The day the first Gulf War started, I traveled from Montreal to Kuala Lumpur, through Paris, and Mumbai. En route, I did not know whether the war had begun. When I got to my hotel in Kuala Lumpur, I called my wife in Montreal, and she exclaimed, “Turn on the TV, we are at war!” I flicked it on, but there was nothing about the war. The next two days, I called my wife often. In Kuala Lumpur, I heard, read, or saw nothing about the war.

Before that trip, press freedom was a remote idea. However, the silence in Kuala Lumpur was so eerie, I began to cherish press freedom. I believe a free press must examine both sides of events; we can’t accept one view alone. Sadly, political correctness has crept in, and one view only of Black America is acceptable to liberals. Everyone must ignore root causes of issues. When we discuss a matter such as absent fathers, victims attack and pressure for an apology.

I was shocked to read that Naomi Schaefer Riley’s article in the Chronicle, The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations,needed an apology. Really? Why? As a Canadian disgusted with political correctness, it irks me to see victim-pandering proliferating.

I do not know Naomi Schaeffer Riley. I never read her blogs, books, or earlier articles. I read the current article a few times, and, honestly, I am stumped. What is the problem? I know much about two items she mentioned.

First, the subprime mortgage crisis. I cannot imagine one person, black or white, getting an unaffordable mortgage without realizing he or she could not afford it. Folks, the premise of that era was wrong: Housing prices would go up forever. Greedy black people, and greedy white people bought and sold houses recklessly; some got hurt. It is claptrap, to say, “The subprime lending crisis, if it did nothing else, highlighted the profitability of racism in the housing market.” Schaeffer Riley, could have been less generous. Nobody has to read an entire thesis to know that statement is absurd.

Second, to say black conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, (Oops; I am black, and I am conservative!) ‘played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them,’ is beyond claptrap. It is offensive. The student who wrote this thesis needs to study the former Soviet Union’s collapse to learn that wealth redistribution doesn’t work. She should examine government spending on entitlement programs, and then check the results. Wake up people; “if you do not know where you are going, you will get there!”

Schaeffer Riley’s final paragraph highlight some issues Black America must tackle. I would add, the absent dad. Where are they?

What about the Chronicle’s apology? The victim machine caused the Chronicle to cave in. According to the Chronicle, many people said Schaeffer Riley’s article “did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.” It continued, “We’ve heard you, and we have taken to heart what you said.” Hearing and taking to heart, is excellent. Does that mean Schaeffer Riley was not entitled to express a view that many people like me share?

Truth must trump political correctness. What is fairness in opinion articles? Is it presenting the political correct view only? What’s unjust about Schaeffer Riley’s article? Was her subprime comment unfair? It was factual. Are conservative people, like me, against civil rights?

The only way to solve a problem is to identify, accept, and address it. Significant progress has been made in Black America. Still, there is a long road to travel. But we must stop the blame game, and stop using the victim card.

Imagine if folks accepted that there are real problems with absent dads, and teen pregnancies; just these two alone. After, individuals and private groups focus on tackling these challenges. Wow; think about it! Resources channeled away from entitlement programs, individuals start taking responsibility for their actions, and by God’s grace, real behavior change start happening. I’d better wake up.

Article first published as Liberals and Victims Attempt to Squash Naomi Schaefer Riley’s Commentary on Black Studies in The Chronicle on Technorati.

This news item sums up the issue of a 19-year-old Nova Scotia schoolboy suspended, then reinstated because he wore regularly, a t-shirt saying, Life Is Wasted Without Jesus. After returning, his dad pulled him from school.

The articles I read about this matter focus on the t-shirt’s message. Comments include: It is offensive; it is exclusionary; it’s not personal like, “I believe in Jesus.” However, I don’t think the message on the t-shirt is the issue. Instead, I think it is our continuing drift to a tolerance level that tries to preclude people from expressing a view about Christianity. Often, I hear Christians classified as homophobic. Never have I heard Christian antagonists called Jesus-phobic or Christo-phobic; have you?

This incident is similar to changing the name of the Christmas tree to the holiday tree; moving to Happy Holidays, from Merry Christmas; preventing prayers in school, and so on.

