British court orders Malaysian tycoon Khoo Kay Peng to pay $112 million in divorce settlement

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysian tycoon Khoo Kay Peng, who owns the Laura Ashley brand, has been ordered by a British court to pay £64 million (S$112 million) to his former wife as settlement for their divorce in a long-running row.

Judge David Bodey said in his ruling on Friday (April 7) that Chai should receive the divorce settlement in the form of both cash and property, the Guardian reported. The judge's detailed judgment on how the matrimonial assets would be split is expected to be released soon, said the report.

"I just want to thank my superb legal team ," Chai said in an e-mailed statement to Malay Mail Online after the court ruling.

Her lawyer Ayesha Vardag said in the same statement: "This litigation has been long and arduous. It is a journey which has now ended in the affirmation of the principle of fair sharing. It emphasises that there is no place in England for discrimination between home maker and bread winner."

Chai, who was crowned Miss Malaysia in 1969, had sought £100m from the 78-year-old tycoon following their split after 42 years of marriage. She claimed their assets were worth at least £205m. The 68-year-old said she had contributed to her ex-husband's success by being a "traditional" wife, and that they had made a sharing agreement entitling her to half of the family wealth.

"I looked at marriage in the traditional way," Chai had told Justice Bodey at hearings in the family division of the high court in London. "He is the breadwinner and I stayed at home and looked after the children. It was a daunting task."

Khoo, who owns 44 per cent of Laura Ashley Holdings, argued that his former wife should only receive £9m, the Guardian reported.

The two married in 1970 and had five children before splitting in 2012 and have spent more than £6m between them on lawyers to fight their financial dispute, according to the Guardian.

The tycoon had wanted the divorce proceedings heard in Kuala Lumpur where Chai would likely be awarded a less generous settlement. But Chai wanted a British court to decide on the divorce proceedings, claiming she had not been living in Malaysia since 1980 and is a resident of Britain.

In 2014, Chai gained the upper hand in the divorce battle after London's High Court ruled it could hear the case.

In January 2016, a London court granted a preliminary divorce decree to Chai, which entailed she would be entitled to half of Khoo's fortune once the marriage was officially dissolved.

Pat Robertson Says Alzheimer's Makes Divorce OK

By KATIE MOISSE and JESSICA HOPPER
Sept. 15, 2011

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson stunned "700 Club" viewers Tuesday when he said divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer's disease was justified.



Robertson, chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network and former Republican presidential candidate, said he wouldn't "put a guilt trip" on someone for divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer's disease, calling Alzheimer's itself "a kind of death."

The remarks sparked outrage throughout religious and medical communities.

"I'm just flabbergasted," said Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the 15,000 member Northland Church in Orlando, Fla. "I just don't know how anyone who is reading Scripture or is even familiar with the traditional wedding vows can come out with a statement like that. Obviously, we can all rationalize the legitimacy for our own comfort that would somehow make it OK to divorce our spouse if circumstances become very different or inconvenient. ... That's almost universal, but there's just no way you can get out of what Jesus says about marriage."

Hunter, who is also a presidential appointee to an advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, said Robertson's words could lead people to interpret typical marital woes as proof that the spouse they married is symbolically dead, and they are therefore free to move on.

"Obviously, you could do this for anything. ... My husband watches and plays video games, and so he has left the marriage and it's kind of like a death," he said. "It's not death, and so we can't start describing things as death that are really not death, and we have to stop trying to mischaracterize what Scripture says for our own convenience."

Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman that calls for faithfulness in the best of times and the worst of times. Quoting Corinthians, Anderson said, "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. You can't quit your own body with Alzheimer's, so you shouldn't quit your husband's or wife's body either."

Doctors and social workers who work with families affected by Alzheimer's disease were similarly dismissive of Robertson's advice.

"To condone abandoning one's spouse in the throes of this mind-robbing illness is absurd," said Dr. Amanda Smith, medical director at the University of South Florida Health Alzheimer's Center in Tampa. "While Alzheimer's certainly affects the dynamic of relationships, marriage vows are taken in sickness and in health."

An estimated 5.4 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease – a figure expected to rise sharply as baby boomers enter their older years. And about 80 percent of Alzheimer patients who live at home are cared for by family members.

Robertson's comments came after a viewer asked what advice he should give a friend who had been seeing another woman since his wife had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

"I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her," Robertson said.

But the Rev. A.D. Baxter, a social worker with Cole Neuroscience Center at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, said care from a loved one is irreplaceable.

"When being cared for by a spouse, the love of that spouse is often what enables a person with Alzheimer's disease to continue on and not feel abandoned," said Baxter, adding that caregivers need support, too. "Many believe a true friend does not abandon in the time of need."

Alzheimer's Strains Relationships

The progressive symptoms of Alzheimer's can put stress on relationships, leaving caregivers to cope with the loss of intimacy and other aspects of adult romantic relationships, said Dr. Jason Karlawish, a professor of medicine and medical ethics and assistant director of the Penn Memory Center in Philadelphia.

"There's no question that this is an issue," said Karlawish. "But to a spouse who's struggling with this kind of issue, I would want to say after the patient has left this world, you want be able to look back and say you treated that person with dignity."

Zaven Khachaturian, president of the Maryland-based Campaign to Prevent Alzheimer's Disease by 2020, said that Robertson's logic could have parents abandoning newborn babies.

"After all, a newborn presents to the caregiver exactly the same set of caregiver burden," said Khachaturian. "Both the infant and the person with Alzheimer's must be fed, cleansed, they are highly emotional, sleep a lot, they have wrinkled skins. If neglected, they will die. Does this mean caregivers must abandon newborn infants because it is not convenient to take care of them?"

