Real Talk

"In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

-Luke 10: 30-37 (NIV)


"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

- Matthew 23:23 (NIV)


"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."

- Matthew 23:25 (NIV)


"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

- Matthew 23:27 (NIV)


"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

- James 1:22-27 (NIV)


"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

- James 2:14-17 (NIV)


Peace and blessings,

Out of the many topics I have been blessed with the opportunity to write on over the past two years (by the grace of God), this one has probably been the most pressing on my heart. I originally thought of the idea for this topic last summer, during a time when God was speaking to me in "unique" ways so to speak.

Throughout the years I have learned (through sermons as well as through personal experience), that a common misconception about the Christian walk is that once we "join the squad" (i. e. give our lives to Christ), then things will generally go smooth from there. Sure there are a few bumps or minor setbacks along the way, but for the most part, life will not really be difficult. Although the bible tells us that as believers that all things will work out for the good (Romans 8: 28), it also tells us that the things we experience in life can help built our spiritual character (Romans 5: 3-5). Taken together, I interpret these scriptures to mean that for Christians, we will inevitably experience hurt and pain, but that all of our experiences (good or bad), insofar as we seek out God in the midst of those experiences, can yield spiritual rewards for our life on earth and for our eternal life in heaven.

In general, I feel like God has been showing me that many of our experiences as Christians are sort of like "check points" to assess the extent to which our lives are consistent in three areas:

our worldview (how we view the world, our place in it, others' place in it)

our words (the things we say,, words we live by, the advice we give to people)

our works (how we act in the world, treat others)


Let me preface this by saying that I am not arguing that we as Christians have to be perfect, because Lord knows we can't be (lol). What I am arguing, however, is that many of our experiences provide a measuring stick for us to assess in what ways our worldview, words, and works line up or do not line up. This level of consistency is a difficult task because there may be certain areas where we are more or less consistent. For instance, in certain contexts it is more easier for me to be consistent in all three areas, others more easier to be consistent in two of the three, and other areas where there is no consistency. The goal in my opinion is two-fold. One goal is for us to continually work on those areas that we have partial or not consistency and build on those areas. As mentioned in

New Beginnings,

one of my prayers this year is for God to help me view things the way He views them, because there are times when I find myself telling others to view setbacks through a spiritual lens yet I myself am viewing my obstacles through a purely human (limited) lens. Second, our goal is to recognize those areas in which we do have consistency, and learn from them so that we are able to live our lives in a way that best pleases God; through our expression of love, faith and humility in how we view the world, the things we say, and how we live.

What do you think? Any areas where you see consistency? Inconsistency? What are some steps you think yourself as well as us as Christians in general can take to achieve and maintain consistency? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

Labels: character, Christian, consistency, experiences, God, James, life, Luke, Matthew, Romans, spiritual, words, works, worldview

Peace and blessings,

I pray everyone had a safe, wonderful, and blessed Christmas and New Years. For those whom for whatever reason had a difficult time during this holiday season, I pray that God continues to shower you with His love, peace, and comfort (Psalms 55:22; Matthew 11:28).

It seems fitting that I would begin my first post of the new year on the birthday of my late grandfather, who was one of most admirable and honorable men of God I will ever know. I pray that through my life I will make you proud...

In 2006 while attending a church in Cambridge, MA I was prophesied to. When I approached the pastor right before he laid hands on me I can honestly say that while I believed in the gift of prophecy, I did not put too much stock in someone speaking into my life about specific areas in my life that were "cut off" from those around me. To my surprise, however, that's exactly what happened. I think for all of us there are some things we believe without witnessing it first hand, and other things we have to witness first hand to believe. For me, prophecy was one of those things.

After I told him the three things that were weighing on my heart at the time, he told me what God was telling him with regards to those three things. It wasn't until he "changed course" in a sense that I truly felt the presence of God. He basically said that before I come into what God has for me, God had to "take the lid off and show you some things." Once he started revealing what one of those things was, I suddenly felt encapsulated by the Holy Spirit to where I literally couldn't move (i. e. my legs felt cemented into the ground despite me trying to move them). It was at that moment that I knew that only God could have told Him that, because no one else knew.

