I'll begin reading. I'll read here in Acts 5. I'll read verses 1 and 2, but I'm going to take you back to chapter 4 in a moment. But I'll begin by reading verses 1 and 2, and I'll lead back to that. Luke writes a certain man named Ananias with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession and he kept back part of the proceeds. His wife also being aware of it. And brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet. You might want to turn to chapter 4 verse 23. I'll be picking up there in just a moment. Now in our last study, we saw two reactions to a message that was given by the apostle Peter. As you know, Peter and John had gone to the temple to pray at the hour of prayer, which I pointed out was 3 p.m. And as they were about to enter, there was a crippled man. He had asked for alms, and instead of giving him alms, Peter had done something much greater. By the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter had performed a miracle. He made the man to walk. The man was healed. Now as we've seen, he'd been crippled from his mother's womb, but it was made to walk. He had walked there into the temple, and he began to walk, and he began to leap, and he began to praise God. And when this happened, a crowd formed a marvel at what had happened. So we saw how that had given Peter an opportunity to preach to them about Jesus while he was there outside of the gates there in what was called Solomon's porch. And so he began to preach. He was telling them about the Lord, and Peter's message had two basic effects. Some who heard the message believed what he had said, and they came to faith, and the result was that the number of men of the church grew to be about 5,000, but others who heard what he was saying had a different reaction. Now obviously there were some in the crowd who heard but rejected Jesus, and that reminds us that not everyone hearing the gospel will have a desire to receive salvation. Now the ones who most openly rejected the message were the religious leaders. These men had faith in the religious system, and so they rejected Jesus Christ, and the result was that they put Peter and John into custody. Now Peter's message had been centered on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and these leaders who were so upset were from a group called the Sadducees, and they rejected the resurrection. Acts 23 verse 8 says, the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things. So they put Peter and John into custody, and the next day they questioned them, and they were angered as we saw. They were angered and troubled that they said that Jesus had been resurrected.  Well Peter being filled with the Holy Spirit boldly made it clear how it had happened. He said it was in Jesus' name whom they crucified, but God raised from the dead. It was in his name that this man was able to be made to walk. Now he'd already said something similar when he had preached initially to the people. Acts 3.16 says that Peter said, his name through faith in his name has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. So Peter and John's boldness made them take note of what they were saying. These were men who were not formally trained. They were without status, but the work couldn't be denied. They didn't want the message to be spreading any further. So what they did is they tried to stop them. They threatened them severely. They promised them great punishment if they continued to preach in the name of Christ. So they were not to preach. They were not to pray. They were not to perform any more miracles in this name. They couldn't deny what had happened, and they feared the people because the common people had heard Jesus gladly and this once again is happening. They wanted this Jesus' movement to be crushed from its beginning. But instead the men would not stop preaching in Jesus' name. The most they could do was threaten them. They found no way to punish them. And so because of this they let them go, having nothing to charge them with. It says in verse 23, being let go, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. So they returned to their friends. That's probably referring to the original 120. Now these men had spent a night in jail. They boldly have proclaimed Jesus to the council. They had been threatened. They were tired. They were drained. They needed encouragement. They needed comfort. You see persecution has a way of drawing believers into unity and support. What happens is in battle petty things disappear. You begin to focus on the things that are more important. So they went to their own companions according to verse 23, and they reported what had happened. They went to their own companions. Literally they went to their own people. These are their own people. These are the ones who were undoubtedly praying for them. And they gave them a report of what had happened. And they gave the response. Now I want you to notice something. The result wasn't that they complained against the religious leaders. They weren't saying things like, how dare they treat us like this? Don't they know who we are? Don't they see our authority and our power?   But what is it that they did? Well, it tells us that they lifted up their voices in prayer. It says in verse 24, when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said, Lord, you are God who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them who by the mouth of your servant David have said, why did the nations rage and the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand. The rulers were gathered together against the Lord against his Christ for truly against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together to do whatever your hand and your purpose determined before to be done. Now Lord, look on their threats. Grant to your servants that with all boldness, they may speak your word by stretching out your hand to heal and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken.  And so what happened? Well, there are a few things that we can see taking place here as we roll into chapter five in just a moment. But I want you to see that as they're praying, we can learn things from them. In verse 24, it said, when they heard it, they raised their voice to God with one accord. When it says that they heard this and they raised their voice, first thing I want to point out is it was with one accord. They prayed in unity. They prayed with one mind. They prayed with one purpose. They heard this, but they raised their voice. And so with one accord, they're praying. You see, unity is an earmark of the early church. You've already seen that in chapter one, verse 14, as well as chapter two, verse one. We've seen it in Acts 246, which tells us they continue daily with one accord in the temple, breaking bread from house to house. And so with one accord, they were able to pray in unity, in oneness of heart, and they raised their voices together. They raised their voice. The second thing I want to point out in verse 24 is that they prayed with fervency. It says they raised their voice. So one, with one accord, two, they raised in their voice. It speaks of an intensity or a fervor. They were raising their voice with a passion. It wasn't just a mumbled kind of thing. It was something with some depth to it, with some understanding. And so they lifted their voices with emotional fervor, with intensity. It's like what it says in James 516, the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. And so they saw the need of the moment. They weren't lethargic about it. They were not unconcerned about it. They saw what was taking place. And because the church was unified and understanding that they had received from the Lord this mandate to proclaim the gospel, together they prayed and together in unity they were asking God to move. It says that they raised their voice to God in verse 24. They appealed to the sovereign God. They recognized his ultimate authority. They said, Lord, you are God who made heaven and earth and the sea when they speak to him. And they say that Lord, that word Lord is an interesting word. It's a Greek word despata. It's where you get the word despot from. It speaks of an absolute master. When they were speaking to God, they were speaking to the absolute master of all things. They were recognizing and appealing to his authority. They were saying everything, even the suffering that is about to take place. Everything is in your will. You are in total control of all events and we trust you. No matter what it looks like at the moment. Lord, you are the king of the universe. Lord, you are the one who has sovereign power. Lord, you know all things and are powerful and we're interceding to you. We're asking you to be our strength and we're doing so with a fervor of heart and intensity because we know that on the horizon there will be things that we have to deal with. They're forbidding us to speak in the name of your son Jesus and there are things on the horizon that we will deal with. So we're asking you to be with us in this because who else would we speak to? You made heaven. You made the earth and everything in it. You're in total control of all things and thus it is wise for us to speak to you. In verses 25 and 26 it's interesting to me how they begin to appeal to Scripture. It says, who by the mouth of your servant David have said, why did the nations rage? The people plod veined things. The kings of the earth took their stand. The rulers were gathered together against the Lord, against his Christ and so they're quoting Scripture. They're praying and appealing to Scripture which reveals their dependence on the word of God. Opposition is foreseen. We know that we're not going to be able to avoid it. So we're asking you to be with us. In Matthew 10, 17 Jesus said, be on your guard against men. They will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. So Lord we know that there are things on the horizon that we're about to endure. We're asking you to be with us. In verse 27 he went on to say, for truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together to do whatever your hand and your purpose determined before to be done. So we know that the opposition against us is really a rejection of Jesus Christ. Jesus in John 15, 18 said, if the world hates you understand it hated me first. The opposition that we as believers today is not simply against us. It's against the one we represent. It's the one that we serve and so we need to always understand that and so they're uniting against us and though they join forces they're only accomplishing what God you have determined because Jesus was given for the sin of the world according to His plan of salvation. And so they go on in verses 29 and 30.  