New technologies are making it possible to diagnose Alzheimer's disease earlier, while patients have the ability to understand the road ahead of them.

"I think this highlights the need for couples and families to have discussions early in any illness, and preferably before illness strikes so that person's decisions and preferences are known and respected," said David Loewenstein, a clinical neuropsychologist at University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine.

Robertson's advice was for a male caregiver. But sometimes it's the patient who wants to start a new relationship.

"I have seen both caregivers and patients enter into new relationships during the course of dementia. How they choose to handle it is up to them. All parties dealing with this disease suffer to some extent and deserve to find happiness," said USF's Smith. "Ultimately, the decision for any couple to divorce, for any reason, is a private and difficult one."

Some couples stay married but form new relationships, too.

"There are many spouses who are devoted to the affected person with Alzheimer's, and yet form new relationships as they also care for their spouse," said Sandra Weintraub, professor of neurology and a neuropsychologist at the Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer's Disease Center at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "It's hard to negotiate living with Alzheimer's disease but dictating what's good and bad is not useful.

"Every person needs to make their own decisions and to consider all parties involved. I sincerely hope the good reverend never has to have Alzheimer's to experience his advice first hand."

Tim King, spokesman for the Christian organization Sojourners, said Robertson's controversial statement was encouraging in at least one regard.

"I'm actually encouraged to hear someone like Pat Robertson say we're not really in a position to judge another person," King said. "I can't imagine the difficulty that a spouse would have to see someone go through that type of change and transformation. ... I don't know anyone who is in the position to judge another type of person who is having to make those type of decisions. It should never be taking lightly; it should never be an easy decision. Dealing with marriage is serious and making a big decision like that should be hard."

A representative for Robertson's network told the Associated Press that there would be no further comment on the matter.

The Church's Moment in the Unraveling of the West

Michael Craven

I do not think it too strong or sensational to say that we are witnessing the collapse of Western civilization. Across the Western world, the fruits of apostasy and secularism are manifesting themselves in overwhelmingly destructive ways.
 
 In my lifetime I have seen the rapid demise of the family. For the first time in American history, nonmarried households now outnumber married households (52 percent vs. 48 percent respectively). Today, only one-fifth of American households represent “traditional families—married couples with children” (New York Times, “Married Couples Are No Longer a Majority, Census Finds,” May 28, 2011). Out-of-wedlock birthrates in the US have reached 40 percent following a similar trend throughout Western European countries, some of which are as high as 66 percent (New York Times).
 
 While out-of-wedlock births continue to rise, more and more people are simply not having children at all, leading to depopulation of the West on a scale unprecedented. Add to this the radical redefinition of marriage and family to include same-sex couples and the future of the natural family—an institution essential to a healthy society—only promises to worsen.
 
 Our academic institutions have shifted from teaching virtues and the pursuit of truth to intolerant platforms for secularized political values and godless indoctrination. Students are taught—with self-assumed authority—that God does not exist, your life is your own, sin is an archaic myth, and morality is a matter of individual preference.
 
 The fine arts have descended into prurience, voyeurism, gratuitous violence, godlessness, and mindless amusements. Revenue from the consumption of pornography exceeds that generated by all professional sports combined and the media, which was once governed by a modicum of journalistic integrity, has become another powerful force for indoctrination into socialistic progressivism and humanistic schemes.
 
 Our political leaders have abandoned statesmanship and true public service for personal power gains and government-driven social and economic engineering. Corruption has replaced integrity and the virtue of stewardship is almost nowhere to be found. America finds itself entrenched in prolonged wars with an enemy that it refuses to call evil, pursuing unrealistic aims of democratization in a culture that has no interest in democracy. Our governments have become oligarchies of competing political interests with little regard for the good of the people.
 
 Recently, Europeans (and some Americans) have descended into barbarism and anarchy, as the State proves incapable of serving as savior and provider. In the wake of supplanting God with the State, personal responsibility has been replaced by selfishness, dependency, and entitlement.
 
 In the absence of any absolute moral and ethical foundations, our economic system is collapsing around our ears. Business is increasingly driven by personal greed and shareholder returns rather than hard work, creative excellence, love of neighbor, and service to mankind. The Western world has lived far beyond its means—both personally and nationally—to the extent that families and some countries find themselves on the brink of financial collapse. Fear and uncertainty have become the overarching features of our day.
 
 Finally, the church—which was once the moral authority in the West—has rendered itself irrelevant and marginalized in the public square. Denominationalism and division are rampant. Theological vacuity, consumerism, and compromise dominate the spiritual landscape in America. So much so, that Christianity is the only religion in America in decline while every other false religion and new-age construct is spreading like wildfire.
 
 In the wake of all that is happening, countless pundits and politicians have emerged to offer their man-centered analysis and prescriptions as to the cause and solution, none of which come close to the truth of our dilemma.
 
 At the heart of all that ails us is our rejection of the Most High God! The Western world has rejected the biblical revelation as the source of truth in every area of public life—the very foundation of its historic rise and prosperity. Therefore all of our social and cultural institutions, which now rest on a false interpretation of reality, are coming apart. Should we be surprised?
 
 As for the church, we alone bear the responsibility for our own demise. The culture did not render us irrelevant—we did! We have been entrusted with the truth, the message of hope, and we have neglected this responsibility in exchange for security and comfort. We have tried, unsuccessfully, to build our lives in a way that seeks to comfortably balance the demands of following Christ with our own quest for personal peace and affluence. It doesn’t work! You either love Christ or you love your own life.
 