After that experience, I have since been wondering what were some of those other "things" that God had to show me. In 2007, I feel like some of those things have been revealed to me, as well as the purpose for me experiencing those things. Given that "7" is the biblical number of completion, I feel like the ups and downs of last year occurred the way they did because for me (and I am only speaking for myself), it could not have happened any other way. In other words, I believe that there are some things that we each must experience in order for God to straighten out our "character-kinks." Put frankly, God loves us such that He is always concerned with building our character and making us better people, and thus a better reflection of Him.

There are some things in my spirit that if left unchecked, can do tons of damage to myself, to those around me, and to my relationship with God. Through experiencing the ups and downs of 2007, and seeing God reveal Himself to me in many different ways during those experiences, I can honestly say that I am a better, stronger, wiser man of God this year than I was last year. This is only the beginning, however, because God will never stop working on us because we can never be perfect on our own. Understanding that what defines us is not who we are when things are going "as usual," but who we are when things in our life are anything but usual, I am really looking forward to this year. Therefore, my new year's resolution is three-fold:

1) To work on viewing people and myself the way God views us

2) To work on viewing the situations and experiences that come up in life the way God views them

3) To work on viewing the world the way God views it.

What about you? Anything you've learned in 2007 that you think will make you a better person in 2008? Any new years resolutions? God bless, happy new year, and speekonit...

Labels: 2007, 2008, church, God, Matthew, prophecy, Psalms

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?'
They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.'

'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?'

Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'"

- Matthew 16:13-17 (NIV)

Peace and blessings,

I came across this video on Godtube of

a poem by Blair Wingo,

Which I think is entitled "reintroduction to Christ" or something to that effect. In the poem, she touches on the various popular/mainstream conceptions of Jesus Christ (JC), and how they all get it wrong. She reminds us of the importance of seeking the JC of the bible, not the JC that fits our level of convenience. Check it out, spread the word, and share yout thoughts. What do you think? Do you think that Jesus is often mis-characterized in popular discourse/the mainstream? If so, why do you think this is so, and how can we as Christians respond? Have a blessed day and speekonit...

Note: If the link does not work, then go to Godtube.com and type in "allow me to re-introduce the Christ" or "Blair Wingo."

Labels: Bible, Blair Wingo, God, GodTube, Jesus Christ, mainstream, Matthew, Peter

"These three characteristics - one, contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment - are the same three principles that define how measles move through a grade-school classroom or the flu attacks every winter. Of the three, the third trait - the idea that epidemics can rise or fall in one dramatic moment - is the most important, because it is the principle that makes sense of the first two and that permits the greatest insight into why modern change happens the way it does. The name given to that one dramatic moment in an epidemic when everything can change all at once is the Tipping Point (Gladwell, p. 9)."



"While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests, the captian of the temple, and the Sadducees came to them, much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead. So they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. But many of those who heard the word believed; and they numbered about five thousand(Acts 4:1-4)."


"But among them were some men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord (Acts 11:20-21)."


"But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ's gift....The gifts He gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers...(Ephesians 4:7-11)."


Peace and blessings,

I just wanted to follow up with my thoughts of Malcolm Gladwell's (2000) "The Tipping Point." Last time I briefly touched on two main ideas of the book. The first was the idea that social epidemics occur in pretty much the same fashion as biological or medical epidemics. This point is illustrated in the first quote above. The other idea was his argument that in many if not all social epidemics, the three types of people who are essential to the movement spreading are Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen.

In this follow-up, I want to share my thoughts on how I think these two ideas can be applied to our understanding as Christians of the roll all of us play in the Great Commission which Jesus outlined for us in Matthew 28:18-20. I am going to begin by highlighting what I think are some general connections between the gifts God has given us and the three types of people described by Gladwell (2000), and conclude by drawing similarities and distinctions bewteen Gladwell's "Tipping Point," and what I believe to be the Christian equivalent.

In the last quote, Paul lists a few gifts that God has given us, to be used in the spreading of Jesus' ministry. Like Gladwell's (2000) descriptions of Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen, the gifts that have been distributed among believers each play a specific role in the movement. For instance, the gift of teaching may embody certain skills, dispositions, and temperaments that differ from the gift of evangelizing. Now of course these gifts do not have to be independent of each other, because I believe that we are all born with multiple gifts. Further, I believe that which gifts are able to "sprout up" and which ones are "shut down" has a lot to do with our environmental influences, but that's a topic for another time, lol. In addition to this idea that we as individuals play an important role in bringing about movements or social epidemics, Gladwell and Paul (or someone writing in the name of Paul) are suggesting that humans are inherently social, therefore understanding our gifts, skills, and temperaments is to understand the great movements or social epidemics of our time. Indeed, Stiles (1995) echoes this notion of social influence in his book "Speaking of Jesus," where he talks about the significance of divine appointments and how the most minor or casual conversations can lead to monumental changes in people's lives.