Signs and wonders may be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus. Lord we want to please you. Grant us boldness. Listen one of the things I think that we today in the church need to be praying for is more boldness. It seems to me that sometimes Christians fold under very little pressure. If somebody threatens to cancel them in one form or another, Christians get upset and they're afraid to lose popularity or whatever. I'm not saying we should go out and pick fights with people. You know that's not a very effective way to evangelize guys. We know that. But we ought to have the courage to stand up for our convictions. We ought to have the ability to stand up and speak that which is true. We ought to be able to be counted by the Lord. I made a choice a long time ago that I would speak in the name of the Lord and I've been doing that now for quite some time. Why? Because it's the only voice I want to be speaking for. I want to speak for the Lord and so it's very important for us to pray for boldness. I ask the Lord for it because I think each one of us may get the idea. Well, sometimes people may get the idea that people like me and others like me are just naturally bold and the fact is we're not. We're not. You know, I was a hippie, man. Hippies got along. We kind of floated. You know, whatever you want to believe it, you know, as long as it doesn't hurt me, I don't really care. That was me. I started praying for courage and boldness to speak the truth when I was in the military. I got drafted and went into the service three months after I got saved and I can still remember when I was here at Fort Bragg in North Carolina that I would go off by myself. I would run every day six days out of the weekend and I can still remember as I would go down this particular path I would be praying for a couple of things. One of the things I prayed for was to learn to love people. That was a prayer I've prayed now since almost since I got saved. It's got helped me to love people to know how to do that. But the other thing was, and this was my prayer, I'll give you the actual words of the prayer like you're interested, but the words were give me a spine. Lord, give me a spine. I want to be strong for you because, listen, in the army it's easy to backslide. When you're in the military and you're around a lot of people who don't know the Lord, it's very easy to get lonely. It's very easy to just slide away. It's very easy to do that. So I would pray often and well actually daily, give me a spine, give me courage, and I would spend time in the Word and I had fellowship so I could grow in the things of the Lord. And I was praying constantly, God, I want to have courage. I want to have boldness because boldness has nothing to do with how big you are or how strong you are outside. Boldness has everything to do with how strong God is within you. And so you're asking the Lord, strengthen me from within. I don't want to be a person who kind of yields just because somebody believes very strongly about whatever it is they're saying. Lord, help me to be equipped, to be able to answer, to give an answer to anyone who has a question concerning the hope that lies within me. And give me the ability to speak it clearly and not to be afraid or the consequences that may come. And so that's what they're praying for. They've just been threatened severely and you're going to see what happens in the book of Acts. His persecution becomes very great. And so they're already praying, God grant that we may speak with boldness in the name of Jesus Christ. We've been commanded to no longer speak in the name of Christ. So we're saying strengthen us as we do. It's going to get worse. So grant us courage and strengthen the face of danger. We have received orders in the Great Commission. May we be found faithful. You performed a tremendous miracle. Empower us to do even more. In verse 31 it continues and it says, when they had prayed the place where they were assembled together was shaken, they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. They spoke the Word of God with boldness. So they were visited by the power of God. They were filled with God's Holy Spirit. And with courage and boldness they began to speak His Word. Persecution had actually strengthened them and had refined them. Their need for God increased even more. And it led to an even greater impact on the surrounding area. So as this is taking place, verse 32, the multitude of those who believed were one heart, one soul. Neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold and laid them at the apostles' feet and they distributed to each as anyone had need and and Joseph who was also named Barnabas by the apostles which is translated son of encouragement, a Levite of the country of Cyprus having land sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. And so the church is multiplying. It's growing rapidly. It's getting so large the numbers are no longer being recorded. The growth is a direct result of the Spirit of God moving among them. And once again I want you to notice this. Luke emphasizes they were of one heart and one soul. Now their unity was not coming through compromise in the word of God. Their unity was the result of faithfulness. They were sharing life together. They were worshiping God together. They were seeking peace together. They served one another and together they were reaching a lost world with the gospel. Notice verse 32. Neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own. So the fruit of this loving unity was generosity. They considered their possessions to be part of their stewardship. If someone had a need they made sure that that need was met. Now that's something that when I first got saved impressed me very much. The concern that these people had for one another coming from the background I came from which was a drug background. For me generosity was interesting because the people I hung around with took advantage of each other. We bargained with one another. I have a car. You have some grass. You give me some grass. I'll give you a ride. That's kind of how it worked. I didn't give you a ride. I bargained for it. You give me a few joints. I'll take you a few miles. That's how it was. And that's how all my friends were. So we took advantage of each other. Some of you know exactly what I mean by that. We took advantage.  You know if you were sitting at the table with me and you left your wine that was mine. Your wine is mine. I was that way and you'd come back and where'd it go? I said I don't know. Some guy came in and drank it. I don't know. He's gone. That was how we were. That's true. I'm not even teasing about that. That's a fact. So when I started going to this Christian guy's house and he was making meals for people and they were sharing with one another. These were people who were going to a church called Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa. And I was an unbeliever and I began seeing that. I thought these people are weird. These people are unique. I haven't ever seen this kind of thing. I was very impressed with that and it was a very much a New Testament style ministry that was taking place when our first God saved. This caring and concern for one another was unusual. But it's an evidence that God is actually moved in somebody's life. Notice in verse 33 it says with great power the apostles gave witness. They gave witness to the resurrection. So great power and grace was upon them. They were faithfully preaching the word. They'd been forbidden to do that but it's what they had to do. They didn't suppress the truth in order to avoid persecution. Now according to verses 34 and 35 no one had any. There was no one amongst them who lacked anything. You see some had remained after Pentecost and others may have lost their jobs as a result of what was taking place. But they remained. They remained to grow in Christ and then yet they were in financial need and this new community took care of one another and they did it in the name of Jesus. At first the apostles took oversight of this. Eventually it led to them handing things over to others. Now in verse 36 and 37 you're introduced to a guy named Jose. Oh I'm sorry. Joseph who was also named Barnabas by the apostles which is translated as a encouragement. He's a Levite. He's from the country of Cyprus. He had land. He sold it. He brought the money and laid it at the apostles feet. So this is the introduction of Barnabas. He's a Levite meaning he's a member of the priestly tribe. He's a Jew. He's from Cyprus. He's an encouraging man. He's a generous man and he's submitted to apostolic leadership. So we close with a picture of him as he's selling land and bringing the money and laying it at the apostles feet. Everything is going very good and now Satan tries to join the church. Satan tries to join the church. Verse one chapter five. A certain man named Ananias with Sapphira his wife sold the possession. He kept back part of the proceeds. His wife also being aware of it and brought a certain part laid it at the apostles feet. Now by this time generosity for the members of the church had become normal. From the birth of the church generous concern for the members became the norm. In Acts two forty four and forty five it says all who believed were together and had all things in common sold their possessions and goods divided them among all as anyone had need. You see the same thing in chapter four verse 32 as well as verses 34 and 35. God was moving in mighty ways. The people in the church were excited at what was happening. So Barnabas sold the possession and doing so there is a recognition he had actually gained praise and even authority because of his generosity and his character. So this provokes a couple by the name of Ananias and Sapphira. They're seeing what's taking place. So they want to join in on the action if you will. It seems that the couple wanted to receive attention. It may be that they even wanted to gain a position. Now Barnabas had sold land. He had given the proceeds to the church. So it seems that this couple thought that they could get attention or position with less sacrifice. He had sold property. He gave a portion over to the apostles care Ananias. But sadly his greed and his hunger for riches overruled any impulse to give in any kind of faith. Someone said it would seem that he had a partial victory over his avarice, over his greed. Now these are professing believers it appears but they're not true followers. How do we know that? Well because all who were genuine according to chapter 4 verse 32 were of one heart and one soul and these people were not. They weren't of this sort. They were trying they were trying to appear to be genuine believers. I saw that when I first got saved and into the first several months into the years first few years of my walk with the Lord. You see the Jesus movement that occurred that I was part of. There were quite a number of