Most of us have heard Jeremiah 29:11 that says, “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” But we often neglect the verses that precede it.

Chuck Bentley with Crown Financial Ministries explains that those earlier verses provide a blueprint of “Four Steps to End Poverty.” He was on my radio program recently to talk about his article.

Step one can be found in verse 5 that admonishes the Jews to “build a house and settle down” and to “plant a garden and eat from your own garden.” Chuck says this teaches that we are to take responsibility for our own welfare. We should establish a self-sustaining settlement.

Step two in verse 6 says they were to “marry and have sons and daughters” and that they were to “increase not decrease.” We should have a growing family. What a contrast this is to the falling birthrates in the richest nations of the world. They are headed for a demographic winter.

Step three is found in verse 7 that says, “Seek the peace and prosperity of the city.” Prosperity is dependent upon peace in our local community. Chuck says that, “We are to build enterprises that will assist others in the achievement of their goals and objectives.” We can see what happens in countries where greed, coveting, and avarice dominate the community.

Step four talks about the danger of false views and false theology. It can be found in verses 8 and 9 that warn, “Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you.” The problem with some attempts to alleviate poverty is that they fail to acknowledge the spiritual condition of the people. What we believe about God impacts our view of marriage, finance, children, education, government, and religion.

Reducing and even ending poverty in our communities and the world will only be successful if we follow God’s plan. Chuck Bentley provides a clear outline from God’s Word of what we can do to end poverty.

A case involving a church sign is headed to the Supreme Court. While that might seem like a trivial case, it illustrates what may become a major battleground between church and state.

A small church in Arizona relies on temporary signs to direct worshippers to its services. This Presbyterian Church rents space in various places for its services. So they depend on putting up cardboard signs to direct people to the latest location.

The town of Gilbert, Arizona restricts such signs, but does not appear to restrict other signs put up by politicians and even signs put up by the homeowner associations. One picture I saw showed one fence completely covered with campaign signs during the last election. In the background you can even see signs on other walls like “For Sale By Owner.” It is hard to believe that a temporary sign directing people to a worship service would have any negative effect on the aesthetics of the community.

At stake is much more than aesthetics. The case raises this question: Does government have the right to censor the type of content citizens promote? This is not only a freedom of religion question: it’s a free speech question. And it raises questions about how zoning will affect churches in the future.

On my radio program, I have suggested that future church-state battles won’t be over school prayer or the posting of the Ten Commandments as much as they will be battles between cities and churches over zoning.

A church in Texas was told it could not hold services in their rented space because a local ordinance bans a church or a school from meeting on the property. A church in Georgia had to hold its services in the basement of a jewelry store because churches cannot meet on property of less than three acres. A church in Illinois could meet and pray on their property, just not on Sunday mornings. And they could not call their property a church.

Yesterday I talked about what the agenda for Congress would most likely be. Today I wanted to add a few more issues that many voters and members of Congress believe should also be part of the congressional agenda.

For example, a number of newly elected Senators ran against the Environmental Protection Agency rules. Newly elected West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito said her state’s economy is already suffering from new EPA rules on coal. This led to the loss of 5,000 jobs. She wants to “roll back” these rules.

Senator Mitch McConnell said he feels “deeply responsible” to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. He will no doubt get lots of help from Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe who will be the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Many newly elected members of Congress want immigration reform that is based on true border security. Newly elected Colorado Senator Cory Gardner wants a secure border before Congress begins any serious discussion of immigration reform. Most Republican members of Congress and many Democrat members should also support making border security a top priority.

The big question is what Congress will do about the Affordable Care Act. Texas Senator Ted Cruz wants a bill that calls for a “complete and total repeal of Obamacare.” He understands that the president will veto it. So he then proposes that Congress work to take out the most “onerous” parts of Obamacare.

That will be a problem. Most members of Congress will probably be willing eliminate the medical device tax which was supposed to be a funding mechanism for Obamacare. After that, it is hard to see how many other elements of Obamacare would not be blocked by a Democrat filibuster in the Senate.

Now that Congress is in session, we all need to let our elected representatives know what we want them to do. We the people need to help set the agenda for this Congress.

As Congress is about to convene, it is worth considering what will be the congressional agenda for this year. Actually, we don’t have to guess what the Republican leadership has planned for the first few months of the new Congress. Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell proposed and solidified their plans right after the November election.

