Wasted Potential

Recently I read an article by Don Brash on benefit numbers. The numbers were shocking. As of June 2021, there were 354,744 receiving a main benefit from the government. This represents 11.3% of the working-age population. Part of this (2.1%) is made up of people receiving sole-parent support. A massive 6.1% are people receiving jobseeker support. These are people (supposedly) looking for work, or temporarily unable to work due to a health condition or injury. There are just over 190,000 or 6.1% of the working-age population in this category. As Brash rightly points out, this number has not reduced in any significant way despite the fact that employers are screaming out for even unskilled workers. He writes, “Clearly having more than a third of a million adults dependent on a benefit at a time when employers are desperate for staff shows that there is something fundamentally wrong.“

Brash goes on to make some interesting points, and I’d encourage you to read the full article. What I wanted to do was reflect very briefly on the way that the religion of Statism gets things wrong. Forcibly taking other people’s money and giving it to unproductive members of society might seem like a nice thing to do. After all, none of us wants another person to starve. Yet the problem is that in providing assistance like this, and then in the creation of perverse incentives not to work (like minimum wage laws), the State actually causes a percentage of the population to be unable or unwilling to work. This is not good for them, and it is not good for society. Once again we see that the mercies of the wicked are cruel. For a country to have a full 6.1% of people who could work not working is an incredible waste of a society’s potential. Furthermore, the encouragement of family breakup through rampant sexual immorality has led to more sole-parent (i.e. economically unviable) family structures that require government (read unwilling other people) to support.

Paul’s rule with the Thessalonians was “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” It’s a good rule, and if charity was more personalised, it would force those who should be working to actually work to their own benefit, and the benefit of the community around them. God’s law is good and brings blessing to society. Statism pretends kindness but causes a spiral of societal degeneracy and destruction, which it then uses to argue for more of its ‘kindness’. Stop voting for it.

The Dignity of Unpaid Work

But where does it say that the dignity of work depends upon being paid for it? If that were the case, then a whore selling her wares on a seedy street corner would claim greater dignity than my grandmother could who stretched a poor income to clothe and feed and in innumerable unnamed ways to bless my parents and their fourteen siblings between them. That makes no sense.

Anthony Esolein in Out of the Ashes

Egalitarian Nonsense Meets the Real World

In our egalitarian world, we like to think men and women are exact replicas of each other, performing the same functions equally well. This is patently not true but is a lie we have been fed from childhood in our schools and popular culture. Girls can do anything boys can do!

And so we get to the stage where we have a police force that has frontline women officers. What happens when things get rough? This. A male policeman is overpowered and pushed to the ground by a violent young man. What does his female partner do? Does she get stuck in and help out? No. Instead she ‘could be heard repeatedly yelling “stop it” to the man attacking her colleague.’ Who could blame a woman for this reaction when faced with such an aggressive and strong man? We don’t expect our women to have to stand up to this sort of thing. But imagine if that police officer’s partner had been a 6 ft male. We might have seen a slightly different ending to that video.

Now I know, I’ve heard the argument before that women officers are helpful in a domestic violence situation. Fine. Maybe that’s true. But in frontline work, we’d be better off with men – and big strong ones at that. Men that crims are going to think twice before taking on.

The Directory for Private (Family) Worship #9

Over the last couple of months we have reviewed the directory for private worship point by point. One of the great encouragements has been to see the importance our ancestors placed on family worship. May this focus stir us up to be faithful to develop healthy spiritual patterns in our own families. Today we are looking at the ninth direction which pertains to prayer.

IX. So many as can conceive prayer, ought to make use of that gift of God; albeit those who are rude and weaker may begin at a set form of prayer, but so as they be not sluggish in stirring up in themselves (according to their daily necessities) the spirit of prayer, which is given to all the children of God in some measure: to which effect, they ought to be more fervent and frequent in secret prayer to God, for enabling of their hearts to conceive, and their tongues to express, convenient desires to God for their family. And, in the meantime, for their greater encouragement, let these materials of prayer be meditated upon, and made use of, as followeth.

Essentially the framers of this directory urge every person who can pray to pray, since it is a gift from God. Those who are not so used to praying perhaps because they are young may use set forms of prayer, but at the same time should develop their prayer so that they will more and more be able to express what they ought to in prayer for their family. Then the directory goes on to give some set pointers on what should be included in family prayer.