people who who liked the attention that was taking place at that time were where these wild-eyed hippie kids were getting saved and churches were being birthed and music was beginning and there were festivals and a variety of things that it actually for a while became kind of cool. There were people on in that ancient rock scene back in the 60s and 70s. There were people during that time who were actually professing to know Christ and there were people who were singing songs about Jesus. You know crystal blue persuasion. Tommy James some of you are old. I'm just throwing this out for the old people young people hold on. I was reading that that was actually inspired when Tommy James was reading I think it was time James was reading the book of Revelation and he saw the crystal sea before the throne of God and there were actual songs that were being inspired by by by the Bible and faith. It was an interesting time. Even John Lennon himself who who who wrote the song Imagine even he for a while was walking around saying praise Jesus. It was really interesting. A lot of the movers and shakers the influences of that day were being asked questions about faith in Christ. There were rocks operas you know Jesus Christ Superstar and then there were counter operas that were coming out like Tommy or Aqualung. It was an interesting time when the spirit began to move in a way that the name of Jesus began to be seen and then then those who were opposed to the name of Jesus began to come out. It was just an interesting time to be alive and so when I was around at that time I as a young Christian there were people who were you know who were professing Christ who who were going to the Bible studies who were carrying the 200 pound Bibles and all the bumper stickers in the back of their cars and stuff that after six months to a year it just faded away. There were a lot of I don't know if this word is even used anymore. A lot of posers people who were saying you know oh yeah I mean in fact they didn't and I knew people like that. Out of the about eight or so maybe eight or nine who were in the Volkswagen van when I got saved went to the Maranatha concert in Hollywood and it was a VW filled with people. Out of all those people that were in that van there's only two of them that I know are walking with the Lord. Now all the rest faded away because it was not a real change in their life. They were hooking up with and wanting to be like Christians because there were magazine articles being written about us. Time magazine was writing about us and they wanted to be part of that wave of coolness and all but eventually it crashed and they took off and so that isn't new. I've seen it. That isn't new when somebody kind of jumps on the wave and wants to ride for a while but he kicks out and that's it. It's over no more and so Ananias and Sapphira were watching. They saw what was taking place. They saw how Barnabas had sold a parcel of land laded at the authority of the apostles and so they had land themselves. They sold it too but they kept a portion of it for themselves. They put some of the proceeds under the direction of the apostles but they kept a portion for themselves. Now somebody says well why was it wrong to keep some of the prophets for themselves? Even giving a small portion should have been recognized as something generous and even it should have been recognized as something good but it seems that Ananias and Sapphira wanted to profit twice. First, they wanted the spiritual prestige of being thought to be generous and then secondly on a personal level they wanted to profit financially. Now God's word warned against this kind of action. It warns against the greedy accumulation of riches in Proverbs 21 verse 6, a fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare. The sin wasn't in making money on the sale of property. Their sin was in lying and pretending to give it to the Lord and so as this is taking place they brought this verse 2, brought a certain part, laid it at the apostles feet but Peter said Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? Well it remained was it not your own and after it was sold was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? Now notice this you have not lied to men but to God. Peter is exercising spiritual gifts. He's exercising the discernment of spirits as well as having a word of knowledge. When you look at the discernment, the gift of discernment, discernment of spirits that speaks of being able to read hearts if you will, it's determining whether something is true or not. The word of knowledge speaks of a knowledge that is supernatural. It's imparted by God and those gifts are noted in 1 Corinthians 12, verses 8 and 10 and so he's exercising spiritual gifts. Why? He's filled with the Holy Spirit and so he asked in verse 3, why has Satan filled your heart? Now notice to lie to the Holy Spirit instead of a word of praise, he was directly confronted. Notice how he asked, why has Satan filled your heart to lie? The impulse to lie was spiritual, it originated with Satan. By asking this we see that Ananias was open and Satan encouraged him to lie. Satan encouraged him to do what he desired to do. Satan took advantage of his inclinations, he used his greed to trap him. That's the same thing that had happened to Judas. Satan worked to incline his mind into betrayal. In Luke 22, verses 1 and 3, it says, the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover.  Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Ascariot, who was numbered with the twelve. John 13, 2 says the devil already put it into the heart. He suggested put into the heart of Judas Ascariot, Samson, to betray him. So he was working with something that was within him, and he began to inspire him to provoke him to the greed that already ruled him. Why has this happened? Verse 4, why have you conceived this thing in your heart? So Satan provokes the impulse, but the responsibility for yielding was on Ananias. The sin originated in himself. Satan didn't force him to sin. Ananias didn't have to sell his property. Ananias didn't have to give anything as a gift. He chose to do this and to misrepresent himself before the people, and because of this he was judged. Now I want you to see something else. It's very important. I want you to see this here. Notice in verse 4 how he says, he concludes by saying, you have not lied to men, but to God. That's very important theologically. I'll touch it for a second, but it's very important. Notice he's speaking of the Holy Spirit. This is the person of the Spirit. You cannot lie to. You cannot test an energy or a force. There are those who say that the Holy Spirit is God's energy. Jehovah's Witnesses will say it's his force. You cannot lie to a force. I can't lie to the lights. The Holy Spirit has personality. You cannot lie to or test a force, but secondly the deity of the Holy Spirit is revealed here. Peter said in lying to the Holy Spirit Ananias, you have lied to God. And that's what he says to him. You have not lied to men, but to God. Now Ananias hearing these words fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young man arose and wrapped him up, carried him out and buried him. Ananias heard these words and breathed his last. Peter didn't bring judgment. God did. God's judgment was swift and the sin was immediately dealt with. Why? What would happen if God did that now? I wouldn't be here and neither would you. This is a new work. It was a fresh work. The church had recently been birthed. The power of the Holy Spirit was residing upon the people. God was working in the church, and God is giving a warning. It's similar to what happened when God was working originally with the nation of Israel. We see it when God was teaching Israel what he demands in worship. It's found in Leviticus 10, 1 through 3, where it speaks of Moses's brother Aaron and Aaron's sons. It says Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abiyu, took their sensors, put fire in them and added incense, and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Moses then said to Aaron, this is what the Lord spoke of when he said, among those who approach me, I will show myself holy. In the sight of all people, I will be honored. And Aaron remained silent. The great fear, great fear according to verse 5, came upon all those who heard these things. And so verse 6, the young men arose and wrapped him up and carried him out. They buried him. When it says the young men, it speaks not only of their age, but their position. They were similar to what would eventually become deacons. They put him in a winding sheet. They buried him immediately. People were buried immediately, especially those under God's judgment. Because of the climate, the bodies would decay quickly. Well, this has taken place, notice verse 7. Well, about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened, Peter answered her, tell me whether you sold the land for so much. She said yes for so much. Peter said to her, how is it that you have agreed together to test the spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door and they will carry you out. And immediately, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. Great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things. And through the hands of the apostles, many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch, yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. So Peter gives her an opportunity. About three hours later, his wife came in and she didn't know what had happened. Three hours have passed and Ananias hasn't come home. So when Peter asked the question, she may have thought, well, maybe we're receiving more honor. Now there are those who would say she shouldn't have died. She was just loving her husband. She was just, you know, covering his back. But Peter speaks to her. Notice in verse eight how it says, he answered her. The word answered there is not as if she spoke to him. The word answer means to respond or to conclude. So he's speaking to her. And Sapphira knew her husband had done this. Sapphira had agreed with him. And even though it was he who lied, she consented to it, and she was all so guilty. Now she didn't outright lie. She agreed with it. And because of that, she received judgment. She ultimately had to give an account of herself, like it says in Romans 14 12, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. So together they desired to be regarded as important. But sadly, they weren't disciples at all. They just wanted to appear to be. And that's why Peter had said in verse nine, how is it that you agree together to test the spirit? How is it that you put to test the spirit of God? You see, in attempting to deceive the apostles, they were testing the spirit of God. Was the spirit really empowering these apostles? Was the