Ryan Dobson wrote one of my favorite books: Be Intolerant Because Some Things Are Just Stupid. On page 24 he sums up this t-shirt incident:

I see many t-shirts with messages with which I disagree; some I find offensive. Still, I ignore them, because I am not a victim. I can control only my beliefs. Canadians have become so politically correct that expressing a long held moral belief might land me before a Human Rights body.

If this incident happened before the enhanced tolerance era, would it have been an issue? Did the young man act rudely, or otherwise behaved inappropriately? If he did, he should be scolded, and we deal with his behavior, instead of his t-shirt.

The t-shirt states precisely what I believe as a Christian. That’s what Christians believe. Some ask why he has to flaunt his beliefs. They say he should keep them private. Why? The more important matter is this: As a Christian he should respect others, and treat each person as he would like to be treated. As I said before, if he behaved badly, we should deal with his behavior, but let him wear his t-shirt.

Maybe one reason our public education system is a mess is because we have forgotten that it should stress education instead of political correctness.


Article first published as Life Is Wasted Without Jesus T-Shirt: What’s Offensive? on Technorati.

At the start of a marriage, if husband or wife plans to be a stay-at-home parent, save 100% of the income that might stop. Even if married for several years and one spouse might not stay-at-home, as the Lord leads, set a goal, and develop a plan to live on one income.

Unless God tells you differently, save the unspent income in a Capital Fund or other account you set up specifically to buy major items (“Fund”). Use these funds to pay for big-ticket items that won’t fit the operating spending plan. As well, future home schoolers should use this Fund for extra costs that might result from the move to one income, such as books, tables, chairs. If in debt other than a mortgage, before saving in the Fund, prepare a debt repayment schedule, and repay non-mortgage debts.

Journey to One Income Living

If God leads you and your family to live on one income, go for it. You will need His PhD to start, and stay committed:

You might find these suggestions helpful:

Husband and wife should do a household financial plan, including spending plan, Capital Fund, and Material Worth Statement (listing of stuff owned at market value, less debts). To lower debt or raise cash, ask God if you should sell “valuables.”

At first, do not be surprised when expenses exceed the lone income. That’s normal, even at the third attempt! Go back, review assumptions, eliminate more wants, ask God for His insights.

To track future household activities and finances, decide to start a Family Council (board of directors for the home) or equivalent. One person should write-up the books, but the family should be involved in household decisions.

Get tax advice about the projected one-income household. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Summary

Giving up one income to be home with children is not a financial, but a lifestyle decision, which job-loss could force on you. It’s hard work.
Though Doreen and I were not Christ followers when we decided to live on one income, in hindsight, we know it was right. We sacrificed, especially the first five years when Doreen and our two young children didn’t have access to convenient, reliable transport. As a grandparent, I assure you, sacrifices today to train up children “in the way they should go,” are small in the big picture–they are temporary, with permanent rewards.

Copyright (C) 2009, 2012, Michel A. Bell

Michel A. Bell is author of the The New Managing God’s Money-The Basics, teacher, preacher, founder and president of Managing God’s Money.

Often, couples tell me they want to live on one income so one spouse could stay home with their children. But, they say, “We can’t afford to.” Many continue emphatically, “The way things are today, we won’t be able to afford this!”

“Have you tried living on one and three-quarters income? One and a half?” I ask. Bewildered, in unison, they say, “Hmm; no, we haven’t! Staring at each other, they retort, “We never thought of that!”

Consumerism is Alive and Well

So entrenched is consumerism in our society, we don’t realize that corporations condition our thinking. They cause us to redefine wants as needs; convince us we can eat junk food, take pills, and still be healthy; and they condition us to be dissatisfied with the status quo.

Merchants persuade us, overtly and subliminally, that we need their latest stuff. They entice us with cunning financing arrangements to buy their goods and services, even when we don’t need them. We oblige: we upgrade stereos, cellphones, cars, kitchens, clothes. Popular reality TV shows encourage us to upgrade, too. And so, as our families increase, we think we need larger homes, different transports, and more stuff⎯often, more means latest models!