 In essence, we in the West are reaping precisely what we have sown. Mankind cannot construct a world devoid of subservience to God and hope to prosper. So in a seemingly sudden turn of events, the house of cards is folding. This should serve as the wake-up call—first to the church: repent and obey, and then to the world: man is not the measure of all things. This may be our generation’s moment to be found faithful.
 
 Let me just say that the solution is not to be found in the modernistic impulse of the institutional church; we can’t just “craft a program.” Rather, the solution is far simpler than that. It is found in Jesus’s command to “go and make disciples.” This can never be reduced to a program of the church but is instead a product of the organic church—individuals acting in obedience to Christ.
 
 Practically speaking, this means each of us should endeavor to be in relationship with the community of God’s people. We must place ourselves under the authority of the body of Christ, being discipled by those who are mature in the faith. Then we must form relationships with others whom we disciple. This is not a short-term enterprise but a lifelong effort. And then, we go forth into the world loving our neighbors. That may be just one or two people God has brought into your sphere of contact. It is with these that we share the love of Christ, bearing witness to his power in our lives, teaching them the truth of reality as revealed by God (making disciples) so that he may build his church (see Matt. 16:18).
 
 Our present circumstances offer a bleak picture, to be sure, but our situation is only hopeless insofar as we continue to trust in the structures and schemes of godless men, rather than the eternal promises of God through obedience to Christ.
 
© 2011 by S. Michael Craven Permission granted for non-commercial use.

Your Work or Your Life? Don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

by Peter Briscoe - FCCI Director in Europe.  Peter is also the International VP of Crown Financial Ministries.

My first FCCI International Conference was in Cancun, Mexico in 2002.  Over the years these conferences have made a big impact on me, largely due to the practical application of faith in leading a business. At that time, I was just taking over as CEO of HE Space Operations, a company delivering specialized services to the European Space Agency at their main technical centre here in The Netherlands. As CEO of this hi-tech business, I was determined not to repeat some mistakes made during my very first assignment as CEO of a chemical company back in 1980.  My analysis of that period was simple. “ Success in business =  failure in life.”  Success in business came at a price that was not worth paying; my relationship with my wife and family,my health and my relationship with God all suffered.  The lessons I learned through FCCI helped me to understand the life/work balance much better.

  A survey conducted by the advertising and marketing firm Ogilvy & Mather showed that people would rather get out of the rat race than climb the corporate ladder. 76% said they would rather spend more time with family than make more money and 75% responded that they would trade job security over a job that offered an opportunity for a pay increase.

  Graceann Bennett, Managing Partner and Director of Strategic Planning at Ogilvy & Mather Chicago commented, “The most surprising thing about our study was how much consumers were saying what they would NOT do for money, even when money worries are high on the list. Prioritizing your life based on money is seen as a sure way to be disappointed since the pursuit of money is often reliant on factors outside of consumers’ control. They have gone down this road before and are saying that they are not necessarily happier or better off as a result.”

This reminds me of the words of Jesus when He warned, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his life?” Money always promises much but delivers little. You can buy a bed, but not rest; medicine but not health; a house but not a home. I know from my own experience that you can be a success in business but fail at life.  John D. Rockefeller said, “The poorest man I know is the man who has nothing but money." An old mentor of mine said many years ago that when you get to the end of your useful working life, you will never regret that you didn’t spend enough time at work. You will regretthat you spent too little time with your family!

Thanks to FCCI, I am much better equipped to manage my career and family choices in line with God’s greater plan.  I encourage you to come to the 2011 International Conference and discover what God has in store for you.

Counterfeits of the Spirit's Fruits

Joe McKeever

"Your words have stood men on their feet." Job 4:4

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, kindness, faithfulness, humility, and self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Half the people I know in church have this list of Christlike qualities memorized. But I find myself wondering if they also know the list of counterfeits which precedes it. In some respects, it's every bit as important to know the negatives, the dark side, the alternate universe if you will, of those wonderful positives.

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also toldyou in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

Note that these ugly traits are:

1) Of the flesh. Man-generated. We can't blame them on God.

2) Against the Spirit. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." (Gal. 5:17)

3) Anti-love, every one of them. Earlier, Scripture says, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14). Each one is a perversion, a corruption, of true love.

4) Your ticket to hell. "Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

At this, the beginning of a series on the fruit of the Spirit, let's take a closer look at these counterfeits.

Keep in mind what a counterfeit is supposed to do: fool the owner into thinking he possesses the real thing.

Listen to the person deeply involved in adultery, sexual pleasures and promiscuity, jealousies, and the like. It's all about love, they will tell you. "I'm just a loving person." "I fell in love with her." "It's my nature to love a lot of people."

Love has nothing to do with it, friend.

It's about lust: "uncontrolled, untamed desires." We generally use the word to refer to sexual lust, but in itself, it has no connection to sex. It's merely a wayward force in your life that wants what it wants, wants more and more of it, and is never satisfied with what it gets. One can have a lust to possess more cars, or the biggest house on the block, or collectibles. Or, he can lust after his neighbor's wife, as the tenth commandment puts it (Exodus 20:17).

Lust and love are strangers to one another and enemies in all that matters. Lust is love's ugly cousin, the bastard child (excuse me, mom) of the black sheep of the family. Lust claims the family inheritance but should be denied all rights and privileges. Lust must be tamed and controlled and regularly nailed to the cross.

Adultery is not about love.