spirit truly gifting them? Was the Holy Spirit really leading them? The church was in its infancy. Sin was not welcome in the body. And our sin was exposed and dealt with. Once again, the judgment of God was swift. It says in verse 11, that great fear came upon all the church. So the judgment brought purging of sin amongst the people and a holy fear. Notice how verse 13 says none of the rest dare join them. The people esteemed them highly. You see, I'm going to close with application. Great fear came upon all the church. If there's anything that the church needs to awaken to in our day, it's reverence and respect for the awesome power of God. If there's anything that is lacking in many Christians' lives, it's a lack of appreciation of God's majesty and holiness. There are many people I've encountered over the years, including myself in my earlier days walking with the Lord. I didn't have an appreciation of the majesty and power and awesomeness of God. And so sin was almost permissible. It was almost casually accepted. But the Holy Spirit has a way of working with you and you to bring conviction to you to make you aware of the holiness of God and the need that you have for God's grace. And if you have a hunger for him, if you're in his word, if you're in prayer, if you're in fellowship, if you're sharing the things of God, if you're asking God, fill me with your Holy Spirit, these are things that are actually protecting you. But if you don't have that, if you're not doing that, then you're left open to the various kinds of things the world has to offer that can entice you and draw you away. And it's not that hard. It's very easy to slip away slowly because you don't normally make an immediate choice to just do something wrong. You normally will take steps until you finally are doing it. In the early church, God was moving in such a powerful way that the unbelievers actually feared joining amongst those people. There weren't people who were just popping in like Ananias and Sapphira trying to appear to be important within the body of Christ. They weren't doing that. Why? Because God was moving in a purging way and he wasn't allowing that unholiness to get rooted in the church. The people actually feared God. And when you fear God, you stay away from those things that are not pleasing to him. If there's ever been a time, parents, if there's ever been a time when our children need to be in Bible studies, in church, it's now. It's now. Too often I hear of parents who, well, it's Sunday and we're on a traveling softball team, a traveling soccer team.  I am telling you that's the most unwise thing you can be doing because parents who are doing that right now are going to reap later on the fruit of children who see that fellowship with God is not that important. That fellowship with God's people is not that important because my dad said a 10-second prayer and he read a verse from the Bible. That's all I need. I'm telling you that's happening right now. I'm greatly concerned for that. Why? Because this generation is under attack like none of us ever were, where your identity itself is being attacked.  We have never seen that accepted and fought for in the way we are right now. And we need to be aware of that. You see, when the Holy Spirit is moving in your life, you're going to avoid those things that are not pleasing to God. And you will be the kind of person, I have to tell you the truth. It's true that people will look at you and think, you're just a bummer, man. You're so boring. Whatever happened to you? You used to be a lot of fun. We used to get drunk together. We used to party together. We used to do all these things together. And now you're just so, oh, man, what happened to you? That happened to me when I first got saved. My cousin, who I on occasion, well, I, you know, he was my cousin, so we knew each other very well. When I got saved, he said, what happened to you? You used to be a lot of fun. Now you're a bummer, man. You're going to church and all of that. What happened to you?  I no longer want to be the doper. I don't want to be the drunk.   He didn't understand that. You have to make a choice. You have to draw a line. You have to say, I'm not going to proceed past this line. You have to do that. You have to walk in the fear of the Lord and the power of the Spirit. You need to know his word. You need to be armed and dangerous because the enemy is coming after your children.  I really, I'm just telling you what's true. It's true. The enemy is coming after our kids right now. You have to be aware of that. When you have people marching saying we're queer, we're here and we're coming after your children, what else do we need to hear? What else do we need to hear? And so in the early church, there was no casualness about sin. They weren't taking the grace of God and extending it over their sinful habits and saying, it's okay, God understands. What shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? Paul said to the Romans, God forbid. How can we who have been set free from sin, dead to sin? How can we live any longer therein is what he said. The grace of God never freed me up to continue in sin. God's grace freed me up to no longer be in bondage to sin. And what happens is the church was a holy place and the believers were respected because they held fast to the principles of what Christ had taught them and they didn't bend and they didn't yield and they didn't compromise. And when the sinner tried to enter in and get a place of position, God said, ain't going to happen. And that was a warning about the holiness of the body of Christ. God gives time for repentance. God gives us opportunity. But because the church in the latter days even now sees that sin is a casual thing, the name of Jesus has become blasphemed by unbelievers. But God is gracious to us. He gives us space to repent. But his patience does have an end. In 2 Timothy 2 verse 19, Paul said, the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal. The Lord knows them that are His. But he goes on to say, let everyone that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. We have a holy God. We have the Holy Spirit. We have the holy Bible. And combined, they're to create a holy believer. We need to be in God's Word in these last days, more so than ever before, guys. Do you want to be used by the Lord? Get serious. Get serious. Get serious about Jesus Christ. Because you have friends who don't know Him. You have family who don't know Him. You've got coworkers who don't know Him. People that you have gotten to know over time, they don't know Him. Our work is cut out for us. Ask the Lord to use you. Ask the Lord to fill you with this Holy Spirit. Don't be cruel and malicious. Don't be mean-spirited. But love people enough to tell them the truth and be willing to receive whatever comes as a result of that. Because I've been rejected. All of us have. But you know what? When somebody rejects you, that's just part of life. The one that I don't want to ever reject me has always been God. I don't want him to reject me. And so we need to hold fast to the Lord. Ananias and Sapphira tried to enter into the church, tried to get a position, and God said it's not going to happen. Peter didn't kill them. The Lord judged them. Why? Because the body of Christ is holy. And it was a warning to those who would attempt to come in in such a way. Again, verse 13, none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. They respected them. If there's anything that we should rejoice in, we should rejoice in the fact that the God we serve, who is working through us, that we can be respected because of our walks with God, even if they disagree with us. At least there's that sense of respect. But you guys are true to what you believe. Let us not be hypocrites. Let us not say one thing and do another. Let us love the Lord and serve Him with all of our heart. These days are dark. It's time to be serious. But at the end of the day, I believe that no matter what, in Christ, we are still victorious. In Christ, we still have opportunity to reach the lost. And until he takes us home, that's what we're called to do. Let's just do it together, shall we? Let's serve the Lord together.


Over 600 delegates from WAIPO's 186 member states began work today on finalizing a new international treaty that would ease access to books for the world's more than 300 million blind, visually impaired and print disabled people, more than 90% of whom live in the developing world. The WAIPO Diplomatic Conference for Visually Impaired Persons, hosted by the Kingdom of Morocco, is meeting in Marrakech from June 17 to 28 2013. The signed treaty would culminate years of discussions on bringing access to more published works to the blind, visually impaired and print disabled. This means better access to novels, textbooks and other material for education and enjoyment in formats such as Braille, large print and audio books, which now make up less than 5% of published works. Fewer than 60 countries have special provisions for visually impaired persons in their copyright laws, such as those that allow the production of Braille, large print or digitized audio versions of copyrighted material. Furthermore, because copyright law is territorial, these exemptions usually do not cover the import or the export of works converted into accessible formats, even between countries with similar rules. In a message to the conference read by Morocco's Minister of Communications, His Majesty King Mohammed VI of the Kingdom of Morocco said the time is right for a treaty. Speaking at the opening of the conference, WAIPO Director General Francis Gurry reiterated the importance of the negotiations here in Marrakech. The proposal that is the basis of the Marrakech negotiations would include a requirement for countries to introduce exceptions and limitations in their copyright laws to allow the production of books in accessible formats, as well as to permit the international sharing across borders of accessible format copies for people with print disabilities. Significant progress has been made since the draft treaty text was first presented in May 2009. Provisional agreement has been reached on key elements, but the draft text still contains some issues that require further resolution. The negotiators have the task on the one hand of designing a workable system that would ensure that accessible formats can be produced and exchanged across borders around the world in a simple and easy manner. And on the other hand, of providing assurances to authors and publishers that that system will not expose their assets to misuse in parallel markets that are not intended to serve the visually impaired and the print disabled. And the success of you the negotiators in finding the right balance will ensure the success of this treaty.