In addition to these three types of people, Gladwell (2000) argues that there are three rules to social epidemics. Further, he argues that the third rule, which is that change happens in one moment dramatically and not in incremental moments gradually, is what he refers to as the "Tipping Point." Before I go on to talk about his notion of a Tipping Point, I first want to comment on his belief that change occurs dramatically and not gradually. I would have to disagree with this assertion, because I think that most instances of major change is a result of both gradual and dramatic moments. In many of the examples he gives in the book (e.g. the popularity of airwalk shoes, teen smoking, and teen male suicide), I would argue that underlying those "dramatic" changes are slower, gradual changes. In other words, I think that it is because of incremental changes that dramatic change is possible. Ok, back to what I was saying before, lol...

In the two instances in the book of Acts that are captured above in the second and third quotes, the Great Commission was being carried out in major ways. Large groups of people were experiencing and coming to Christ in notably dramatic fashion. In Acts 4:1-4, about five thousand people came to Christ. Now talk about a social epidemic! Similarly in Acts 11:20-21, large numbers of people also came to Christ. What could have "caused" these dramatic changes? What accounted for the spread of this "epidemic?" As mentioned earlier, Gladwell (2000) and the author of Ephesians agree that we are social beings, and thus have an important role in bringing about major change. Where I think the difference lies is in their views of what the Tipping Point is. For Gladwell (2000), the Tipping Point can come about due to a certain number, context, or action. For Christians, the Tipping Point is something different. It is true that in both of these instances in Acts, there were dedicated, influential, people of God teaching and proclaiming the gospel to massess of people at the time these major changes were taking place. However, I'm certain that it was not the teachers and proclaimers themselves that caused all of those people to encounter Christ and come to believe. The Tipping Point which led all those people to come to Christ was none other than the Holy Spirit Himself. Sure, the preachers and proclaimers played a role, just as all of us as Christians play a role in sharing the love and gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I strongly believe that the roles we play are only to "set up" the situations to where God will move, bring about His will, and get all the glory in the process. Now, I'm not saying God needs us to set up these situations, because He doesn't. God will do what He's going to do with or without us. Because He loves us and calls us into a relationship with Him, He also calls us to take part in His reaching the world. This is an ongoing theme in many of Brux Cavey's messages, who is Pastor of The Meeting House in Canada. Isn't God amazing?

I know this is a lot to throw at you, but I would really appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Until next time, stay blessed and speekonit...

Labels: Acts, change, Christ, Ephesians, gifts, Gladwell, Great Commision, Holy Spirit, Jesus, John, Lord, Matthew, Peter, Sadducees, Tipping Point

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

" Rather than taking a literalistic or legalistic approach, the politics of Jesus calls for scrutinizing every political policy and policy proposal by this standard: It is based upon the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself?' That is, does it treat the people and their needs as holy? It is important that this principle not be treated as a law with layers of liturgical and organizational requirements. Rather, it is to be seen as a yardstick that at every point seeks to apply mishpat (justice), sadiqah (righteousness), and hesed (steadfast), continually demonstrated love for our neighbors to every public and private act of consequence. This is the way the politics of Jesus enjoins us to approach every question of politics and social policy (pg. 323)."


"If we look honestly and unflinchingly at the political culture in America today, it becomes clear that Jesus' judgment against the religious and political leaders of his day (in reality, they were the same) is also his judgment against the leaders of our day. America's most vocal and self-described politicians 'of faith' profess biblical beliefs while consistently acting in ways that contradict biblical justice. Worse, they portray themselves to the American masses as the definitive moral voice of America, the righteous, divinely ordained spokespersons for God to us all. Yet there is little question that if Jesus were walking among us now, he would stand against the political leaders of our day--and many of the religious leaders, too--as he stood against them in his own day (pg.329)."