Sorry, friend, no matter how you dress it up, it is not. Adultery is about "getting my needs met," "achieving the happiness I deserve," and "finding fulfillment with the man/woman of my dreams." Adultery is all about me. And anything that is all about "me" bears no relation to love at all.

When the pastor's wife left him for a man in the church (who also left his family) and ran off to another state, some women from the congregation tracked them down, and tried to talk some sense into her. "You are interfering with the will of God for my life," she stubbornly answered. As the song put it, "This feels so good, it can't be wrong." But it was. She soon realized it, but not before destroying two marriages.

I'm not sure what Tina Turner had in mind with her hit song of a generation ago, but "What's love got to do with it?" surely pertains to adultery.

Fornication is not about love for anyone.

The Greek word porneia gives us our word "porn" or "pornography." The idea is any and all sexual iniquity, not just fornication (which we generally interpret as sexual relations outside of marriage).

I could not believe my ears. This deacon widower was dating a widow who had long been a pillar of our church, with both in their mid-70s. He sat in my living room and said, "Pastor, is it wrong if Mildred Ann and I sleep together?" I sat there quietly for a moment, then said, "Where have you been all these years? Have you not heard one thing we have said about sexual faithfulness?"

I knew exactly what had happened (and their ages had nothing to do with it). Once they were convinced they were in love and that no one would be hurt by their actions, as soon as their desires got the best of them, they quickly rationalized their actions.

All the sexual iniquity does not take place in honky-tonks on Bourbon Street, friend. Not all of it involves dirty old men preying on vulnerable young girls. Some of it takes place between the nicest and best people.

Lewdness is not about love for anyone but yourself.

Some translations call this "indecency" and "uncleanness." It's a general term that covers a lot of sins (but not, we hasten to add, the way love does! A reference to I Peter 4:8, which is itself a quote from Proverbs 10:12.).

We can imagine some drunken husband trying to get his wife to look at pornographic movies with him, or engage in bizarre sexual behavior. He may be so far gone that he thinks this is all about love. He certainly uses the term a lot. Pity the godly woman he is married to, who has to deal with this on a regular basis.

Idolatry is not about love for God.

Anything we put in the place of God--even if we claim it helps us worship Him--is an idol. Our minds immediately go to household deities people of some religions install in their living quarters and before which they bow. We think of various manmade representations of deities, everything from a rag on a stick to a totem to a gold-layered idol in a jewel-encrusted temple. But idolatry is often much closer to home than all that.

In Old Testament days, God told Moses how to build the "Ark of the Covenant," that gold-covered box into which was placed the ten commandments, the rod of Moses, and samples of manna. Above the ark, on the "mercy seat," artists were to build and place cherubim, one at each end, facing each other. The Lord then said to Moses, "There I will meet with you. I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two churubim on the ark...." (Exodus 25:22)

Before long, the people of Israel got it in their minds that God lived in that box, and from there it was a short jump to believe the box was God. See I Samuel 4 for the kind of foolishness that brought about. Idolatry is folly.

Sorcery has nothing to do with love.

This is an interesting word in the Greek: pharmakeia. Our word "pharmacy" comes from that. It originally referred to medicines of all types, but eventually came to mean the kind of drugs used in magic, the occult, and witchcraft. Pagan religions often used mind-altering drugs in their worship practices.

God would have none of this foolishness. Whatever the person's motives, love has nothing to do with it. After all, Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (see John 14:21,23,24.).

Hatred and love are sworn enemies.

There is no room in the life of a disciple for a quarrelsome spirit, for strife and enmity. One of the saddest features of the modern religious landscape is the groups that spout hatred in the name of the Lord. They picket at public events telling homosexuals that "fags will burn in hell forever." They picket any religious meeting that they decide is soft on their issues. They thrive on strife, they feed on hatred.

It would be interesting to slip in unobserved and watch the private worship meetings of these people. I wonder if at any point they stop and bow before the Lord and quietly and humbly worship Him. Do they ever prostrate themselves at His altar and ask a loving God to "have mercy on me the sinner"?

They do not.

No one who experiences the living God in worship can then rise to his feet and step outside and hate his brothers. He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness even now (I John 2:9).

Contentions are the antithesis of love.

I have known church members who lived to argue. If there was no fight going on in their congregation, they started one. If the pastor proposed the church do something, they looked for flaws in the plan and reasons to oppose it.

These are the people who drive pastors and other church leaders to early graves. And, we hasten to add, they will stand before the Heavenly Father and give account of what they have done.

The puzzling thing is that a church's trouble-makers will protest a deep love for the Lord.

But they do not love the Lord. They may love a lot of things, but if they loved Jesus Christ, they would obey Him. Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say? (Luke 6:46)

Jealousies masquerade as love, but don't be fooled.

Law enforcement people will tell you the most dangerous part of their job is dealing with conflicts between couples when jealousy has entered the picture.

We pick up the morning paper and read where some jilted lover is so incensed that his ex- has broken up with him and moved in with the new guy, he takes a gun and kills them, then turns it on himself. "Where is the reason in this?" we wonder. What did he possibly hope to achieve?

The answer is that jealousy is not rational, does not see clearly or think sanely.

Jealousy is a dangerous blend of lust and pride. As with everything else here, love has nothing to do with it.

Someone asks, "Doesn't the Bible say God is jealous?" (I recall hearing that Oprah Winfrey marked "God" off her list when the pastor preached that He is jealous.) The answer is so simple a child can get it: He is jealous for us not of us. As with any loving parent, He wants to protect us from harm. He wants us to do well, and resents anything interfering with that.