Hi, this is Joanna Schurr-Mack. I am your UTM Psychology librarian. I think we've met on a number of occasions, at least in Psych 100, probably a couple of other times. I'm really thrilled to offer you a series of asynchronous videos about writing searchable questions. So I know that you're going to cover some of that in class, but I think it will be useful to take a quick look at how a professional librarian does it. There will be differences because, again, what happens within disciplines matters. So you will have the disciplinary view as given by your professors. I think having both my insight into this might help you a little bit to find your way through composing searchable research questions. So what I'm going to do right now is share my screen and grab a PowerPoint, a set of slides that I prepared for you specifically about this. I'm just going to make it full screen so it's a little bit easier for us to look at. And I'll take you through it. I'll narrate what happens in this PowerPoint and you will have this set of slides available to you, as well as the organizers that I will mention and of course work through with you in this video. So what are we doing today? We're going to be looking just at how to make searchable research questions and their strategies for those called concept organizers. Let's take a look at these concept organizers and searchable questions. So it is hard to get focused when you are doing literature searches, and of course we'll cover the types of literature searches in video one. But there are two ways to get started. One of them is by writing questions that are easy to break down into concepts and easy to search with. And then, of course, to do that we will use concept organizers. The other way to really get focused is by doing the structured search approach that we'll do in video two. And let's take a look at a question. So let's say that I'm interested in looking at how the quality of sleep affects strategic decision making and risk-taking behaviors. Note that there are a few things here I did not specify. So let's think about this. Is this a focused searchable question? Well, we've got about four things we can really look at. First of all, some big overall big picture questions like, well, how does the quality of sleep for whom or what, right? And then how do we measure the quality of sleep? Of course, what is decision making and what are we interested in when it comes to decision making behaviors? And what are the risk-taking behaviors we might be interested in? Let's take a look at all of them. The first one is, in a sense, the most decisive, the most exciting. So not only are we asking about how to quantify the effects of sleep, but we really need to ask, on whom? Is it humans that we're worried about? Are we looking at human behavior? Are we investigating how the quality of sleep affects the behavior of human beings? And then, of course, what kinds of human beings? Who? And so this is a question about population. And the reason why I'm using this word will become very obvious in a few minutes when we look at the PICO organizer. Population is who you are studying. And it doesn't have to be humans. It could be rodents. Obviously, rodents sleep. They dream. There's a lot going on, right? Mole rats can be studied as well. That's one of the unique populations we have at UTM. But many studies look at humans. Of course, we could look at simians. We could even look at social insights. So all of that is very important. So deciding on the population is absolutely key. And that will, in many ways, determine how we're going to answer two, three, and four. So thinking about the quality of sleep, we should definitely ask ourselves, what are we looking for? The kind of healthy sleep, let's say eight hours of sleep. Are we going to be measuring how many REM episodes? So rapid eye movements, episodes are happening. Or are we going to be going with instruments that are self-reported? Let's say insomnia, insomnia severity index, sleep hygiene practice scales, and various other scales like that. Now, once we've decided or at least been sensitized to some of these issues, we have decision-making, right? So again, we have to ask ourselves, if we're studying humans, what kinds of decision-making are we studying and so forth? So are we looking at the style of the decisions? Are we looking at the outcomes? Are we looking at the impacts of these decisions? And there are many different kinds of scales that we could use for that. We'll talk about that in a second. And then finally, since we're mainly looking at a quantitative kind of study, there is the measurement of risk. So there are many scales we could use for general kinds of risk behaviors. Or there are specific kinds of risk behaviors such as gambling, and they're actually very exciting scales. So having looked at all of these things, what else can we make a note of? Well, definitely the participants. Also the selection mechanism of the participants. And are we going to have a control population, for example? Do we select the participants or are they self-selected? And then are the participants healthy? Or do they have conditions that might affect sleep quality? So let's say chronic migraines, depression, diabetes, a host of other health conditions. Well, that's big. We've got a few other things as well that we can look at. And one thing that I mentioned is really studying human decision-making processes and scales. So if you select to work with humans, you can go to the decision-making individual differences inventory. So you may want to go to the link I gave you or to the original paper describing this. So there's lots to study there. And of course, if you also are considering specific times during which this study could be conducted, it could be a retrospective study. It could be looking at the pandemic or maybe considering sleep quality during specific events or trigger events. So do we actually need a more focused question? Was that finessing an analysis process, pardon me, sufficient? Or could we write a more focused question? What would it look like? Well, so first of all, we really have to ask ourselves, what review type are we doing? So is it going to be a narrative review? Is it going to be a scoping review? Because the kind of review you're doing really determines the methodology and the early steps you need to take to determine how you're going to conduct both the search and the analysis of what you find. In a scoping review, and I'll mention that one briefly in video one, you would explore each of the points that we've just analyzed. So the four points with extras through what we call inclusion and exclusion criteria. And these are a formal part of your protocol because a scoping review can, doesn't have to, should have a protocol, especially if you're dealing with human health and healthcare issues. And now many other review types, especially narrative reviews, do not have a protocol. And in that case, the inclusion and exclusion criteria lead you to focusing your question. Once you focus the question, you can benefit from running broader searches and narrower searches within the limits of the variables that you selected. And of course, the process that we've just conducted helps you to focus on all the important things. There'll be, of course, organizers that will help us even further because sometimes you're stuck when you're looking at your question. You wonder what is the population here or what is the intervention that I'm looking at, right? But in the case of a literature review for empirical work that you're conducting, you can definitely do a more focused research question and then conduct both sensitive and more precise searches. And we've talked a little bit about that. So how could we write a more focused question guided by what we've done already? Well, first of all, we select participants based on what you're interested in. And we could go as fine as selecting the age bracket as well. And we look at a specific kind of the quality of sleep problem. So in our case, let's select sleep deprivation. And of course, we would define it based on a source in literature or based on a well-known reference. We would look at, in this case, instead of outcome or maybe styles, we would look at the quality. So the outcome will, quality affects outcome, right? So it's not a specific outcome we're looking at, but rather in general, how does the person come out based on their decisions, right? So we are looking at scales that will allow us to determine the quality. So is it better or worse for, let's say, maximizing, in this case, the amount of winnings in their gambling behaviors, right? So we've got participants, healthy humans in a certain age bracket. We really want adults and we can specify that further when we run slightly more precise searches. We are looking at sleep deprivation. We're looking at the quality of decision making. So it's outcome directed, but not a specific outcome. And we're looking at gambling. So a kind of risk-taking behavior that has a lot of scales associated with it. So our question now looks like this. How does the quality of gambling decisions change as a function of stimulant use for healthy sleep-deprived adults? So why are we looking at stimulant use? Well, we know that the quality of sleep, at least we hypothesize, is going to change or make the quality of the decisions possibly worse. And we know that stimulant use can improve or at least speed up cognitive function, right? So we want to see whether or not gambling decisions change when we give our participants stimulants after they've been sleep deprived, right? So we have a fairly tight, fairly precise question that we're dealing with right now. And if you're doing your own research and you have specific needs, you may want to look, for example, at a specific gambling inventory. So you may be looking at performance in gambling measured by, let's say, this specific idle gambling task inventory. And how does that change as a function of caffeine or other stimulant intake for healthy sleep-deprived participants aged 18 to 65? So you see how you can move from a specific but still fairly open literature search question to a question that is really very precise that you're interested in. So now let's grab a concept map organizer. It's the simplest organizer that helps us to break down the concept inner question just into the most significant concepts. And you'll see that even there, there are some changes that you could make just based on the process that we've been going through. So let's take a look at this. How does the quality of gambling decisions change as a function of stimulant use for healthy sleep-deprived adults? Well, we know we've got at least four things going here for us. So we've got a population that's going to be healthy adults. But the very first thing we encounter here is the quality of gambling decisions. So I'm going to just put in gambling decisions because a word like quality is difficult to pin down and it's fairly common. Now, what are we doing? What's the intervention? Another word that we'll show up in a moment. Well, it's stimulant. It's the use of stimulant to improve or to change the quality of decisions. So we've got the thing that we're measuring, gambling decisions. We've got our intervention, stimulant use. Now we've got our population. So we've got healthy adults and there's a condition that they have, which is sleep deprivation. The next thing we want to do with our organizer is to think about broader and newer concepts or synonyms that can be used to describe the four that we've selected here. So we can look at risk-taking, which is much broader. We can look at gambling addiction, a specific kind of behavior. I don't think that would work too well because we're looking about healthy adults. So