Unwittingly, this conditioning leads some couples to expect living standards that seem affordable only with two incomes. Besides, it causes them to use the wrong variable, money, to decide lifestyle issues. Rather than set a goal and then decide how to do it, folks look at money as the goal⎯the end, not the means. That is why, folks I counsel realize slowly that the decision to live on one income is not a financial, but a lifestyle decision with financial implications. Did you get that?

Separate the Goal from the Plan

As an executive management practitioner for over 30 years, I am amazed at how, in business and in our private lives, we confuse goals, and plans. We don’t realize the goal is the destination, which doesn’t change. Usually it is clear, complete, concise, and measurable. The plan is the steps to do the goal. Often, the plan is fuzzy to start, and sometimes is evasive and challenging as we work to the goal. We might need to examine several different plans to see which might work best.

Here, the goal is to live on one income by a specific date. The plan is how and when to do it. Though related, they are separate sequential steps, which, sadly, couples link, and then they freeze!

Forty years ago, in the height of the women’s liberation movement, when it was important to many women to work outside the home, in my third year in college, I married Doreen. We were broke but decided we would start a family and live on one, low income. That was our goal. To carry it out, our plan, we made some crucial decisions:

First, we would not borrow to supplement income. Still, I succumbed to the temptation for our first stereo and carried consumer debt for about a year.

Second, we would not try to live a two-income lifestyle with one income⎯Doreen’s to start, mine after graduation.

Third, we would not consider buying a home until we could live on one income that would accommodate house-owning costs and responsibilities. Meanwhile, we would furnish our rented home in stages, based on available cash.

Fourth, we would buy an inexpensive economical car for my transport to work. We would not borrow to buy a second car. This decision caused a huge challenge for Doreen⎯we lived in the country with no public transport, and no convenient alternative to do her regular chores outside the home.

Fifth, we would not eat out. For lunch at the office, I ate the previous evening’s left overs⎯a practice I continued, and enjoyed, as a senior executive.

Sixth, we decided not to revisit the decision to live on one income. Rather, we would look constantly at different ways to do it. Exodus 3:10 and 12 show an excellent goal-setting example: God gave Moses the goal, which didn’t change. Though the plan frustrated him, Moses kept at it.

In part two, I present suggestions for couples as they start the marriage journey.

Copyright (C) 2012, Michel A. Bell

Michel A. Bell provides free Christian financial advice. He is author of the The New Managing God’s Money-The Basics, teacher, preacher, founder and president of Managing God’s Money.

I just finished grading my college students’ final exam papers. I was delighted by the enthusiasm reflected in their answers to the disguised, real-life case study. I drilled into them that their only control over the exam was their preparation; that is it! Therefore, instead of worrying about the likely result, I suggested they focused on what they managed, and the right result would follow. They did, and it delighted me.

Likewise, a budget deals with future events, which you cannot predict or control. That’s why you must focus on what you can influence–the assumptions, which must be realistic.

Albeit you cannot predict the result, the immense learning you get during these three budget phases, should convict you to work with a budget: preparation, probabilities, and the execution. The issue is not whether you will get the correct result by working with a budget. It is defining realistic assumptions and goals in advance, and adjusting your behavior as you progress to them.

Before examining the three phases, let’s understand the goal of a budget. Simply, it is to identify and cost resources needed to get to specific future goals.

Preparation

In the preparation phase, you have two objectives. First, you develop practical goals and assumptions. Second, you pinpoint opportunities and challenges that might affect your journey to achieve your goals. If one of your goals is to save enough for your education expenses, the preparation stage will help you see how much sacrifices you might need to do this. Alternatively, it might show you that there should be no issues.

Here are specific lessons you could learn as you prepare the budget:

You will understand the likely available resources, and choices you have, and so allocate funds and time in advance, in the most effective manner. Without this process, you will react to events, often with limited options.
You will get a holistic view of your financial health: what you have, and how that might affect what you would like to do. If you are in debt, this will constrain your action. You would know this early, and implement plans compatible with that state. If you by-passed this phase, you would move along, only to halt midway, because you ran out of funds.

