Real Talk

"Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, 'By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.' Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: 'Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.'

'When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.'"

- Luke 11: 14 - 23


Peace and blessings,

Last month I watched an episode of "Wife Swap" that was extremely hilarious and entertaining. I've watched episodes before and for the most part they too have been hilariously entertaining. This one, however, was particularly interesting because both of the families were Christian. Keeping true to the show's tradition, these families differed greatly in terms of some of their views on managing a household and raising children. One family was very liberal with the husband being a seminary graduate and being an at-home dad while his wife worked. They didn't appear to really instill Christian values to their children, but instead encouraged them to be individual thinkers. The other family was more "traditional" in that the husband was the provider and their children had to follow strict behavioral rules.

I don't really need to recap the rest of the show or explain the outcome to illustrate my point, which is that in my opinion, these two households represented (in one form or another) two major types of Christian thought prevalent throughout America. One type is the traditional Christian thought and the other is the more liberal/contemporary Christian thought. Once these types of thought are "hijacked" by the media, they take on an over-exaggerated form of their own. As a result, these ways of thought are put forth as extreme opposites of one another. What this episode of "Wife Swap" and the above scripture has showed me is that we must be careful to not be so quick to a) become so polarized in our own views that we neglect some of the essentials of the gospel (Matthew 28:18-19) and b) be so "open" with everything that we dilute some of the essentials of the gospel.

The question is not how do we choose between the traditional and the liberal, but how do we use elements of both to maximize the effectiveness and relevance of the gospel to a constantly changing, yet remarkably stable world. For instance, we are constantly evolving with regards to medical, technological, and scientific developments, and with regards to our understanding of how and why humans think, feel, and acts in the ways we do. At the same time, however, sins and vices such as murder, lust, greed, envy, jealousy, betrayal, pride and so forth has been around since the beginning of time, and is just as prevalent today. We must seek God for discernment regarding which aspects of our Christian faith and thought that could potentially be rethought and which aspects cannot. Reflecting on my personal experiences, I have been blessed to have great pastors who have given me tools to discern some of these differences. The deity and tri-unity of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is an accepted fact of the Christian faith and cannot be changed. How Christians should interact with others is something that has and continues to be revisited and changed when appropriate (e.g. slavery, anti-semitism, racial/gender discrimination, homophobia, economic exploitation). However, I would argue that anyone who practiced or practice hate with regards to any of these groups and claim to be doing so in the name of Christianity is not really following Christ in the first place.

What do you think? Do you think that certain areas of Christian thought or too polarized? God bless, take care and speekonit...

Labels: Christianity, family, unity

Peace and blessings,

Below are a couple of news updates. Have a blessed weekend and speekonit...



1)

Mychal Bell ordered back to jail

2)

Noose found on the door of a Teacher's College Professor

3) An article dicussing the

similarities and differences between social justice and Christianity,

and how to avoid the "good person" paradigm.