addiction behaviors may take us outside of the range of healthy. We would have to think about that. Or we can just look at general gambling behaviors as opposed to decision-making. So that will, again, take us into a broader study. Now, when we're looking at stimulants here, we can get very interesting and very creative because there are different kinds of stimulants that we may have easy access to. Caffeine, various kinds of amphetamines. And here are a couple of specific amphetamines. So we also want to know a little bit more about sleep deprivation. And here it is fairly specific, but we may want to, again, go broader for sleep quality, sleeplessness. That would not be the same as sleep deprivation, but maybe we also want to take a look at that and chronic lack of sleep. How does that differ from sleep deprivation? So there's a variety of concepts there. So now what we can do is, once we've split up these parts of a question into a simple organizer, we can use an organizer that helps us with research decision-making. And these are incredibly common in healthcare research. So I really want you to be exposed to this because as you move on and start working in healthcare context, the PCOTE organizer is extremely common. And you will also find it if you do systematic or scoping reviews. So the main thing about the PCOTE organizer looks, it reminds you about making sure you've got a population, making sure you're thinking about the comparison or control. And then thinking also about the type of study. So these are the basic questions that the PCOTE organizer asks you to make it easier for you to analyze and break down your research question. So here's what we've done to our question. So for the population, we've got our healthy adults and we still need to know more about the selection and recruitment mechanisms. We've got our intervention, which is administering stimulants. We've got our control, which is the group that gets the placebo and the gate, they're both healthy sleep deprived participants. And we want to see what our outcome is. And that is how the performance on the gambling tasks as measured by probably one of the inventories changes with the use of stimulant versus placebo for these sleep deprived individuals, right? So is it better? Is it worse? Is there a measurable effect? The type of study in this case, it is going to definitely be some sort of quantitative empirical study. And just to make it more interesting, as some of you might be going into qualitative healthcare and qualitative type work later on, a type of analysis tool for research questions that is very popular in qualitative health research is the spider. This stands for sample phenomenon of interest design. So that's research design evaluation and research type. So our sample again is our healthy adult individuals and that are recruited a certain way again, when a certain age bracket, we've got a phenomenon of interest. So the effect of stimulants or placebos on gambling decisions for our sleep deprived adults, because we know there's a relationship between poor cognitive performance and sleep deprivation. We also know that stimulants have an effect on cognitive performance. Now, when we look at the outcomes, so when we do our evaluation, we really want to know whether there is altered cognitive performance as a result of the stimulant intake for our sleep deprived adults and that will be measured with a task test or indicator. And finally, for a research type, we want quantitative research, but spider is also very used for either mixed methods or qualitative research. And that's why I've also offered it to you as a stand as a good second, second try after the very famous and very widely used Pico organizer, but Pico doesn't work with all questions. So this is it. This is really it. So this tells you, this tells you first of all that you're, you're never alone with your research question. There are ways for you to try to break it down and tease out what we interest you about it and what are the important points about it that may be implied like the population or your recruitment strategy. What we're going to do now is to do a tiny, tiny recap of some of the search terminology because you've mentioned, you've heard me pardon me mentioned as searches that are focused searches that are so searches that are precise as focused or sensitive. So I just want to run through that very quickly. And by the way, I will provide a fillable word document with all three concept map, the Pico organizer and a spider so you can play around with your research question. So let's do a very, very brief search strategy recap. So remember that searches that are inclusive and really try to tease out all the literature on the topic are called sensitive and precise searches on the other hand return a few well defined results on a topic that's usually well known. So, in your case, when you're doing a major literature review you do need to run some sensitive searches to really explore your topic, but very often you still run precise searches before doing them after to get at a, at a concept to get maybe at something that you know has a very definite very definite answer so you never run just one search, you use both. Now to improve the sensitivity of a search that seems to be too precise using Boolean operator or is always the best strategy as well as using several different databases. If you want to improve precision using the and operator and using further limits are always the best strategies. Now, let's look at a couple of these examples. So if you're just writing a search for alcohol and homicide. What happens when you expand alcohol to alcoholic alcoholism and all of these related terms or intoxicated intoxication or drunk drunkenness or integrated integration and so forth, and then you end it with homicide. What do you think you're going to get. Is it going to be a more precise search. Or is it going to be a sensitive search. So remember, when you're using or or is more and every time you get more results, you get sensitivity. So this is a more sensitive search strategy. Now what about this. If you're looking for alcohol and violence and you change your search to look for alcohol and violence in Canada. Well you're actually making the search more precise because you're adding more limits every time you add a limit you make a search more precise and and you get fewer results that are more focused. So if you are looking for alcohol and homicide, but you want to look for a phrase called intoxication related homicide. So very specific phrase, you are making your search more precise in fact in some cases much more precise because you are excluding all other variants of a phrase, and only look at precision. So strategies for both will be important and we'll come back to that way in our video too, but we'll be doing our structured search.


Nancy and I, Mr. President, are pleased to welcome you and Madam Chun to the White House. And you are one of our first guests here. We haven't lived here very long. And in looking about, I can't help but contrast the peaceful and rather elegant setting with a meeting that took place in your country 30 years ago in a building in your capital in Seoul that was badly damaged by the war. It was just after the landing at Incheon, and General Douglas MacArthur turned the command of the city over to President Lee and the civilian authorities of the Republic of Korea. And General MacArthur spoke then of the special friendship that exists between our two countries and of our mutual commitment to democratic principles and individual liberty and personal dignity. We've come a long way together since that meeting. You have a saying in your country that after the rain, the earth hardens. Well, the miracle of modern Korea is well known in the world. And right at this moment, I have to interrupt, I have a terrible feeling that I had told the interpreters that I would break at different points than I have broken in these remarks. Is that right? Well, anyway, I'll give them a pause to catch up. But Nancy and I had the opportunity to see that miracle at first hand a few years ago when we visited your country. And we recall that visit with great warmth and great pleasure. In the very short time, Mr. President, that you've had, you've done much to strengthen the traditions of 5,000 years of Korean history. We share your commitment to freedom. If there's one message that I have for the Korean people today, it is this. Our special bond of freedom and friendship is as strong today as it was in that meeting 30 years ago. Our young men have fought side by side, not only in Korea, but in Vietnam. And again there, the cause was freedom. And today we are committed to each other's defense against aggression. We shall continue to search together for continued peace in the Korean Peninsula, in the Pacific region, and throughout the world. Now will you all join in a toast, celebrating the never-ending friendship of two nations and toasting the President of the Republic of Korea, President Chun and Madam Chun. I would like to express my gratitude to all of you for your kind welcome to the President of the Republic of Korea. The fact that you have invited the President of the Republic of Korea is an honor to our country. I would like to express my gratitude to all of you for inviting me to the President of the Republic of Korea. I believe that the three generations of the Republic of Korea will succeed in achieving the ultimate goal of the great success of each nation. I believe that the three generations of the Republic of Korea will succeed in achieving the ultimate goal of each nation. I believe that the three generations of the Republic of Korea will succeed in achieving the ultimate goal of the great success of each nation. Next year, it will be the first time for the U.S. to settle the U.S. treaty. After that, the U.S. and the U.S. have maintained a strong relationship. In the 1950s, when the North Korean Communist Party leaders invaded Korea, the U.S. fought together to protect our freedom and independence. After the U.S. treaty, the U.S. has supported us through the war. We have achieved a number of economic developments in the history of the U.S. We are fighting against the enemy's will. Korea has now grown into the 16th largest military state in the world, and has developed into the 11th largest military state in the U.S. As I said before, the U.S. has not stopped helping Korea. Korea has now become a country that can participate in the song of the U.S. to protect the peace of the world and the East Asia. The U.S. and the U.S. are trying to bring back hope, courage, and confidence to the President and the United States.


The United States Army NATO Brigade held a non-commissioned officer of the quarter competition October 25th and 26th in Simbach, Germany. The two competitors were Staff Sergeant Julia Dittman, Supreme Headquarters Allied Tower of Europe, and Sergeant Tanner Falk, Second NATO Signal Battalion. The competition consisted of a physical fitness test, a written essay, appearance before a board of senior non-commissioned officers, and tests of various soldier skills including land navigation, equipment maintenance, and communication. According to Command Sergeant Major Brian Valenzuela, the competition between the two non-commissioned officers was close, but in the end Sergeant Tanner Falk emerged victorious. Falk is now eligible to compete in the Brigade Non-commissioned Officer of the Year competition in 2023. I would like to give a shout out to 2NSB DCM Alpha, families back there, all my guys and stuff, so I just want to thank all my leaders and supervisors, peers, boarders, everybody that's helping get ready for this and you know achieve at this level. Greatly appreciated, I wouldn't be here without you guys, so thank you.