Outbursts of wrath are not about love.

"Fits of rage" they're called in one version.

Here's a husband who beats his wife, then later repents and vows his undying love for her. Before long, he does it again. She tells the doctor she "ran into a door" or "fell down the stairs."

I've seen wives like that sitting in my congregation. Their eyes reflect the cruelties with which they live. Unless they escape to a safe haven and find help, they soon become like whipped puppies and unable to think or act for themselves. The scoundrels to whom they are married, however, speak of love. Eventually the wives become so warped in mind and hurt in body that they really do think such husbands love them. Not so.

Selfish ambitions are the enemies of love.

On the shelves in my study are a number of commentaries on Galatians. When I consult them for insights on these unholy qualities, I find they have no patience for the repetition the Apostle Paul does here. They end up grouping the traits. (John R. W. Stott says the first three have to do with sex, the next two with religion, followed by eight terms having to do with society, and the last two--drinking and carousing--dealing with drinking.)

Many a book or program promising success and material wealth will demand that the practitioner of their dark arts spend all their time planning and scheming, working and climbing, to get to the top of the pinnacle. Say goodbye to one's family, to outside activities, to church, to hobbies. It's all about "me" and all about "getting to the top."

One wonders why those who buy into this scam never seem to notice that others before them have done this and found it to be a dead-end route to happiness. I keep thinking of a cartoon in the Wall Street Journal from a generation ago. A businessman in a large office tells his visitor: "I owe my success to my first wife. And I owe my second wife to my success."

Dissensions will destroy love.

Is this different from quarrels and outbursts of anger? Only slightly. I think of the competitive spirit that drives so many people in our world. Propose a plan for children to play ball where no side loses and they go ballistic. "Whoever heard of such? The whole idea is to teach the kid to win!" That is not anywhere near the "whole idea," but it shows how skewed is the mind of such people.

We see this competitive drive in church people who sleep through church but whose juices really flow when they think of their college football team and the drive to win the championship. "Beat State!" is their mantra.

If they are pastors, they want theirs to be the biggest church in town. If they are fathers, they want their children to be better and smarter and stronger and more successful than all the others in school.

Such people need to learn to chill. That contentious spirit will destroy everything good and noble in their lives.

Heresies are not about love.

"Sectarian parties" and "party intrigues" is how some have translated this. One calls it "canvassing for office."

As a pastor with a theological education, "heresy" means only one thing to me and that is people who stray from pure doctrine to concoct their own religious brand. However, the idea here is simpler: these are people who just cannot seem to get along and go along with the other disciples.

A pastor I know found himself at odds with a couple of strong leaders who happened to be successful lawyers. He told how they worked behind the scenes to undercut his ministry and eventually succeeded in ending his work at that church. Later, reflecting on what had happened, he observed, "Trial lawyers don't always make good church members. They spend their time scheming and maneuvering all week and when they get to church on Sunday, they can't quit scheming and maneuvering."

Envy is the opposite of love.

Envy is a twin to "covet," the essence of the tenth and final commandment in Exodus 20, and a close cousin to "jealousy" in our list here.

Love rejoices when you succeed, but envy/jealousy wishes he had succeeded in your place. Love is glad to see you have a new car, whereas envy/jealousy wants it for himself.

Murders have nothing at all to do with love.

It hardly goes without saying, but we are amazed at how many killings are done in the name of love. A jealous spouse, a spurned lover, a misguided zealot.

Drunkenness and love are sworn enemies.

This and the trait that follows--revelries or carousings--may have been associated with pagan worship rites in Paul's day. In our day, however, worship has nothing to do with the drunkenness we see every day.

So many of these qualities involve excess or out-of-control behavior. One feels strongly about something and cannot control his anger, his temper, or his desire, and the result is always bad.

Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, Paul says (Ephesians 5:18), but be filled with the Spirit.

One of the most bizarre legal defenses ever attempted in this country involve drunkenness. "Your honor, my client is not responsible for what he did. He was under the influence of strong drink at the time."

In a court of law, this would be laughed at. However, untold thousands of men and women try that ploy on each other and their children all the time. "Daddy doesn't mean it when he says that. Daddy sometimes drinks a little too much and does things he regrets. You understand, don't you, darling?"

God help the child.

Carousings. Revelries. Love's counterfeits.

Surrounding the large universities in most cities you will find fraternity and sorority houses. Young men and women who go off to college seeking an education are lured into these setups where they are taught the skills of partying, drinking, and promiscuity. Are there exceptions? Probably, although we rarely hear of them. The rule is sufficiently true that it should make clear-thinking students wary of having anything to do with such training centers of ungodliness.

Promiscuity masks itself as a form of love. We speak of "making love," as though any kind of sexual activity meets the criteria for that. Hardly.

That's the list. Rather an unholy grouping, isn't it. Thoroughly depressing.

I recall as a young pastor about to begin a series of sermons on The Fruit of the Spirit thinking it would be in order to preach one before on "the works of the flesh" here. In studying and preparing, I found myself so depressed by that laundry list of vices, I abandoned the plans and made occasional references to it.

In his commentary on Galatians, Timoty George mentions several ways in which the two lists--the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit--are presented here in Galatians 5. These are great insights and worth noting.

First, Paul did not contrast the works of the flesh with opposing works of the Spirit. Actually, that was probably the first thing most of us looked for in studying these lists, to see if the first quality was the opposite of love, the second the opposite of joy, and so forth. But no.