Labels: Christianity, professor, racism, social justice

Peace and blessings,

During the last post, I provided my general thoughts on Dr. Hendricks’ “Politics of Jesus,” highlighting things that I agreed with and things I either disagreed or had concerns with. I now want to offer a potential explanation as to why I think he went to such great lengths (by “great lengths” I am referring to the extent to which he used biblical scripture to support and further his position) to urge us as Christians and those who may not be Christian but are passionate about issues of social justice to pay more attention to Jesus Christ’s revolutionary nature, and the implication of this nature on past, present, and future politics.
Looking back at the points in my life when I first realized that I was passionate about something, I noticed that whenever this realization occurred, it was as a result of experiencing or wrestling with two extremes simultaneously. In other words, once I learned something that was totally contrary to what I had previously been taught, I would kind of “flip out” in a sense. As a result, I would devote all of my energy embracing this “new” information that I would cut myself off from considering any other type of information that may differ from this “new” information that I was now fully embracing.
I think that Dr. Hendricks had a similar experience. It the start of the book he talks about his experiences with trying to understand God and Christianity as a child. He mentions how whenever he would suggest to others that the way he sees Jesus is different that how the Messiah has been characterized, portrayed, and widely represented historically and presently, he would run into opposition. In particular, he would be made to feel as if his “radical” view of Jesus is nothing more than a function of his misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the “real” Jesus: one who is meek, divine, and only concerned with our personal piety and salvation. As he got older, however, he began to become more engaged in the scriptures and realized that his “radical” notion of Jesus was not “wrong” or inaccurate. In fact, it was the exact opposite. In other words, Hendricks had discovered this “new” characterization of Jesus that was so drastically different than the apolitical characterization of Jesus that he was so accustomed to.
As a result, he focused most, if not all of his efforts on emphatically supporting this position. Further, I think that it was this simultaneous struggle between two drastically different conceptions of Jesus, and the resulting focus on supporting his “new” realization that Jesus was in fact a revolutionary, that explains why some of his interpretations of the scriptures (e.g. the passage in Matthew and the passage in Mark), seem to be earnestly trying to highlight some further social, economic, or political motive, when it is possible that it may not be.
As I said in the previous post, I am not saying that his interpretation of the passages in Matthew and Mark that I highlight are inaccurate, because I am in no way a biblical scholar, and he is. What I am saying is that for me personally, I do not see those larger motives. Second, there are plenty of interpretations of scriptures that he highlight in the book that I do agree with.
In conclusion, I want to note that Hendricks sheds some much deserved and long overdue light on some very important aspects of Jesus’ revolutionary nature, that in my opinion are just as important as His divine nature. In fact, I would argue that Jesus’ life and ministry is absolute proof that having an intimate relationship with God necessitates intimate relationships with others, such that we work to break down the walls of injustice, in any and every way God calls us to do so. We cannot be intimately connected to God if we are not also intimately connected to God’s children. Lastly, I think that the potential explanation I offered for as to why I think Hendricks was so “hard core” on arguing his position, reflects a larger issue regarding the “popular” conception of Jesus and Christianity that is prevalent within mainstream America. The sooner we start looking at Jesus’ divinity and revolutionary natures as sequential and interconnected (i.e. because He was divine, He was always concerned with holistically meeting people’s needs) and not polar opposites (or at the very least two separate, distinct, aspects), the better we will become as a people. Books that highlight the revolutionary nature of Jesus will then no longer be looked at as shocking revelations, but instead as confirmation.

What do you think? What is your conception of Jesus? Where does your conception of Jesus come from? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit…

Labels: African American, children, Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, mainstream, Mark, Matthew, Politics of Jesus, relationship, revolutionary, scriptures

Peace and Blessings,

I've been meaning to post this story for a few weeks now, but i'm just now getting to it. It is a story about Emmanuel, a man who, while going through Seminary training to work in ministry, found out that he had HIV. It's a compelling story. The link is below, and it is also in the "Christianity" news section. Take care and speekonit...


http://www.urbana.org/_articles.cfm?RecordId=1025

Labels: Christianity, faith, HIV, ministry, news, redemption, seminary

Peace and Blessings,



In recent news, hundreds of letters to God were found in the Atlantic Ocean. The letters were addressed to a minister at a Baptist church, but they were never delivered to him. You can find more info by clicking on the link in the "Christianity" news section. Check it and share your thoughts. Speekonit...

Labels: Christianity, church, God, minister, news

I just came across this and I thought that it was just yet another reminder that God is always around, even when we don't acknowledge it. Apparently there was a cross-shaped beam that survived the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center. This cross ended up becoming a symbol for workers, and those who lost loved ones as a source of inspiration. It is currently being moved to a church (St. Peter's) so that construction workers can start rebuilding the towers. The article is included in the "Christianity" news section. I know it's not a coincidence that the source of inspiration that survived the attacks was a cross, and that it is being moved to a churched named St. Peter's. Peter is one of my favorite people in the New Testament, and it seems fitting that this cross, this symbol of stregth, faith, and hope would be moved to a church named after him, seeing that Jesus told him that it is through him (the name "Peter" means rock) that He would build His church. Enough of the connections and symbolism for the day, I gotta move my car before I get a ticket! LOL. Speekonit...

Labels: 9-11, Christianity, cross, God, New Testament, news, Peter, St. Peter's Church, World Trade Center