“Let them confess to God how unworthy they are to come in his presence, and how unfit to worship his Majesty; and therefore earnestly ask of God the spirit of prayer.

“They are to confess their sins, and the sins of the family; accusing, judging, and condemning themselves for them, till they bring their souls to some measure of true humiliation.

“They are to pour out their souls to God, in the name of Christ, by the Spirit, for forgiveness of sins; for grace to repent, to believe, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly; and that they may serve God with joy and delight, walking before him.

“They are to give thanks to God for his many mercies to his people, and to themselves, and especially for his love in Christ, and for the light of the gospel.

“They are to pray for such particular benefits, spiritual and temporal, as they stand in need of for the time, (whether it be morning or evening,) as anent health or sickness, prosperity or adversity.

“They ought to pray for the kirk of Christ in general, for all the reformed kirks, and for this kirk in particular, and for all that suffer for the name of Christ; for all our superiors, the king’s majesty, the queen, and their children; for the magistrates, ministers, and whole body of the congregation whereof they are members, as well for their neighbours absent in their lawful affairs, as for those that are at home.

“The prayer may be closed with an earnest desire that God may be glorified in the coming of the kingdom of his Son, and in doing of his will, and with assurance that themselves are accepted, and what they have asked according to his will shall be done.”

For modern readers, this prayer outline seems pretty serious, and many of us could wish for regular prayer of this nature in our own lives. Having a set outline that you teach your children is a helpful way to approach family prayer. At times we have used the ACTS acronym, which stands for Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving and Supplication. This has encouraged me to think more carefully about training my children in prayer.

Unteach Racism – Module 6 – Exclusion

Exclusion is the title of module 6 of the Unteach Racism app which the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission with typical bureaucratic efficiency has spent a number of years developing. If you wish to review the earlier modules, click the links that follow for module 1 introduction, module 2 low self-belief, module 3 low expectations and module 4 harmful assumptions and module 5 racist exchanges.

On the brainwashing menu for today is an exploration of how “in Aotearoa New Zealand, the dominant Eurocentric culture means that in some settings, the values and culture of the learning environment can exclude indigenous and minority learners.” Please note, dear reader, that the name of our country is no longer New Zealand. It is evolving. It is now Aotearoa New Zealand, and will become Aotearoa. We are promised that the module will explore the dominant values and culture in New Zealand, identify how these can exclude learners, and help unteach racism by affirming the values and culture of all learners.

As we commence the module we are presented with a quote by Ann Milne who wrote a thesis entitled, Colouring in the White Spaces: Reclaiming Cultural Identity in Whitestream Schools. Apparently many of our schools “constitute ‘white spaces’ that deny Māori and Pasifika students this crucial [cultural] identity.” I find this extremely interesting because as a young white chap growing up in Auckland, my experience of high school was quite different. I knew what Maori and Pasifika identity was. It was celebrated. Yet I never knew exactly what ‘my culture’ was. I felt very much a minority, but I do not think this had much of an impact on my achievement. According to the module, however, our identity and sense of self-worth depends on how our values align with wider society. Our sense of belonging can be undermined if our values are undermined. We’ll come back to this point later.

We are then told that New Zealand has a dominant Euro-centric culture. What does this even mean? Nowhere is this dominant Euro-centric culture explained or defined, and there is a reason for that. It’s not possible. Are all Pakeha cultures the same? Do we all share the same values? Does every ethnically British person have the same values? And just because they share the same skin tone as Polish Pakeha New Zealanders, does that mean their values are the same? Seriously?

Let’s just take for granted for the moment that there is such a thing as ‘Euro-centric’ culture. We could argue perhaps that Western ideas are common to many of us, despite the fact that Western ideas transcend ethnicity and culture. The irony is, that it is this Western approach that has produced a care and concern for diversity and the representation of other points of view and cultural ideas. That’s what’s great about the West. Because of its Christian moorings, and consequent care for others, it is precisely in places that have been blessed oppressed by Western ideas that allow silly courses like Unteach racism to be produced and then excoriated. So surely the Teaching Council should want Western cultural values to be taught in our classrooms.