If you are unhappy with your financial health, the starting point for the budget must show that state. This will be what you must work with. Therefore, you will need to decide before your journey, which plans or projects to accelerate, decelerate, or stop, to take you to your destination.
Considering available resources, you will understand the time you might need to reach your goals. At this early stage, you can choose to change priorities and resource allocation, if this time is unacceptable.

Probability

Integral to the preparation phase, but a separate activity, is the need to look at different alternatives’ likelihood of success. With this, you can decide how much risk you are willing to accept before committing to specific goals. As well, you can decide between competing goals. You might have to choose between accelerating mortgage repayment, early car replacement, remodeling the bath room, or a vacation.

Examining the likely effects before deciding, might comfort you as you decide. Besides, it will highlight areas for specific monitoring as you progress. This leads to the third key.

Execution

After you do the budget you should follow the plan to get to the goals identified.

However, as you enter the budget period, the budget assumptions might turn out to be dissimilar to yours. They won’t be  wrong, just different: the gas price, food prices, clothing, school fees, and so on, might vary from what you estimated. That’s fine; the key is to monitor your progress on the path, and immediately you spot a change in assumption, you recalculate its effects and adjust your behavior.

If the gas price is higher, you must review transport plans to see if you can reduce the amount of driving. If you cannot, you must look at other areas for behavior adjustments. Maybe, you must defer buying clothes, and so on. The important point is that you must control your reaction to events. If you do not, you will follow events and borrow funds to do what you planned with the earlier, outdated assumptions.

Summary

You need to do each step to benefit. Doing one without three, or two but not one, will not be optimal. Following these three budget stages is not a panacea for your financial health. However, the lessons you learn should help build your confidence, which in turn, should lower your anxiety about financial.

Nevertheless, the key is to understand that if you choose to spend without a budget, events will lead you to debt. Essentially, they will control you.

Copyright (C) 2012, Michel A. Bell

Michel A. Bell is author of The New Managing God’s Money-The Basics, teacher, preacher, founder and president of Managing God’s Money.

I have been working with personal budgets over 47 years from I was 18 and decided to go to college in London, England. Before leaving Jamaica, where I was born, my mom and I sat down and developed a detailed budget for the first year. After looking at my needs for food, clothing, shelter, limited entertainment, books, transport, we decided on 30 British pounds monthly.

My mom taught bookkeeping and other administrative courses to secretaries at a commercial college. I observed her for years, and knew that when you created a budget, you adjusted your lifestyle continually, to live in it. Trying to complain constantly about wanting more money is the victim path she rejected, which impressed me. Accordingly, I committed to my mom that I would live inside my monthly budget. In four years in college, while it was challenging, I did.

In those days, I learned a lot about budgets. I learned one overarching lesson, and knew that to achieve it, I needed to avoid three significant budget traps.

The simple, but profound lesson I learned early was there is a limit to money available each month, and I must respect that limit. Obvious, but often disregarded by folks. Thirty pounds, meant that’s all I could spend in one month, unless I spent less in earlier months. To date, I have never carried forward to the following month, a balance on my credit card and so, I have never paid interest on my credit card.

To stay in my budget, I understood there were these three potential hazardous traps that I needed to avoid:

Money In The Bank Trap

When you work with a budget, regularly you must look at two different views. First, continually compare what you have done, with what you planned to do. This helps you identify and keep your eyes on money drivers. Second, compare the actual cost with the comparable budgeted cost. If you planned to buy two DVDs at $30 each, and you bought one for $45, using my method, you will know you have a potential problem. You might overspend your budget. You needed two DVDs at $30 each. Now, you can buy a second DVD, only if it costs $15 or less.

I learned this lesson early, when I bought two Otis Redding record albums. I had budgeted six pounds for three albums and spent six pounds for two. However, because I had not bought other budgeted items, my bank account looked healthy; I had about 15 pounds. Instead of looking at my individual budget for money drivers, I bought another record album for three pounds, only to discover later that money for Tube tickets (subway tickets), and other budgeted expenses were in the bank account, waiting to be spent. I adjusted my lifestyle: reduced traveled, ate less, to stay in my budget that month.