Second, there is a difference in the way the two lists are structured.
The fleshly traits are "works," plural. But the "fruit of the Spirit" is singular. Dr. George writes, "There is one fruit of the Spirit that manifests itself in nine Christian graces...."

Third, the 15 items Paul mentions in his catalog of evil are not meant to be exhaustive. So when he came to the end, he added, "and the like." He could go on and on all day with this!

Finally, let me add a note of my own here. Clearly, I have seen all these unholy traits as the opposite of love itself, the first-mentioned of the nine qualities that make up the fruit of the Spirit. In some places, that is clear, but in other cases I might have stretched the point a little. Readers will have your own thoughts on this.

Build convictions from Truth-based principles

By Roger and Sue Farr
Roger and Sue Farr are leadership trainers and developers, writing on a subject close to their heart - leadership in the family.

It is really sad when family members each do their own things and home becomes no more than a nice hotel. It doesn’t have to be this way! You can make great decisions through strong personal convictions that are based on timeless principles of truth which will build and strengthen your family relationships.

Our premise is: Living life by truth-based principles leads to personal convictions that produce consistent decision-making. This process reduces tension in the home, work, and personal arenas.

The principles for wise decision making come from a Source of Truth every person, family, culture, or nation holds dear. The truths are timeless, available, and rock-solid. Open the book and read them for yourself!

Once you have identified truth-based principles that relate to the decision you need to make, you should study the principles and then develop personal convictions from the study. Below are three ways you can develop convictions from principles.

1. Read and study your Source of Truth personally to see specific commands of God and examples from people who really lived and who really learned

2. Read books by wise authors who led principled lives

3. Interact with mature people

Read and study your Source of Truth: Search for specific things God commands His children to be or do and to not be or do. Reflect on the lives of men and women in the past and learn from their examples. Ask God to reveal His truth to you and determine to live by that revealed truth.

Read books by wise authors: Ask yourselves, “What did God teach them? How did they run their lives differently as a result of the conviction?” Consider the reasons that they adopted the convictions they held. Identify what it is about their lives that you admire as a result of their convictions.

Interact with mature people: Recognize that wise, mature people may develop different convictions from the same truth-based principles. It may be hard to hear counsel that is seemingly contrary, but that counsel should spur you on to do further research and seek further counsel. You may change your personal convictions as you mature and as you gain more wisdom on a subject.

Let’s look at an example. One wise truth from ancient Hebrew writings says, “The eye that mocks a father and scorns a mother, the ravens of the valley will pick it out, and the young eagles will eat it.”

The principle is that God, through the natural laws of His creation, will handle foolish young people. There are several possible convictions one could develop and adhere to from this principle. Among them are:

• It is unacceptable to mock or to scorn parents

• Sin carries unintended consequences, sometimes including death

• We should not discipline committed fools; God will take care of them, and He will do it well

You could undoubtedly develop other convictions about this principle. From this list of convictions, we will draw specific decisions and action points in a family. We'll show you how to do this in the next article.

Begin making a list of decisions or issues with which you are concerned in your family. These will be areas where you will want to develop convictions.

Read and study your Source of Truth to discover stated principles. Memorize specific passages as reminders of the principles. List possible convictions you could draw from the principles. Discuss the list with your family. Learn to “play the movie” to consider any unintended consequences of each specific conviction.

Pray and ask God to show you which convictions are appropriate for you and your family at this time.

Make sure that each family member knows how and why your family developed specific convictions. Keep the principles and the convictions in front of the family often.

Train yourself, and then teach your family members, to say, “My family and I have a conviction about this because …” and then go on to clearly state what you believe and why. This will help each member to make wise decisions when no one else is looking.

Start small, keep close to the Source, and determine to hold the truth-based principles and convictions carefully.

Next article: How to make wise decisions based on convictions you develop.

Say 'Yes' more to your child

By Focus on the Family Malaysia

One of the first words in a child’s vocabulary is “NO”—usually accompanied by an emphatic shaking of the head. Where do children learn this? There’s a chance that they learned it from their parents.

What makes us say “no” more readily than saying “yes”? One of the reasons is that we are concerned about the child’s safety. By saying “no” we seek to mark out the boundaries to protect him from harm and danger.

Such boundaries are necessary. Besides protecting the child, these boundaries also provide emotional security.

The problem is sometimes the boundaries get too narrow and restrictive. Then we need to examine whether we are saying “no” just for our convenience or for the good of the child. By being overprotective we could deprive children of the opportunity to learn to protect themselves.

Another reason for saying “no” is that we do not want to spoil the child. This could be a valid reason provided we also know when to say “yes”.

The next time your child come to you with a request, perhaps it will be good to pause for a moment and think before you utter “NO”. Instead of “No, you can’t go out to play”, you could answer “Yes, you can, at five o’clock when it isn’t so hot”. That’s a lot more positive than a flat “No”.

Question 1

I find I’m more likely to say no to my children than to say yes, even when I don’t feel strongly about the permission they are seeking. I wonder why I automatically respond so negatively.

Answer: It is easy to fall into the habit of saying "no" to our kids.

“No, you can’t go outside.”

“No, you can’t have a cookie.”

“No, you can’t use the telephone.”

“No, you can’t spend the night with a friend.”

We could have answered affirmatively to all of these requests, but we chose almost automatically to respond in the negative. Why? Because we didn’t take time to stop and think about the consequences; because the activity could cause us more work or strain; because there could be danger in the request; because our children ask for a thousand favours a day and we find it convenient to refuse them all.