We are next presented with a quote from a hand wringing Pakeha teacher. She notes that her identity is “embedded in New Zealand’s colonial societal systems and structures,” and that she can see herself everywhere, “in the language that is spoken; in the faces of those I recognise as the powerful; and in the values that uphold familiar institutions.” Is she correct? Take a look at the current Labour MPs. Are there not a diverse range of cultures and ethnicities, not to mention other minorities there? This is all just very silly. Culture is more than ethnicity. Culture is about what people value and treasure – what our highest goals and goods are. So this is why a Pakeha New Zealander who is a conservative Christian will have far more in common with a man like Elliot Ikilei than a man like Grant Robinson. Cultural values transcend ethnicity.

Homogeneity is the next topic. Apparently, say our benevolent all-wise Teaching Council leaders, a homogeneous perspective focuses on the similarities among individuals within a group and assumes that they all think, behave, or learn in the same way. Yeah, that kinda reminds me a little bit about this whole brainwashing course. Why does the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand assume all teachers think that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between the Crown and Maori and that we must all agree to this when we get registered? Why is this whole Unteach racism business assuming the homogeneous perspective that because white people share the same skin colour they share the same cultural viewpoints and force this on other people through institutions? Why does the Teaching Council itself exhibit a homogeneous perspective when it put together Tataiako a list of cultural competencies for teachers of Maori learners. Does it assume that all Maori learners share the same values and needs just because they share the same ethnicity? It seems to me that the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is rather hypocritical here. On the one hand, we are being told to reject a homogeneous perspective, and on the other hand, their very approach to things Maori is a homogeneous perspective.

Next, we move onto a values prioritisation activity. We are told that some of our learners feel their cultural values are overlooked, or undermined. We then are presented with a list of values and asked to pick our top five values. The values listed are: aroha, spirituality, service, individuality, equity, secularism, humarie, tolerance, conformity, excellence, kotahitanga, diversity, equality, honesty, self-reliance, reason, kaitiakitanga, sustainability, reciprocity and innovation. After selecting our top five we are asked to reflect on our prioritised values and think about how these might influence the culture of our learning environments. We are also asked to consider how much we know about our students and their values and how these might differ to our own. No mention at all is made of which are supposedly Euro-centric. I think it would be dangerous for the Teaching Council to do so – what racist fool would suggest that ‘reason’ or ‘excellence’ are Euro-centric?

So this brings us to our critique of this nonsense. The first problem with this module is that it doesn’t at any point explain the dominant values and culture of “Aotearoa New Zealand”. Apparently, according to some of the quotes presented, there is a real problem with whitestream schools. If this is the case, surely we should be told what exactly it is that makes for whitestreaming. What particular values are inimical to non-white students? I don’t believe they exist. I believe there are commonalities in values between cultures, and wide variations within cultures. In my teaching experience which has been in ethnically diverse environments, I have seen this. I have seen Maori families who are far more like me in their approach to education than Pakeha parents. Programmes like Unteach Racism are an attempt to divide us along the lines of race. We don’t need that.

Secondly, and in my opinion most importantly, the Teaching Council fails to understand that secular state education necessarily excludes the values and cultures of many of its minority learners. I’ve argued this before in a post about conservative parents and liberal teachers. If their argument does anything, it shows that schools sometimes do not cater for the values of some families. These values, as we have seen transcend ethnicity. So whose values are ignored or relegated in our public school system? Well, for those who are religious, secular state schools remove what we hold to be the centre of life to the periphery. To us this is an intensely aggressively religious action that denigrates our cultural values. In removing God and Christian morality from the classrooms, it alienates the minority group of Christians. So-called ‘secular’ or ‘neutral’ education also alienates other religious groups who no doubt would want their values and faith passed on to their children. We could easily argue in a similar fashion to this module that State-controlled education is an attempt to force the religious (yes I do mean religious!) values of the elite or powerful on the less powerful. Unlike the Teaching Council, I’m willing to suggest some of the values this elite wants to foist on our children: secular atheism or at the very least a God who has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of life, a two-tiered apartheid-like system for New Zealand and sexual confusion and degeneracy in the name of tolerance.