First, they plan to get quick congressional action on a number of bills that have been stalled in Congress. One is to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. There weren’t enough votes in the Senate in November to end a filibuster. Senate Majority Leader McConnell most likely will have the votes this time. That will force the president’s hand. The president can either sign it or veto it and try to explain his action to the American people.

Second, the leadership wants to pass a budget through both chambers of Congress. Previous Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented most of these budget bills from passage. The new Senate Majority Leader wants to make this happen and prevent any possibility of a government shutdown. House Republicans have already made it clear that their budget for the new Congress will be based upon the plans drafted by Representative Paul Ryan. The only sticking point might be whether members of Congress want to use the budget process to defund the president’s executive order on immigration since the Homeland Security budget only runs through February.

Third, the leadership would like to implement tax reform legislation. This would also include some action on the so-called tax extenders package by making these permanent. While these tax issues may not be part of the president’s agenda, the leadership has talked about dangling before the president some of the fast-track trade agreements he wants ratified.

If these three initiatives strike you as being a bit lean and limited, I would agree. There are many other issues Congress should address. Tomorrow, I will put forward some other items that I believe should also be part of the congressional agenda.

The new Congress is about to convene. The new leadership should consider changing a tradition left over from the previous Congress. Columnist Derek Hunter put it this way: “It’s time to kill the lame duck.”

He makes a convincing case that it is time to abolish lame duck sessions in Congress. He asks, “why should people whom the voters unambiguously said they no longer wish to have represent them have two full months to do just that in every conceivable and legally binding way?” He proposes an amendment that Congress ends its session before a federal election.

These last few lame duck sessions illustrate the problem. Members of Congress postpone important decisions about the budget or major pieces of legislation until after the election. They stuff budget bills with payoff pork. They rush to pass major pieces of legislation (like Obamacare) without even reading the bills.

Derek Hunter even argues that no recess appointments, pardons, or new regulations should be made during this time. We have seen outgoing presidents pardon people who would never have been pardoned if they had been running for re-election. And we have seen presidents make recess appointments when Congress wasn’t even in recess. The mischief that takes place during this time of year has to stop.

I can think of many precedents that illustrate why we should kill the lame duck session. In the parliamentary system used in many countries, a vote of no confidence ends your opportunity to do mischief in government. In the British system the prime minister has 24 hours to vacate 10 Downing Street. That transition of power is stunning in its speed and efficiency.

Or look at the private sector. If a boss fires an employee, that employee isn’t allowed to stay on the job for another two months. I think we all know what would happen if a fired employee was allowed to stay on the job for an extended period of time.

It’s time for Congress to prevent this from happening again. It is time to kill the stupid tradition of allowing a lame duck Congress to stay in office and do mischief for months.

Let me begin by wishing you a Happy New Year. Have you made any New Year’s resolutions? Whether you have or not, I want to encourage you to “strive for mediocrity.” I have borrowed the phrase from an article written by Tristan Taylor Thomas.

His argument is that we should consider a number of things before we make any resolution. His advice to us is not to pick something that too big to achieve. When we aim lower and strive for mediocrity, we will probably be more successful.

I know we hear from promoters, coaches, and motivational speakers that we should strive for excellence. We should pick goals that stretch us and empower us to be better than we are. I don’t disagree with that, but I also think we should inject some reality into our lives.

Many people who are going on a diet today, and many people who will be signing up at a fitness club this week will fail to keep their resolution a month from now. A diet that lasts a month or a workout that lasts a month isn’t going to be very effective.

Let’s face reality. Where you are today is the result of lots of cumulative, incremental decisions. It took awhile for you to get here. It will take some time to get to a different place. I think that a person who plans to lose a pound a week or a pound a month and keeps at it will be much more effective than someone who plans to lose ten pounds a week. He or she might have a good week or two but seems more likely to relapse.

Of course this also applies to your spiritual life. If you have no prayer time or quiet time, getting started may be much more effective than saying you will devote an hour a day. A regular, consistent quiet time that lasts only a few minutes each day will certainly serve you better than an occasional quiet time. Consistency is better than hit or miss.

Feel free to set big goals, if you want to do so. But I would also recommend you consider the value of striving for mediocrity. Making smaller goals or resolutions that you can keep is a good way to be successful.