Good afternoon. You are with the Vermont house government operations committee. We are coming back to some testimony we weren't able to get to this morning and so I wanted to invite Jeff Briggs to share a few comments with us. And definitely please leave time for a few questions. Thank you madam chair can you hear me. Yes we can. Thank you madam chair and thank you to the house government operations committee for having me here this afternoon. My name is Jeff Briggs. I'm a current alternate member of the VPIC, which I've been on since 2014. And I was a member of the Vermont State Employees Retirement System Board of Trustees from 2009 to 2017 when I had to leave that board when I retired. I would like to kind of give you a little bit different view of the proposed government changes that you're considering from the perspective of somebody who spent a lot of time on both boards. A little bit more about my background. I'm an accredited pension fiduciary through the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, which was a course that I took over the period of a couple of years. Several times I attended in person trainings. A lot of online training and and and pass a test to get that. I also attended hundreds of hours of education and training over both on over my years of service on both boards. So I just wanted to add a little bit more about my background. The committee heard excellent testimony this morning on the governance, but I want to have a provide a few more comments on on governments from from my perspective. But before I do that, I would like to make a couple comments about the overall changes in the pension system that you're considering. I think all too often this conversation about pension pension reform pension funding is framed in terms of cost and I would like to ask the committee to look at this. I think our our pension system as an investment in the state of Vermont I think it's one of the very best investments that we make. Speaking about the visors which I'm most familiar. Last year, we had 150 million dollars was paid out and benefits to beneficiaries of visors, and that money is spent. It's recycled right back into the Vermont economy it's been in local stores local businesses. And we did a study. There was a study done back I would guess around 2012 that estimated that for every dollar and benefits spent by beneficiaries in the Vermont economy there was a multiplier effect of $1 or $2 more. And so I want to make the point that it's a great investment. We all too often think of it as a cost. It's a great investment and and furthermore, you know, 60 62% of that investment comes from pension fund investment return so I want to make that point. Let's go to the government's proposal. I'm opposed to the current proposal. And the question that I would like to pose for this committee is, is this proposal that you put out. To punish the VPIC for past performance or is it to improve future results and a couple caveats to that statement I'm not. I'm not accusing the committee or anybody on the committee of wanting to punish the VPIC but I based that on the 10% of the some of the testimony that I've heard which I think is very much looking to find a villain in all this and it seems like this proposal has landed here, you're proposing to throw out the VPIC and start all over again and I think that's the wrong approach. Having said that, I, I want to say the committee is absolutely right to ask the question about governance. I would do the same thing if I was in your shoes, but I think it's entirely the wrong approach to throw out what we have. You know, you heard some, you heard some testimony this morning about where, where the VPIC is at currently you heard from Eric Henry who's our chief investment officer doing an excellent job. You heard from our new consultant RVK. And, you know, I think I would hope the committee doesn't make the mistake of conflating how we got here which is a valid question with where we're at now because I think where the VPIC is at now is really in a good position, good position to move forward and address this pre-funding crisis that we're in. The VPIC has access to a lot of good professional advice, you know, RVK is our new consultant. I think we were led, we have good leadership. I had the pleasure of serving on the committee with Tom Galanca before when he was just a member before he became the chair. One of the very best members we've ever had. We, I think we really strengthened the committee when we hired him as a chair. We've been on the VPIC through a couple of different consultants, a couple of different actuaries. The point I want to make is we're always, it's an evolving process, we're always striving to improve. And I think you can make some minor adjustments but I think the current structure of the VPIC is the right one. I think I would urge you to support the government study that VPIC recently voted to pursue instead of your current proposal which throws the whole structure out. Well, I also want to say that, and I don't know if this has come up in your testimony but, you know, VPIC has an investment policy and as a fiduciary of the VPIC, it's a policy that I'm obligated to follow. Our policy, it's the three of the central elements of our policy are managing the portfolio with regard to risk. We always have to consider risk in any investment approach we take. And also a central tenant of the policy is to select investments that will give us lower volatility. Volatility is one of the things that makes it really challenging to meet rates of return. Risk, volatility, asset allocation and of course we always have to maintain liquidity. So there is an investment policy that we follow. It's one that we revise in the time that I've been there. But it's what guides us in making our investments and on a day to day and month to month basis. Yeah, I guess what I want to really address some of the specifics of the proposal. My understanding is that this proposal is modeled on the New Hampshire model. You know, in my view, the New Hampshire model is deeply flawed. It's a system that I think is probably in worse shape as far as funding than our system is. They're only 61% funded. They have over $6 billion in liabilities that, you know, and that's up from $5 billion only three years ago. And that's a, that's a system that a requirement of that system is that all of the trustees who serve on it are have to have financial expertise. And so my point isn't to disparage New Hampshire, disparage our trustees. My point is that even, you know, I think, I think if you're thinking that you're going to throw out the VPIC, establish a new system where everybody has financial expertise, I think if you're thinking that's going to solve the problem, I think all you got to do is look at New Hampshire to figure out that it isn't going to solve the problem. And I think we're going to face the same challenging market conditions that we have over the last decade. And they're not doing any better. So, I think New Hampshire is not the right model to follow. And the rest is, by my count this proposal gives the governor control over six appointees and the, the, the treasurer for and, and I think this is, you know, this is a crucial point for me I think it this shifts. It really takes away representation of them of the three member systems and and and gives that power to the governor and I think that's a not only is that not best practice but it's a it's it's a it's not going to help us move forward. Mr. Briggs I have a hand up right now Rob Claire has a question for you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you madam chair and good afternoon Mr Briggs how are you sir. Good how are you. I like probably most people on the committee had read the testimony that you had submitted. Thank you for that. One of the questions that I have of that actually was a question that I had asked earlier this morning or earlier today. You refer to the, the, I think was 0709 market issue that we had back then as being substantially responsible for where we are today. I guess, quantify, in your opinion, what that represents of the 5.8 billion that we're upside down in today. Well, here's, here's the way I can, the numbers that I can give you. So, 2007 we were over 100% fun I think the exact number was 100.8 or something and not not 108 but just over 100. And by 2010 2011 we were down to 78% funded so we took essentially a 22% hit and I'm talking about visas now I want to make that clear, we took a 22% hit in our funded status.  Now you're got 22 divided by 78 it's nearly a quarter of what you had to overcome and I, you know, I think if you do the math. You've got to, you've got to make up 25 or 30%. You don't, you don't just make up 22% get back to 100% funded so you've got to, you've got to make up an extraordinary amount when you take a big dip like that and you're not going to do it in a short time the only way you're going to do it would be to take excessive risk and, and as a fiduciary of the system. I think I just explained to you that that's one of the central elements we look at with any investment is. We don't want to take undue risk. And the level of risk that you would have to take to make that up in a short period of time is just, you know, it's not something that we're, we are going to be able to do. You know, I think when I came on the VPIC in 2014. And I had started attending some meetings before then. I think the VPIC like almost every pension investment committee around the country was still reeling from that event and you know, risk was paramount in our consideration because one thing you can't do in a pension system is is, you know, you can't suffer these big downside events that they're just too hard to make up. So, you know, I think going forward. That one event took a lot out of our, our ability to pre fund the system and it's going to be a while before we make that up. Very good. Okay, thank you, Mr. Briggs. I appreciate your time. Thank you sir. Yeah. John Gannon. Thank you madam chair and thank you Mr Briggs for testifying this afternoon. You know, I like representative LaClara read your testimony and the one thing I'd like some more information is that in your final paragraph you say there are areas of improvement that could be made such as separating VPIC from the Treasurer's Office, giving VPIC its own budget and thoughtfully adding more legislative oversight. Could you explain that a little more please. Yeah, yeah, and I'm sorry I was going to get to that in my presentation but you know, of course I think we should look, we should use this opportunity, we should, we shouldn't even need this opportunity to improve VPIC. We should be continually looking to improve what, you know, so I'll, I talked a little bit about hiring Eric Henry I think as our CIO, which which we were finally able to do. But because because VPIC doesn't have his own budget, there were a number of years in the middle part of the last decade, where the state of Vermont, the budget was so tight, we didn't, we didn't have the ability to advocate for a CIO position and, and, you know, I don't know if we would have had a better ability if we had our own budget, but it took a couple years to get a position like that added to the VPIC and, you know, when I first got on the VPIC, we didn't have, we had some very fine people but we didn't have the robust staff that we've had today and, you know, we've had to really, really, really kind of fight to add all those positions So my point in that the VPIC ought to be separate from the Treasurer's Office I think really comes from a budgetary perspective as much as anything else. I also think it's, you know, it's appropriate to add more legislative oversight. I mean, you know, we're here, you're concerned with it. I think it's, it would be a win for the legislature, be a win for us to have a better tie for legislative oversight. And one thing I didn't have in that proposal but, you know, since since we're on it, and I'd like to just talk about it. You know, I view this as primarily an actuarial crisis in my opinion. The fund is sustainable. We've done a couple of liquidity and, you know, benefit payout tests and, and, you know, for the short term from the near term and, and really, I think well into the future we have the assets and we have the liquidity to cover benefit payments. But, you know, this whole, the whole, the whole thing with the assume rate of return, the issues that your committee's been discussing, the reason we're looking at making changes. This is an actuarial projection of what might happen in the future and, and, you know, one of the thoughts I had, and, and thinking about this is that perhaps