How do we fix this? Not by creating stupid apps at great expense. We get the government out of education. Create an environment where schools are free to compete for students. Give power back to parents and allow them to choose the kind of school that fits with their cultural values and avoid schools that contravene them. Reduce red-tape and control over curriculum content. Stop forcing teachers to accept a politically biased code and standard before they can be registered. Trust that parents in the vast majority of cases care about their children and want them to succeed. Then we might end up with schools that are not alienated from the values of their parent and student body. In the meantime parents, if you want your values passed onto your children, homeschool, or find a school, most likely independent, that will support you and your cultural values.

Dating Advice #1

My wife recently shared with me this article written by a Jana Hocking, who laments the lack of good men. What she doesn’t get about men becomes swiftly apparent. So I decided, being the good bloke I am, to help out with a bit of dating advice. Let me begin by making a general observation about the different standards we hold for men and women. It’s often assumed that women can and should be picky about men, but when men have the temerity to be picky about women, whiny cries of “Where are all the good men?” are heard. If a woman can’t find a man, the fault is automatically seen to be men. While this might be true, there also might be more to this. Complaining that you are single and then expecting men to take you on is backwards. If you want a man, you probably need to think carefully about what men are looking for. So what are men looking for?

Sex. Yes well there is obviously that. Men are attracted to youth and beauty. That is why women will find it easier to get dates in their 20s than they will in their thirties where the dates are likely to start drying up. And unfortunately in our current environment, the sexual revolution has done women no favours in this regard. In the old days, women held real power. If a man wanted sex, he would generally have to marry a girl. Thus marriage occurred at an earlier age. Now, the tables are turned. Women, in the name of liberation, have given the very power they held over men away for nothing in return. Men don’t need to make any commitments for sex. The ‘price’ of sex has never been lower for men. And that, unfortunately, affects every single woman – even the chaste ones.

Jana writes about her friend group. “I might be biased, but seriously, they are all gorgeous, outgoing, have awesome jobs and are hilariously fun. Yet, here we are in our 30s, still chatting about the various dates we’d been on and pondering about blokes taking forever to text us back.”

Now men, are not (honestly!) all one-dimensional. Sex is clearly important to men, but for many (most) men, there is also a desire for a long-term partner. What we are looking for here is someone who complements us. And this is where Jana goes wrong. She quotes Dr Kate Adams, a TV vet;  “I have found that successful women generally aren’t seen as appealing for guys, particularly when the opposite tends to be true when women view a potential partner.” What a wonderful discovery. Men and women look for different things in a partner. Jana later tells of her experience that most men aren’t interested in her career ambitions and goals. She writes of men who have “really championed my cause” in the realm of career, but questions, “where are they in the dating world?“

Here’s the thing. A lot of men aren’t interested in your career. They are looking for a romantic partner who will complete them and offer what they do not have. If they are a strong candidate – i.e., they have a successful career themselves, they are most likely looking for what they do not have, that is, someone who can make a home and children. We are not interested in your careers if we are interested in a romantic relationship with you. If we care about your career, we are treating you more as a mate or colleague and less as a romantic possibility.

Men are driven by their design to provide and protect. They need someone to provide for and protect. We want a woman – in all her glorious differences. We want someone who will build a glorious haven and have children with us. We do not want someone aspiring to be a man. And that’s how a career woman comes across to many of us. Now you can call us backward if you like. You can tell us we need to get with the modern age. But many of us have found great wives who do complement us. And as the Proverb says, she is worth far more than rubies. Maybe we don’t need to change, maybe you do.

So you have a choice – you can either meet the market, or you can whine about it. There are two distinct markets that Jana will need to think about. First, there are guys out looking for a cheap score. These are the guys just looking for no-commitment sex. Then there are men who are looking for sex yes, but also want to find a woman to complement them. Let’s face it, neither of these markets are particularly interested in a woman’s career, but one is more likely to be interested in and value a woman more than the other. Jana seems to be opting to market herself to the men in the first market. She is marketing herself on sex appeal. We have a picture of her in sexy lingerie that she has shared on Instagram. That ticks box one. But as she ages, she will have less and less value to men in that area. What will she compensate with?

What is life for?

