 8:4-6), selfishness (through loans, Amos 5:11), loving things over people (Isa 5:8; Micah 2:1-4), and courtroom bribery through unjust judges (Isa 1:23; 3:13-15; Amos 5:7, 10, 12) are targets of prophetic condemnation. Scripture judges the rich by how they treat the poor (Job 29:12, 16; Ps 112:9; see also, Deut 15:1-11; James 2:1-7, 15-16; 4:13-16; 5:4; 1 John 3:17).


Economic justice is a prophetic imperative (Isa 11:5; 42:1; Ezek 45:8; Zech 14:14, 21). Biblical injunctions concerning financial justice are often tied to indebtedness. The responsibility is directed toward the creditors—those who have the financial ability to abuse others by lending at interest (Ex 22:25-27; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 23:19, 20).  Judgments against the lending-borrowing practice focused on exorbitant interest charged to those in need while “the rich became richer” (2 Kings 4:1-7; Neh 5:1-13; Ps 15:5; Prov 28:8; Jer 15:10; Ezek18:13; 22:12; Hab 2:7). [See “financial rape” [2] below.]

A communitarian emphasis developed in the early church where people shared the wealth they owned with each other, which included monetary gifts demonstrating participation in ministry (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-37).  The Greek word koinonia includes monetary gifts as “fellowship” as seen in Philippians 4:10-19. [Further comments on fairness, social consciousness, equality, and equity can be found in my essay here entitled “That’s Not Fair!”]

Christian teaching on poverty must include the following ideas and ideals: (1) God, not humans, owns everything; (2) custodial conservation of the earth is dependent upon faithful, responsible, creative people; (3) giving is to be “open-handed” versus “tight-fisted” (Deut 15:7-11); (4) stewarding creation should be prompted by and considerate of the next generation; (5) history curricula should include a poverty focus from the vantage point of corrupt governments as much as it might corrupt businesses; (6) teaching on private ownership and responsible stewardship should be wedded; (7) wealth produces accountability and opportunity to benefit all (1 Tim 6:17-19). [On these and other points see my essay here entitled “giving”.]

Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church each fall (video). Picture credit: snappygoat.com

[1] Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, p. 359.

[2] It should be noted that borrowing is always viewed in a negative light in Scripture (Prov 17:18), something one would want to avoid (Prov 22:7).  However, borrowing is not altogether outlawed (Ex 22:25; Ps 37:26; Matt 5:42; Lk 6:35).  It should be also noted that the original etymological range of the word “loan” meant to take a bite or consume.  “Don’t bite off more than you can chew” or “be careful he doesn’t take a bite out of you” are common reminders.  So borrowing is allowed though not advocated. See Alysa’s excellent essay here on “financial rape.”


Oxford English Dictionary’s word of the year 2017:

The passion of youth, the wisdom of age.

The old adage “too soon old, too late smart” is one gray-hairs enjoy leveling at those who still have their hair.

But I am struck by the idea that passion needs wisdom. As a hexagenerian (yes, I’m 60 years old!) I am committed to those younger than myself.

I believe that walking alongside folk is better than casting aspersions against folk.

Young people ARE our future. The question for those of us old enough for AARP benefits is “How will we treat and care for young people?”


So I was surprised and gratified to discover that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) had chosen “youthquake” as its word for 2017. The word is defined by OED as

“a significant cultural, political, or social change arising from the actions or influence of young people.” [SOURCE]

It’s all about the next-gen. Saying it was not an obvious choice, OED’s Casper Grathwohl said its usage had increased “fivefold” citing young peoples’ impact on elections in New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The divisiveness of 2017 seemed to spur OED’s decision as Grahwohl explained

“We chose youthquake based on evidence and linguistic interest. But at a time when our language is reflecting our deepening unrest and exhausted nerves, it is a rare political word that sounds a hopeful note. … I think this past year calls for a word we can all rally behind.”

A “hopeful note.”

Youth are our hope, humanly speaking.

The next-gen asks good questions.

The next-gen sees future trends.

The next-gen has energy.

The next-gen has a need for mentorship.

The next-gen is why I teach.

The passion of youth needs the wisdom of age and the wisdom of the ages.

The next generation needs prudence.

According to Proverbs, “prudence” gives the impression of one “who has been around,” “a man of the world” (wise to it, understanding of its ways, therefore careful of his relationship with it). This word is often contrasted with those called “simple” (22:3), who are told to be directed by the individual who “knows the ropes” spiritually (1:4a). A person with the prudence knows and follows through on the right reaction to moral evil.

My radio show producer, co-host, and brother Harold HB Bell tells me about the importance of the barbershop in the black community. He says one of the key rules of the barbershop is that old men talk, young men listen. But young men must show up at the barbershop in order to hear the wisdom of age.

Someday it will be their turn to talk.

The question I ask myself as a 60-year old is, “Am I teaching them prudence?”