it would be good for the legislature to hire its own actuary to to also have a check on our actuary. So actuaries are supposed to follow standard methodology. But, you know, it's just a suggestion that might, might be an improvement. So I, you know, I don't know if I've answered your question but the. I think given the size of the fund giving, given the need for a robust investment staff which we now have, but we may as we grow we might need more. I think it would be important for VPIC to have have its own budget. Thank you. And Briggs, we have just about 10 more minutes here with you and then we need to shift gears for our last segment of the day so if there's any highlights that you wanted to watch on from your written testimony that would be very helpful. Okay, I just wanted to get back to what I was what I think I was talking about the governor, having control over six appointees. And, you know, I just wanted to say a couple things. You know, I think just, I think for the governor to appoint someone has, you know, I think, first of all, I think they should have the current system where we have two governor appointees is entirely appropriate. But to move to six, I think it raises some problems and, and I just like to highlight a couple of the problems. One of the big ones is, you know, from my experience on the VPIC, the main things that you need are longevity. I mean, continuity, commitment and experience and certainly helps to have a financial background but I think it would be a mistake to require everyone on the committee to have a financial background I think you can acquire that knowledge like I have. If you are get on the stay and employees retirement board or you are you get on the VPIC, think you can acquire that knowledge. But, you know, we've had a couple. And in my view it's really been hit or miss with the governor's appointees we've had some very fine governors appointees. We've also had some others who frankly have not really had the time required to put into VPIC and and you know I'm, I'm not disparaging any of them. But, you know, VPIC, it's not a paid position. A lot of these folks have other jobs that pull them away from from VPIC. I'll give you one quick example we had a, we had an excellent trustee appointed by an excellent member appointed by the governor, who had experience and bonds. He was a bond trader added a lot of value to the VPIC. And, you know, great a great member but within probably a year year and a half of getting on the VPIC, his, his job changed and required a lot of time, and he was unable to make a lot of our meetings. Unable to really put the time in requiring and eventually, you know, resign. So it, I think that really illustrates how tough it is for some of our best members to put in the continuity to remain on the VPIC and, and I'll be honest with you I think it, no matter what your background is I think it takes a couple years just to get up to speed with trying to manage a pension fund of this size.  And, you know, so that would be a problem with with the continuity and commitment and I think you heard this morning. Someone from RVK say that just because somebody has a financial background doesn't mean they always have the necessary skills that are in line alignment with trying to manage a fund of this size and you know it's financial world has a diverse array of jobs and, and I think this is a kind of a unique one that requires time put in on the committee to to understand what we're trying to do. And where we have our money and where we're going. And, and the one other thing I want to say is we had a very fine trustee von ultimas he was a governor's appointee. One of our best members always prepared at meetings understood what we were trying to do one had a great plan, you know a great financial background. And, and he wanted to continue on the committee. He wasn't reappointed. No explanation given. I'm, you know, I'm not going to disparage his successors but it was a great loss to the VP when we lost one. So, you know, I, I, I'm just saying this to highlight the fact that yeah I don't think you want to inject politics and the the the turnover that politics can bring into this system and and you know I think we're fine with the two current employees. But, you know, I really want to make sure that you understand that, you know, I think VP is a is a group that needs representation from the members of the system. That needs representation from the governor and, and I think we have a great mix now so. Thank you so much Mr breaks for your, for your written testimony and also for highlighting the, the most important parts of it. So make sure that we leave time in the next two minutes to give the committee members an opportunity to ask a question if they have any questions for you, or if there's any part that needed some clarification Mark Higley. Hi Mark. Yeah, good. Hey, hey, so in the governor's pick there. You think it would help is something as simple as just maybe a six year term and making sure that folks that don't serve their time well, encourage resignation. I mean, again you said it's just a two year appointment is that correct. You know, the my understanding of it is the appointment is up to the governor and they can. You know, I think it's a two year appointment. I think it would be a better than I could. But if, if the appointment is up. At a time when, when we have a new governor. And, you know, I think they can step in and just replace that person so I think we would make, you know, I, to be honest, I haven't taken a look at that on the enabling statute. I think the language is probably in there. But I think my main point is that we don't want a 15 member committee where six of them are appointed by the governor I think I think our current makeup is fine. Yeah, and I'm not saying it's been abused it hasn't. You know, I can give you a couple examples of where I think it was a bad decision but the potential is there going forward. Thank you Jeff. Well thank you so much for for coming very patiently waiting for the end of the day to come back and talk with us I apologize that we didn't get you in this morning. And for sharing your written reflections as well as talking with us here this afternoon about your reactions to the governance proposal and I. I can speak for rep Ganon and myself that we, we don't, we don't have any sort of need to own or, or drive the conversation that was put on the table with a with a governance proposal and. And so we're certainly open to folks making alternative proposals and that's what we will come back to in a future meeting. So thank you for being with us today and have a great afternoon and and and I just want to add one thing you know I didn't mean to shout at you with my written testimony. I didn't know if I was going to get to testify in person so I was trying to just maybe stand out make my highlighted point stand out from the crowd but you know. I have seen some bold and some caps in some written communication recently so rest assured no offense taken and and the emphasis is understood so thank you so much. Thank you for hearing me and if committee members want to reach out to me I'm always always willing to talk thank you. Thank you.


T F N N headline news update Welcome folks. We have the Dow Industries up 83 Nasdaq up 22 SMPs up seven and a half and the SMPs It's kind of intriguing actually folks. We just got up and tested the highs of yesterday We'll see whether that baby is gonna be able to hold there We got it right to the tick to the 11 31 14 at point five zero right now You're 31 11 point seven five go go contract up a bucky 1465 you have silver flat $17 5 cents our light sweet crude Down 26 cents 58 dollars 33 cents a barrel notes and bonds you get the 10 year down two ticks The 30 year off one if we get over to this a 10 year we take a look at it Would you have that happening in inside the 10 as well as the 30 as well as the a TLT folks is that you got higher price yesterday Monster volume then gave it up on price when you see that happen most times Yeah, you're back down a bit and then guess what it goes right back top side So the highs of yesterday out here inside the 10 was 130 or two you got up there with 2.5 million contracts Now what's gonna happen today is that we do have 1.1 million contracts So we're gonna end up doing a good two 2 million contracts, maybe 2.2 so we'll see how that shakes out But that is still saying it wants higher prices not gonna do do 2.5 million contracts Why I the speculation is that it wouldn't Dollar dollar is up about 135 ticks that baby is trying to get to the top of the range That we've been in since the October 16th level the top of that range is 98 447 if we get open we take a look at the S&P we'd have happening with the S&P we take a look at the spy as I said the Futures I just tested the high a few minutes ago the spy itself bottom line doing the same type of setup Hasn't quite got to the highs highs of yesterday inside the spy was 311 82 We'll see whether it can make it. I suspect what you have here You just have a slow roll over what we had done yesterday is this we didn't get to the lows of yesterday I did have a volume contraction more than likely. I see I expect what you're gonna see out here today Just a slow roll over sideways market flat market as we kick into the holiday Thanksgiving week next week stay right there folks Tommy and I are coming right back We have the doubt up 80 Nasdaq up 21 S&P's up six and a half will come right back


The debate on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for Financial Year 2023-2024 commenced on March 29. Every Member of Parliament was provided with a copy of the draft estimates for 2023-2024 up to five days before the commencement of the debate. Typically, day one of the debate would begin with the leader of the opposition after the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance tables the estimates of revenue and expenditure the day before. This speaking sequence had been honoured by both sides of the lower house for several decades until it was unceremoniously discontinued in 2017. Prime Minister Honourable Philippe J. Pierre and the governing side of the lower house immediately restored this time honoured convention in 2022, more than five years after it was cast aside. I just give you your permission Mr Speaker. So place on the record that the convention on this honourable house is that when the Prime Minister of Finance delivers the estimates, the leader of the opposition responds the day after. That has been the convention of this house Mr Speaker. This year the estimates were given a clear three days. In fact, three to five days before the meeting of the Honourable House, which is not what happened before, before the estimates are given on the weekend. That's given on the weekend on Saturdays and we got it to be debated on Tuesdays and the leader of the opposition always responded. The annual debate on the estimates of revenue and expenditure along with the subsequent debate on the appropriation bill are among the two most prominent legislative processes in St. Lucia's governance system. The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance drew the attention of the lower house to the vacant benches on the opposition side of the chamber and underscored the significance of their absence for this important occasion. It has never been the convention of this house for the Prime Minister's speech to be circulated because the speech is based on the estimates and not the policy of the government. When the government's policy is going to be discussed in April, the speech is made available immediately after. It has never been the convention Mr Speaker. So to use the excuse that there is no speech available, it's actually the leader of the opposition is failing his duty to the people of St. Lucia. He is failing his duty to the taxpayers of St. Lucia and I think it must be noted that these games with the people's finances must stop Mr Speaker. I just thought I'd pick it on record because that's never been the case. We responded immediately after Mr Speaker. Both the governing and opposition sides of the lower house form part of the legislator, which is among the three arms of government. Participation from both sides on critical government and legislative functions such as the estimates and appropriation bill debates fortifies St. Lucia's democratic system of governance and also signals to the public their duly elected parliamentary representatives are faithfully discharging their duties in accordance with the spirit of the constitution and the standing orders of the House of Assembly. From the office of the Prime Minister, Rihanna Isidore.