The take away from this is to look always at money drivers for each budget item, never look at money in the bank to decide how much to spend. In my examples, the number of DVDs and record albums were the money drivers.

Only Trap

I think one of the most profound quotes that affects how we spend is this Benjamin Franklin quote: “Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship.” [more...]

Michel A. Bell is an author of the The New Managing God’s Money-The Basics,teacher, preacher, founder and president of Managing God’s Money.

Copyright © 2012, MIchel A. Bell

Politicians lie, cheat, waste taxpayers funds, get reelected and continue the cycle. Some leave after a short time with their mission accomplished; they can collect a full pension. Canada’s federal politicians receive a pension after serving in parliament for a mere six years; the eligibility period is less in some provinces. Any wonder we have so many opportunistic, ignorant, and incompetent people running government?

Governments prepare meaningless budgets with rosy targets to coerce a financially illiterate public to vote for them, and they succeed. Unlike households, governments have access to unlimited financing. They raise funds either by taxing, or by borrowing; and again, unlike households, they measure their progress by the amount they spend on projects. The more they spend the greater progress they claim. They ignore the effectiveness of money spent. They spend recklessly, waste funds, are caught, and still, we reelect them. Federal liberals spent billions on the ill-conceived long gun registry, which recently the conservative government succeeded in scrapping. Nobody was held accountable for the waste.

Take the Ontario government. The current premier, Dalton McGuinty is serving his third term, although to get elected the first time, he signed a pledge not to raise taxes, and broke it immediately. This was just the start. He has shown his incompetence in many ways, but he survives. He has taken Ontario on a spending spree that has driven the province deep in debt. Since 2008, net debt as a per cent of GDP climbed 10 points from 27 per cent to 37 per cent. Liberals will rush to remind me that the economy slowed and that’s why spending increased. Wait one second, my friends. Where is the empirical evidence to show that more government spending is the antidote for sluggish growth? 

Today, McGuinty and his cronies have presented a budget, which history has shown will prove to be meaningless. They need opposition support to pass. Thankfully, the conservatives will vote against it, but to get its support the further-left NDP are trumpeting the usual rhetoric of taxing the wealthy and businesses.

After observing the federal conservatives in five years rack up a huge deficit, expand government, waste money among different areas, I am stunned. After all, they are meant to be the fiscal conservatives. Except for the NDP folks, who have a track record of even more excessive waste, does it matter if we elect liberals or conservatives? In Canada, fiscally, I am not sure! They all seem to be equally incompetent, irresponsible, deceptive, and wasteful! 

God, help us!

Michel A. Bell is an author of the The New Managing God’s Money-The Basics, teacher, preacher, founder and president of Managing God’s Money, and a former senior business executive. For Christian financial advice, advice on personal effectiveness improvement, and other leadership matters, visit: http://managinggodsmoney.com.

Copyright © 2012, Michel A. Bell

Sixty percent of Canadians polled recently by RateSupermarket.ca indicate that they are uncomfortable with their current debt level. A majority of the 2,929 respondents cited everyday expenses for their debt. Canadians continue to deflect responsibility for their decisions to credit, financial institutions, everywhere.

Mortgage rates are low and fueling excessive spending on residential homes. Average housing prices at twelve-times disposable income concerns me. In the previous housing crisis in the late 1980s, it was ten-times. What’s more, at the end of 2011, residential housing investment as a percentage of GDP was 7%, the same level as in the 1980s crisis; the 50 year average is 5.8%. In the U.S., in the mid 2000s, this ratio peaked about 6 percent, and housing crashed shortly after. As well, Japan’s housing market collapsed just after that ratio peaked in the 1980s. Will things be different here? I do not think so.

Many households are at risk, but few are doing anything about it. Still, they buy homes and consumer items with cheap credit. I suggest households embrace this DNA Household Strategy as the first step in behavior adjustment, before Canada’s impending personal financial crisis wallops many individuals.

Individuals in each household needs to declare détente, withdraw to the neutral zone, and then start to attack their debts.