What is life for? Why do we work? If Christians cannot remember the answers, then we are lost indeed. Work is not something you are supposed to balance against the claims of your family. Unless you are one of those few whose talents are required in a broad way for the common good of multitudes, if you are not working in the first instance for your family, then something is severely out of order. We live in comforts that the richest aristocrats not very long ago could never have dreamed of, and yet we claim that we are too poor to have more than a child or two. The truth is the reverse: we are too rich to have more than a child to too, too committed to work for work’s sake and to the purchase of prestige, mansions, the “best” schools, and toys for grown-ups.

Anthony Esolen – Out of the Ashes

Unteach Racism – Module 5 – Racist Exchanges

Today we continue our overview of the Unteach Racism app put together by the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission – you know that wonderful organisation that so strongly believes in the rights of humans that it gives a $200 koha (gift) to the Mongrel Mob, that other pro-social institution that our beloved leader Prime Minister Ardern considers worthy of near on $3 million of taxpayer money. In essence, for those of you who have missed the first four modules, the Unteach Racism app could be summarised as “Fighting imaginary racism with real racism.” If you wish to review the earlier modules, click the links that follow for module 1 introduction, module 2 low self-belief, module 3 low expectations and module 4 harmful assumptions.

Today, we are moving on to racist exchanges. What are the objectives? We are told that we will learn to identify interpersonal racism, separate intention from impact, learn how to confront people by ‘calling in’ rather than calling out, and on the off chance we are racist bigots without knowing it (which given the current climate in which almost everything is racist, is entirely likely) we are also promised we will learn how to live with discomfort when we are wrong.

How do we identify interpersonal racism? Here is the definition they give. “When people act on these [implicit bias and stereotypes] and think about or treat individuals negatively because of their race, that is interpersonal racism.” This seems a reasonably fair definition of racism. Few would argue that treating individuals negatively because of their race is a good thing. Yet there is an element missing in this definition. Racism is not just treating individuals negatively because of their race, but it can also be favouring individuals due to their race. This simply follows from the concept of not treating individuals negatively because of their race. If one is favouring some individuals due to their race, then one is obviously treating other people less favourably if they do not share that race. So thus far, we could agree with the sentiments of module 5. Whether I would trust the Teaching Council to appropriately apply this definition of racism is of course an entirely different matter!

We then move on to how to react to interpersonal racism that we see in our workplaces. Once again, to my surprise, there is a lot of sensible wisdom here. We are encouraged to avoid calling out racist behaviour in a way that is likely to cause someone to become defensive. Instead, we are encouraged to ask questions to help people clarify what they are saying. We are also encouraged to use personal “I” language rather than “you” when we address racist language. Finally, we are encouraged to take a person aside to talk to them rather than calling them out in front of a group. All of this seems fairly wise and appropriate. The big question for me is, “How often are we expected to see interpersonal racism amongst our colleagues?” Is this really a big issue? While I have come across patently racist people in previous work environments (albeit rarely), in my years of dealing with teachers, I have not heard teachers use openly racist language. Teachers I have worked with do not treat individuals negatively due to their race. I am not saying it cannot or doesn’t happen, but I wonder if it is such an issue to warrant a module on how to deal with it among colleagues.

Finally, the activity asks us what we would do if someone accuses us of doing or saying something racist? We are given two options. We can either explain we are a good person and didn’t mean to be racist, or we can “Stay calm, stay in the moment, take responsibility, and actively listen.” Apparently, the latter approach is correct. Our goal, we are told, is to listen and learn. Now, this seems dangerous to me. This sounds suspiciously like some of the critical theory nonsense. You know, the kind that says, white people should just shut up and listen, even when those we are told to listen to are clearly unhinged loonies. The thing is, claims of racism are now a dime a dozen. We know human nature. People will (and have) weaponised claims of racism to take down people they do not like or silence them. Intent does matter. If you are accused of saying or doing something racist, should you just listen and take responsibility? Well yes, if you actually did say or do something racist. But if your accuser has got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstood your speech or actions, or, if in fact, they are determinedly doing so in a play for political power, fight back. Intention does matter.