While every child needs to be acquainted with denial of some of his or her more extravagant wishes, there is also a need for parents to consider each request on its own merit. There are so many necessary "nos" in life that we should say "yes" whenever we can.

Question 2

The children in our neighborhood are bratty with one another and disrespectful with adults. This upsets me, but I don’t know what to do about it. I don’t have a right to discipline the children of my neighbours, so they get away with murder. How can I deal with this?

Answer: Parents in a neighbourhood need to learn to talk to each other about their kids – although that is difficult to do! There is no quicker way to anger one mother than for another woman to criticize her precious cub.

It is a delicate subject, indeed. That’s why the typical neighbourhood is like yours, providing little feedback to parents in regard to the behaviour of their children. The kids know there are no lines of communication between adults, and they take advantage of the barrier.

What each block needs is a mother who has the courage to say to her neighbours, “I want to be told what my child does when she is beyond her own yard. If she is a brat with other children, I would like to know it. If she is disrespectful with adults, please mention it to me. I will not consider it tattling, and I won’t resent your coming to me. I hope I can share my insights regarding your children, too. None of our kids is perfect, and we’ll know better how to teach them if we can talk openly to each other as adults.”

Until this openness exists between parents living nearby, the children will create and live by their own rules in the neighbourhood.

Question 3

I worry about putting undue emphasis on materialism with my kids. Do rewards have to be in the form of money or toys?

Answer: Certainly not. A word of praise is a great enticement to some children. An interesting snack can also get their attention, although that has its downside.

When my daughter was three years of age, I began to teach her some prereading skills, including how to recognize the letters of the alphabet. By planning the training sessions to occur after dinner each evening, bits of chocolate candy provided the chief source of motivation. (I was less concerned about the effects of excess sugar consumption in those days than I am now).

Late one afternoon I was sitting on the floor drilling her on several new letters when a tremendous crash shook the neighbourhood. The whole family rushed outside to see what had happened. A teenager had overturned his car on our quiet residential street. He was not badly hurt, but his automobile was a mess.

We sprayed the smoldering car with water and called the police. It was not until the excitement passed that we realized our daughter had not followed us out of the house. I returned to the den where I found her elbow-deep in the large bag of candy I had left behind.

She must have put a half-pound of chocolate in her mouth, and most of the remainder was distributed around her chin, nose, and forehead. When she saw me coming, she managed to jam another handful into her chipmunk cheeks. From this experience, I learned one of the limitations of using material, or at least edible, rewards.

Anything the child wants can be used as a reinforcer, from praise to pizza to playtime.

Question 4

My four-year-old daughter, Karen, is a whiner. She rarely speaks in a normal voice anymore. How can I break her of this habit?

Answer: There is a process called “extinction” that is very useful in situations like this. Here is how it works: Any behaviour that has been learned by reinforcement (i.e., by rewards) can be unlearned by withholding those rewards. It sounds complex, but the technique is simple and very applicable to Karen’s problem.

Why do you think she whines instead of speaking in a normal voice? Because you have rewarded that sound by letting it get your attention!

As long as Karen is speaking in her usual voice you are too busy to listen to her. Like most toddlers, she probably babbles all day long, so you have often tuned out most of her verbiage. But when she speaks in a grating, irritating, obnoxious tone, you turn to see what is wrong. Therefore, Karen’s whining brings results; her normal voice does not, and she becomes a whiner.

In order to break the habit of whining, you must simply reverse the process. You should begin by saying, “I can’t hear you because you’re whining, Karen. I have funny ears; they just can’t hear whining.”

After this message has been passed along for a day or two, you should show no indication of having heard a moan-tone. You should then offer immediate attention to anything she says in a normal voice.

If this control of reward is applied properly, I guarantee it to achieve the desired results. Most human learning is based on this principle, and the consequences are certain and definite. Of course, Grandma and Uncle Albert may continue to reinforce the behaviour you are trying to eliminate, and they can keep it alive.

When to empower your teenager

By Focus on the Family Malaysia

The teenage years are often considered a complex time for any person. One of the difficulties faced by teenagers is knowing the extent they should be treated as an adult while recognizing they still have quite a bit of  “growing up” to do.

Teenagers feel that they have come of age when they obtain their myKad and when they first enter secondary school. While these are laudable milestones towards maturity, it is often best to ensure they are taught and nurtured to trust their parents and adults and go to them for advice.

You are never too old to receive advice. And being available at all times for your teenager is the first step in building trust and opening communication channels for years to come.

Coping with change is difficult even for mature adults. For teenagers, the physical and emotional changes they face can be frightening and and also very confusing.

Meeting their needs at this challenging stage in their life is important and parents need to ensure that they understand and provide the assurance teenagers need.

It is so important that parents affirm and show value for each child. Praising and encouraging them in what they excel at is a great way of establishing strong lines of communication.

Decision-making is another challenge that teenagers are confronted with. As they grow older, they have to make decisions concerning their friends and relationships, their academic stream and soon, even career decisions.

These are important areas of their lives where your input would be valued. Of course they could go to the school counselor but they would probably receive a perfunctory listen and a list of alternatives.

To have someone with whom they can confide in meaningfully; someone whom they have confidence in; someone who believes in them, knows them better than anyone else and wants the best for them – they couldn’t find a better person than their parents!

So, remember to bond and make time for your children when they are young so that both of you can continue to enjoy the fruits of a healthy parent-teen relationship well after your teenagers become adults.

Question

Explain in greater detail the role of power in the life of a teenager.