Détente

Détente is the easing of hostility or strained relations, especially between countries. How does this apply to households? With whom do they have hostilities or strained relations? Individuals in households confront personal lifestyle choices daily. Cheap credit, seductive finances, fancy grown-up toys, tempt us continually. How can we resist unless we recognize this, and plan to deal with it?

That’s why I suggest each person should stand in front of a mirror to declare détente with him, her…you! You the spendthrift, you the impulsive buyer, you who like grown-up toys decide to stop hostilities against your credit. Stop it now! Agree to end the pulling and tugging, which credit wins every time.

Formalize this decision by signing a covenant indicating that for at least one year, you will refrain from using credit cards, credit lines; all credit forms. As well, agree not to buy consumer items unless you need them to fulfill a legal, moral, ethical, or health reason. Get a trusted friend to witness this agreement, and to hold you accountable to stay with it. This is the start of détente.

Neutral Zone

After signing this covenant, withdraw to the neutral zone to develop a new approach to lifestyle choices. First, cut up all credit cards and decide to start working with a spending plan. Next, resolve to use cash or checks only, and then, exclusively for items in your budget. In the neutral zone, you do not go shopping, respond to sales, deals, or tempting financing. When the urge to spend impulsively comes, read your détente statement, which you should have with you always. Remain in the neutral zone until you repay all consumer debts, and lower your mortgage to a comfortable level.

Attack

The third plank of the DNA strategy is the attack phase: start attacking your debts. First, prepare a debt repayment schedule, next, a material worth statement, and then, a plan to use to talk with your creditors.

A debt repayment schedule, as the name implies, lists your debts and shows this information: Amounts owing, creditors, interest rates, monthly, twice weekly, or other payment period, and expected dates when at current repayment, you will repay each debt.

Your material worth statement, akin to a balance sheet,lists all items you own at values someone would pay for each (market value), less your debts, to yield your net equity. Review this statement to see whether you could sell items to lower debts. You might conclude that you should sell your house to lower your debts and ongoing expenses and rent until your circumstances improved. These are major decisions. Discuss them with a trusted independent advisor; pray about them. Remember, you got in debt over an extended period, and so it is likely that you will get out over a long stretch. That’s why you must forget the home run, be patient, and stay with the program.

After doing these statements and your budget, you will know your financial health and will be ready to talk with your creditors about relief. Be humble, polite, and realistic. Financial institutions prefer dealing with you instead of debt collection agencies. If you are sincere, truthful, and have a well-thought-out plan washed in prayer, they are likely to give some relief on interest rates or amounts outstanding; most likely, interest rates.

Conclusion

No longer is the question, will we have a household debt crisis? It is, when will this happen? The answer is, probably in one to two years at the latest.

Canadians cannot continue the current rate of spending on consumer items with cheap credit. Housing activities cannot keep going at the present pace. Something must give. Interest rates must start creeping up. Are you ready for the storm?

The DNA strategy is a great defense, but only if you start now!

Copyright 2012, Michel A. Bell

For information on living a debt free lifestyle, visit http://managinggodsmoney.com.
Michel A. Bell is a Christian, an author, speaker, founder and president of Managing God’s Money, a mission devoted to providing free Christian financial advice and Bible-based money management tips fusing his business expertise with His Christian walk.

Here we go again. Unions demanding more from Air Canada, and Canada’s myopic federal government dashing to stop a strike. When I listen to Minister of Labor Lisa Raitt talk about this matter, she reminds me of a first-year business student who does not grasp the subject. The minister justifies this meddling act by claiming the government must guard the economy and shield the public.  Has the minister forgotten that Air Canada is a publicly traded corporation? Government must allow it to act within the law, and in its best interest. Air Canada must be free to lock out its employees. Similarly, government must let workers strike, if they have that legal right. Air Canada’s workers do.

Why is government interfering with Air Canada, preempting it from acting to solve this challenge? It is highly likely that this government decision will destroy long-term shareholder value. It hampers the corporation’s latitude, and curbs unions’ flexibility. Notably, it could be the tipping point hastening Air Canada’s trip to bankruptcy protection.