Youthquake. Next-gen. Passion with prudence. Hope for 2018.


The next generation is the reason for The Comenius Institute.

Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church (video).

Help Comenius reach its $40,000 giving goal before the new year! The Comenius Institute [501(c)(3)] (website hereDonate online (here), mark@comeniusinstitute.org, (text/talk 630.303.4891) Checks to “The Comenius Institute,” c/o Collaborate 317, 4202 N EMS Blvd #180, Greenfield, IN 46140 And ask Mark what Comenius would do with $1 million!

Picture credit: Snappygoat.com, urbanfonts.com


What is our Christian responsibility with possessions, wealth, & finance?

A Biblical Reason for and Practice of Giving.

God perfectly created the physical world (Gen 1: 3, 5, 7, etc). The Creator is landlord: He owns everything (Deut 10:14; Job 41:11; Ps 89:11; 1 Kg 21:1-3). Sin, then, marred the world despoiling goodness (Gen 3.17-19). Redemption must include wealth, not using people and love things (Lev 25:14-17) but loving people and using things (Lev 25:25-28). Biblical stewardship seeks to create jobs, wealth, opportunity and community. Private property is a cornerstone of Hebraic law (Ex 20:15, 17) yet its profit was to help the community (Ex 22:25-27; 23:4-9). The oft used word “stewardship” literally means to be “keeper” of the household. So everything is a gift of God. And what God has given as a gift must not become God.



Good in Creation Comes from a Good Creator

  1. The fact of naming creation (Gen 1:5, 8, 10) asserted God’s authority over His world (2 Kg 23:34; 24:17).
  2. Claim over all the earth’s wealth (Ps 50:10-12) indicates The Creator is in need of nothing (1 Kg 8:27; Acts 17:25).
  3. Not only does God have no rivals in creation (Is 44:24; 45:12, 18) but creation knows her place (Ps 104) even though humans may try to replace God with His creation (Is 44: 6-20; Rom 1:21-25).
  4. The declaration that creation is “good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, etc.) establishes people as tenants: humans manage everything (Gen 1:28; Lev 25:23-24; 1 Chron 29:10-20).
  5. Earth is given to humanity (Ps 115:16) yet the “alien” clause identifies human dependency.
  6. Responsibility is established both toward God and for possessions. Cultivation (“work”, Gen 2:15) demands a literal guiding of the ground toward increased development. Conservation (“take care”, Gen 2:15) stipulates guarding against neglect of the planet. Animals are “given you’re your hands” (Gen 9:2) and even said to be “tamed” (Jas 3:7) by man. Animal husbandry was one of the twin essentials of an agricultural society (Ex 22; Deut 22:1-4, 6-7).
  7. Resting (maintaining) the animals (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14) provided for longevity of resources by acknowledging God’s program for sustaining life. Horticultural laws throughout the Pentateuch insisted upon care in custody for what has been given. Jublilee, for example, was a celebration (Lev 25:8-13) and a liberation (25:18-22) of property.
  8. Everything exists for God (Heb 2:10) though at present we do not see everything subject to Him (Heb 2:8; 1 Co 15:27-28).
  9. Teaching on private ownership and responsible stewardship should be wedded (Lev 19:9-10; Deut 15:1-11; 23:24-25; 24:19-22).
  10. Wealth produces accountability and opportunity to benefit all (1 Tim 6:17-19).


How Should My Mindset Be Changed About Wealth?

I understand humanly speaking I “own” things but things should not “own” me and all I “own” has been given to me for responsible use.

I know that corrupt views of wealth may entice me.

Asceticism—where poverty equals virtue and wealth equals greed—is not set forth in Scripture.

Materialism is not what we possess but what possesses us.

Communism is just as odious. Premised upon redistribution of resources, ownership is forcibly wrested from individuals into the hands of a dictator.

Custodial use of the earth is dependent upon faithful, responsible, creative people.
Giving is to be “open-handed” versus “tight-fisted” (Deuteronomy 15:7-11)

Handling creation properly now should be prompted by my consideration of the next generation.

Proper use of creatures and creation is my responsibility. Animals, money, and toos that will help us to do work must include concerns for proper maintenance, quality vs. cost considerations, and wise purchases.