So, does the module deliver? That’s like asking whether the New Zealand education system delivers. Of course it doesn’t. This is a bureaucratic organisation forcibly funded by unwilling teachers. Of course it doesn’t work. Let’s recap on whether it achieved its four goals. Firstly did it help us identify interpersonal racism. Well, we were provided with a reasonable definition of racism, one which most adults given a virtuous upbringing already knew. We don’t need some government bureaucracy taking our money to teach us this any more than grandma needs to be taught how to suck eggs. Well, how did they go on helping us separate intention vs impact? Only one comment was made on this, and it was hardly useful. So what about how to go about ‘calling in’ racism rather than calling out? Yes, this was the best part of the module, but again, we don’t need the Teaching Council to waste our money telling us what we either know from interpersonal experience or could learn from a brief perusal of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Finally, did we learn how to live with discomfort when we’re wrong? No, not really.

If this were a lesson that a colleague had put together and I was being asked to review it, I would be having words with them about the mismatch between the lesson objectives and the lesson content. So in summary, another fail from the Teaching Council.

Department of Truth

Media is supposed to criticize and investigate the powers that be. They should be a counterweight to the power of a government. But in New Zealand, our media has become a wing of the government. It has become the Department of Propaganda Truth for the Government. The god of State needs its false prophets to teach the people the word of god. No doubt my readers have heard of the $55 million bribe Public Interest Journalism Fund. Here is an article on Stuff where they unashamedly announce that they will receive $591,465 for their “The Whole Truth project which is designed to counter misinformation where it occurs about Covid-19.” No doubt this information, bought and paid for by our taxes, will be used to support the government’s narrative on everything Covid. No doubt anything that doesn’t fit our government’s approach and views on this topic will ever see the light of day on Stuff. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The Directory for Private (Family) Worship #8

Today we continue our walkthrough of the Directory for Private Worship. The eighth direction focuses on the use of the Lord’s day (Sunday). The authors of the directory are, I think Sabbatarians, and so have a very high view of this day and how it is to be used. Not all Christians have the same understanding of the Lord’s day, but there is certainly wisdom in the following directions for its use.

On the Lord’s day, after every one of the family apart, and the whole family together, have sought the Lord (in whose hands the preparation of men’s hearts are) to fit them for the publick worship, and to bless to them the publick ordinances, the master of the family ought to take care that all within his charge repair to the publick worship, that he and they may join with the rest of the congregation: and the publick worship being finished, after prayer, he should take an account what they have heard; and thereafter, to spend the rest of the time which they may spare in catechising, and in spiritual conferences upon the word of God: or else (going apart) they ought to apply themselves to reading, meditation, and secret prayer, that they may confirm and increase their communion with God: that so the profit which they found in the publick ordinances may be cherished and promoved, and they more edified unto eternal life.

Here they hold the ‘master of the family’ responsible for ensuring the family prepares for public worship on the Lord’s day, and then that all attend public worship. After this, the authors of the directory require that he prays with the family and questions them as to what they have learnt in the service. Then he is to ensure the rest of the day, as far as possible, is spent in catechising (questions and answers on doctrinal truths), and talking about the Scriptures together, or in individual reading, meditation and personal prayer for the purpose. Ultimately, the desire for this manner of spending a Sunday is to ensure that the public worship has the utmost impact and effect on the spiritual lives of those who attend.

How important is this? It certainly seems there is some helpful truth to glean from this approach. I want to focus on the impact of the father on his home and the spiritual lives of his children. Fathers are essential to the health of the Christian faith. This should come as no surprise, but in an age that denigrates masculinity, many in the feminised church will be surprised by statistics like the ones I am about to share from an article by Robbie Low on men and the church. Low shares research that shows the impact fathers have on whether their children will continue in the faith. “In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular).” The authors of the directory would not have been surprised by this. The face we are is an indication of our denigration of fatherhood.

Fathers intimately involved in the spiritual lives of their children and wife will have an impact. God will see that this faithfulness bears fruit. So this is an encouragement to those of us who are fathers to sow liberally. Let us ensure we take our family to worship, even when we do not feel like it. Let us ensure that we mark out regular time in family life to reflect on what we learn in sermons and in Scripture. Let us encourage our children to develop daily habits of reading and reflecting on Scripture. And let us pray that God in his grace and mercy blesses these efforts.