If the government believes an Air Canada strike harms the economy, it has other options. It can change foreign ownership limits to allow more competitors. WestJet, with Southwest Airlines’ successful business model, does well without unions. Why not allow room for others to compete head-to-head with Air Canada, and give the public more choices? This might lead to a smaller Air Canada, fewer workers, and fewer unions. Besides, it might entice unions to focus on Air Canada’s long-term viability.

Why do Air Canada and its unions keep battling? Air Canada has outdated human-resource management practices. Surely, it takes two parties to bargain. Even so, Air Canada must realize that the hostile labor relations environment has failed. To survive long term, union-management relationships must change drastically. What will it take for Air Canada and its unions to realize that they must work as long-term partners? They have fought many battles using the current failed model.

Maybe a protracted strike that leads to bankruptcy might be the catalyst for Air Canada’s break up. Other players could pick up pieces of Air Canada and define new engagement rules. This would have negative, manageable short-term effects on the economy. WestJet could ramp up its services, and government could allow foreign carriers to transport passengers between Canadian airports. In the long-term, Air Canada would not have unions snapping at its heels, constantly holding the public at ransom. Read more of this article first published as Canadian Public Needs a Protracted Air Canada Strike on Technorati.

Why are so many Christians bound by tithing? A tithe means one-tenth. It is not sacred, merely a tenth. Why do people refuse to study the Bible to see God’s truth on this subject? They insist it is today’s biblical standard. Nevertheless, that is an intellectual exercise because the average giving is less than five percent.

After I present the truth about tithing to various groups, they tell me it is “a different way of thinking.” These folks agree with the Scriptures that tithing under the Mosaic Law was a tax on farmers alone, designed to serve three specific purposes: (1) provide for Levites Numbers 18:21-32, (2) celebrate and revere the Lord, Deuteronomy 14:23-27, and (3) feed the less fortunate in society, Deuteronomy 14:28-29. Still, they find several dubious reasons to continue to cling to, but not practice that belief.

The issue is beyond a new or different way of thinking. It is a journey to find the truth.

The tithing law ended when Jesus rose from the dead. Read the Scriptures, particularly Hebrews chapters seven and eight; you will see clearly that tithing does not apply today.

Folks, Christians have the Holy Spirit to show us the truth. Tithing does not apply today; this is true. Therefore, decide if you want the truth, and then, look through the Bible, and you will find it. After this, ask the Lord to show you how to adjust your lifestyle. You will have to move from North America’s trinity of me, myself, and I, and from prosperity gospel teachings.

When you view tithing as a “way of thinking,” subconsciously, you see keeping 90% as the “way of living.” When you see that tithing does not apply today as the truth, you will see the right way to handle God’s money. After that, the goal becomes a journey with the Lord to adjust your lifestyle to conform to His truth.

If we say God owns everything, we mean we must manage 100% of lifestyle decisions as His steward. This is another way to say tithing would show an inappropriate response to God’s ownership of 100%. The real question is this: what does stewarding 100% of God’s money look like? It is the lifestyle of God’s steward. That’s the essence of managing God’s money for His glory.

In North America, we have a major problem because we live in silos. We have a money-life, a church-life, a work-life, and so on. Therefore, we separate handling money from following Jesus according to the Scriptures.

As well, many TV preachers distort the word and tell us that we deserve more and better. These preachers knowingly or unknowingly, take Malachi 3:10 out of context to appeal to people’s greed. They ignore the truth that this verse refers to priests who were ripping off God’s portion as stated in Malachi chapter one. They neglect to tell you that in Malachi 3:10, God challenged these priests to do what’s right according to Deuteronomy 11:26-28. After that, He said He would bless their obedience. It is their obedience that He promised to bless. Instead of teaching this truth, these preachers tell you the lie that you should give, and you will get; the more you give the more you get. Nonsense!

These preachers will have to account to God [...read the full article]

Michel A. Bell is an author, speaker, founder and president of Managing God’s Money, and a former senior business executive. For more Christian financial advice, and tithing visit: http://www.managinggodsmoney.com/mgm/tithing.php

(C) Copyright 2012, Michel A. Bell