Answer: Let’s begin with a definition. Power is the ability to control others, to control our circumstances, and especially, to control ourselves. The lust for it lies deep within the human spirit. We all want to be the boss, and that impulse begins very early in life.

Studies show that one-day-old infants actually reach for control of the adults around them. Even at that tender age, they behave in ways designed to get their guardians to meet their needs.

The desire for power is evident when a toddler runs from his mother in a supermarket or when a 10-year-old refuses to do his or her homework or when a husband and wife fight over money. We see it when an elderly woman refuses to move to a nursing home.

The common thread between these and a thousand other examples is the passion to run our own lives – and everything else, if given the chance. People vary in the intensity of this urge, but it seems to motivate all of us to one degree or another.

Now, what about your sons and daughters? Have you wondered why they come home from school in such a terrible mood? Have you asked them why they are so jumpy and irritable through the evening?

Perhaps they are unable to describe their feelings to you, but they may have engaged in a form of combat all day. Even if they haven’t had to fight with their fists, it is likely that they are embroiled in a highly competitive, openly hostile environment where emotional danger lurks on every side.

Am I overstating the case? Yes, for the kid who is coping well. But for the powerless young man and woman, I haven’t begun to tell their stories.

That’s why they are nervous wrecks on the first day of school or before the team plays its initial game or any other time when their power base is on the line.

The raw nerve, you see, is not really dominance but self-worth. One’s sense of value is dependent on peer acceptance at that age and that is why the group holds such enormous influence over the individual.

If he or she is mocked, disrespected, ridiculed, and excluded – in other words, if that individual is stripped of power – he or she feels it deeply.

Question

If power is so important to teenagers, then it must play a key role in family dynamics. How does it work itself out at home?

Answer: You’ve asked a very perceptive question. It is a wise parent who knows intuitively how to transfer power, or independence, to the next generation.

That task requires a balancing act between two equally dangerous extremes. They dare not set their teenagers free before they are mature enough to handle the autonomy – even though they are screaming for it.

Adolescents still need parental leadership, and parents are obligated to provide it – that’s the law of the land. One of the characteristics of those who acquire power too early is a prevailing attitude of disrespect for authority.

It extends to teachers, ministers, policemen, judges, and even to God Himself. Such an individual has never yielded to parental leadership at home. Why should he or she submit himself or herself to anyone else?

For a rebellious teenager, it is only a short step from there to drug abuse, sexual experimentation, running away, and so on. The early acquisition of power has claimed countless young victims by this very process.

On the other hand, there is an equally dangerous mistake to be avoided at the latter end of adolescence. We must not wait too long to set our young adults free. Self-determination is a basic human right to which every adult is entitled. To withhold that liberty too long is to incite wars of revolution.

My good friend Jay Kesler observed that Mother England made that specific mistake with her children in the American colonies. They grew to become rebellious “teenagers” who demanded their freedom. Still she refused to release them, and unnecessary bloodshed ensued.

Fortunately, England learned a valuable lesson from that painful experience. Some 171 years later, she granted a peaceful and orderly transfer of power to another tempestuous offspring named India. Revolution was averted.

At the risk of being redundant, let me summarize our goal as parents: First, we must not transfer power too early, even if our children take us daily to the battlefield. Mothers who make that mistake are some of the most frustrated people on the face of the earth.

On the other hand, we must not retain parental power too long. Control will be torn from our grasp if we refuse to surrender it voluntarily. The granting of self-determination should be matched stride for stride with the arrival of maturity, culminating with complete release during early adulthood.

Sounds easy, doesn’t it? We all know better. I consider this orderly transfer of power to be one of the most delicate and difficult responsibilities in the entire realm of parenthood.

Question:

What guidelines can you offer to help us transfer power at the right time – neither early nor late?

Answer: There are some approaches that have been successful in lessening this conflict. The Amish people have developed a unique tradition that has succeeded for them.

Their children are kept under very tight control when they are young. Strict discipline and harsh standards of behaviour are imposed from infancy.

When children turn 16 years of age, however, they enter a period called "Rumspringa". Suddenly, all restrictions are lifted. They are free to drink, smoke, date, marry, or behave in ways that horrify their parents.

Some do just that. But most don’t. They are even granted the right to leave the Amish community if they choose. But if they stay, it must be in accordance with the social order. The majority accepts the heritage of their families, not because they must, but because they choose to.

Although I admire the Amish and many of their approaches to child rearing, I believe the "Rumspringa" concept is implemented too quickly for children raised in a more open society.

To take a teenager overnight from rigid control to complete emancipation is an invitation to anarchy. It works in the controlled environment of Amish country, but it would be disastrous for most of the rest of us.

I’ve seen families grant “instant adulthood” to their adolescents, to their regret. The result has been similar to what occurred in African colonies when European leadership was suddenly withdrawn. Bloody revolutions were often fought in the power vacuum that was created.

If it doesn’t work to transfer power suddenly to young people, how can they be established as full-fledged adults without creating a civil war in the process?

I have recommended that parents begin granting tiny elements of independence literally in toddlerhood. When a child can tie his shoes, he should be permitted – yes, required – to do it. When she can choose her clothes, she should make her own selections, within reason.

When he can walk safely to school, he should be allowed to do so. Each year, more responsibility and freedom (they are companions) must be given to the child so that the final release in early adulthood is merely a small, final release of authority. This is the theory, at least. Pulling it off is sometimes quite another matter.

In the final analysis, your own son or daughter will let you know when the time is right for independence. You must judge his or her maturity, wisdom, and emotional readiness for full-fledged adulthood. Then you grant it – and pray diligently for the next 30 years.