Practical Ways I Can Teach Others What I Have Learned


  1. History curricula should focus on rich and poor people from the vantage point of corrupt governments as much as it might corrupt businesses.
  2. Read Hebrews 10:32-39.  Discuss how you would feel emotionally if someone took all your property?  How would you treat or pray for those who took part in stealing your things?  Write down “lasting possessions” (v 34) you can lay claim to from Colossians 3:1-4; 1 Peter 1:3-9, 17-25; and Ephesians 1:13, 14.
  3. Discuss Luke 21:1-4.  Notice the preceding context in 20:41-47 (as well as all of chapters 19 and 20). Why did Jesus say what He did, judging from His previous conversation (Hint: v. 47)? Discuss what people do with their money and compare that with what they say about money (i.e., complaining about not having enough when they have lots of toys).
  4. Compare by reading Psalm 50 and Malachi 1.  Discuss the connection between attitude and action in giving.
  5. Assign partners or small groups to write down statements from Proverbs about money (especially chapters 10-31).  Compile a master list of “how to live with money.”
  6. Words matter. Compare the words used to describe the Macedonian churches’ giving (2 Cor 8:1-4) with the reminders to the Corinthian church (2 Cor 8:6-15 and 9:1-4).  Observe who and how money should be handled in The Church from 2 Corinthians 8:16-19 and 20-24.
  7. Define-discuss: the worth/value of money, how money is made, and “profit.” What is the importance of making profit (Gen 2:15)? How should we treat a dollar to make more money in an honest, ethically upright manner?
  8. Missions. Read and apply Luke 16:1-9 about “making friends in heaven” from the giving of those who have more to those who have less (see also 1 Timothy 6:17-19)
  9. Game. Using the game “Monopoly” remake the Chance and Community Chest cards to Providence and Charity.  Restructure the purpose of the game to include giving and compassion without minimizing the need to make money for the benefit of the whole community.
  10. Reading. At the high school level I would read Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. At the elementary level there is a new fiction series that teaching a free-market approach to monetary issues entitled The Tuttle Twins and the Road to Surfdom, Connor Boyack (2016).

Help Comenius reach its $40,000 giving goal this year! The Comenius Institute [501(c)(3)] (website hereDonate online (here), mark@comeniusinstitute.org, (text/talk 630.303.4891) Checks to “The Comenius Institute,” c/o Collaborate 317, 4202 N EMS Blvd #180, Greenfield, IN 46140 And ask what Comenius would do with $1 million!


Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church (video). Picture credit: snappygoat.com



We will never forget.

This essay is dedicated to all who were murdered in Las Vegas on the night of October 1st, 2017, all who suffer from their wounds (seen and unseen), the families who grieve loss, those who gave their lives for others, and those who helped in great or small ways. We stand with the people of Las Vegas, silent, arms around their shoulders, tears streaming down our cheeks, heads bowed.

I had just finished lifting weights at the Solheim Center at Moody Bible Institute. Workers were turning on televisions around the facility. Gaggles of students began to cluster around them. We saw the plumes of smoke rising from one building just as an airliner slammed into the second World Trade Center. Announcements across campus and throughout Chicago directed residents to stay inside, commuters to leave the city.

As I walked a mile and a half to the train station I witnessed empty sidewalks and traffic-less streets. Fighter jets broke the sound barrier overhead. We found out later officials believed big cities like Chicago could be next. All America was in shock. We clung to every news report. Each bit of new information became its own story-line.

The date was September 11th, 2001.

At 4 a.m. yesterday morning I began seeing news reports of a shooting in Las Vegas a couple of hours before. Two people had been killed. My phone chimed over and over with the latest news, the death toll rising. Finally I turned on the television to see the video, much like I and everyone did on 9/11.

Eyelids barely held the tears as I listened to the description of the worse mass shooting in American history: the carnage, the loss of life, hundreds hospitalized. I raged against the abject cowardice of a madman shooting at concertgoers in downtown Las Vegas.

Flashbacks continued throughout the day. I remembered going back to Chicago on the train soon after 9/11. I was supposed to teach next gen teachers about classroom teaching. I thought then as I thought yesterday, “How can I teach/write as if this is just another day, another part of the curriculum?”

I couldn’t then, I can’t now.

During a 45 minute train ride sixteen years ago I wrote a lesson for teachers entitled “How to Teach After the World Changes.” I referenced the laments of the Psalmist, the wails of Job, the anger of Habakkuk, and longing for peace from Malachi. My words focused on how to minister to people who had suffered loss.

The encouragement I brought to students then I bring to readers now; a list of suggestions.

Don’t focus on the person who committed the atrocity, focus on the people you can help in their calamity.

Don’t focus on the political concerns of what should or should not be done, focus on the concerns of spirit, the wellspring of human suffering and love.

Don’t explain, interpret, or conclude, rather comfort, calm, and cry.

Don’t clamor for a cultural response, calling for gun control, rather stand in line at the Red Cross to give blood.

Don’t believe this is the “worst” or the “last” but recognize that “awful” and “horrific” will happen again; how we respond now will help us react then.

I will never forget September 11th, 2001. Now I will never forget October 1st, 2017.

I will also remind myself that my best response to any terror-filled situation is how to prepare myself, my readers, and my students for suffering.

Mark believes that lament is the proper biblical response to suffering (essay), that human horrors will continue until Jesus returns (essay), and that the problems we face are problems of the human heart (essay). Dr. Mark Eckel is President of The Comenius Institute (website), spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), hosts a weekly radio program with diverse groups of guests (1 minute video), and teaches weekly at his church (video). Picture credit: snappygoat.com