Peace and blessings,

I chose to begin with these quotes, because I think they accurately characterize Dr. Obery Hendricks' position as articulated in his book, "The Politics of Jesus." The following book review will be two fold. First, I will briefly (but then again, do I ever discuss anything "briefly?"LOL) discuss the aspects of Henricks' position that I agree with, and those aspects that I disagree with. Afterwards, I will offer a potential explanation as to what factors may have influenced how he argued his position.

In a nutshell, Hendricks (2006) argues that both historically and currently, leaders (political and religious) have in some form or another misinterpreted Jesus' ministry and/or neglected critical components of His ministry. As a result, Jesus has been, and is currently regarded as a passive Messiah only concerned with our personal piety, righteousness, and salvation. According to Hendricks, this view of Jesus is inaccurate or at best incomplete because it fails to acknowledge Jesus' revolutionary nature and his mission to non-violently dismantle social injustice and economic and oppression. Through closely examining scriptures and the social, economic, and political contexts in which these scriputures were written, Hendricks passionately reminds us that in addition to His divinity and the fact that He came, died, and rose so that through Him we can be saved, He was also dedicated to changing the structures which sought to oppress and marginalize the very people He came to save (which is everyone). Whether it was feeding the five thousand, healing (restoring) the lives of those treated as social outcasts, or constantly opposing the Pharisees' and other leaders' illusions of power and dominance over "the least of these," Jesus was always about meeting people's needs (spiritual, mental, physical, and economic).

I agree with his general arguement, and that Jesus' revolutionary nature is often neglected within most political, social, and economic discourse and policies in the U.S. In addition to some political and religious arenas, I think that the media (movies, etc...) is also partly responsible for the neglect of Jesus' revolutionary nature and His emphasis on social, economic, and political change that lovingly and righteously serves all humanity. My only criticism of the book, however, is that I think that some of Hendricks' arguments that he derives from analyzing certain scriptures are somewhat "far-fetched." One example of this is his analysis of Matthew 20:1-16, which is the parable where Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven using the analogy of a householder going into his vineyard to hire workers. In the parable, the householder ends up paying the workers who were hired last and thus only worked one hour, the same wage as those who were hired first and worked for twelve hours. Hendricks argues that despite the general impression that this parable is about how God's love, grace, and mercy are available to everyone regardless of status or circumstance, the parable is actually about the oppressive condition of the workers, the low wage they were paid, and how they were exploited by the householder who hired them.

Another example has to do with his examination of Mark 5:1-10, which is the passage where a man is possed by a legion of demons and is healed by Jesus. Primarily drawing on the facts that the demons asked Jesus no to send them out of the country (as opposed to being sent out of the man), and that at the time "legion" referred to the Roman legions, which was the Roman army, Hendricks argues that the passage is not about an exorcism, but about Jesus addressing the Roman army "for its role in the upheaval that was devastating the social fabric of Israel (pg. 146)." I am in no way a biblical scholar or theologian, nor do I claim to be. I am simply saying that to me, it seems like these conclusions appear to be somewhat of a stretch. Although it is possible that his interpretations of these passages are correct, I think it is more likely that both interpretations are correct. In other words, the passages are more likely demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature and concern for "the least of these" though their illustrations of the equal access to God's kingdom (Matthew 20:1-16) and Jesus healing a possessed man (Mark 5: 1-10), than only demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature.

In the next couple of days, I will discuss my thoughts as to why I think Hendricks chose to put forth his argument in this way. Until then, stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...

Labels: contexts, economic, Israel, Jesus, leaders, Mark, Matthew, oppression, political, Politics of Jesus, power, religious, revolutionary, scriptures, spiritual

Peace and blessings,

Now i'm not really an insect person, but the Gadfly is a particularly interesting insect, given 1) its characteristic behavior and 2) who this behavior affects. A Gadfly is a type of fly that annoys livestock. Yeah that's right, all they do is basically agitate livestock. Even more interesting, however, is

the social implication of this concept of a Gadfly.

In a nutshell, the term "Gadfly" has been used thoughout history and in contemprary society to describe someone or something that agitates in the name of "waking people up" in a sense.

While at a Christian leadership conference last November, one of the speakers said something that resonated deeply with me. He said that as Christians, EVERY (social) situation that we find ourselves in (e.g. a meeting, an event, a discussion, an organization, etc...) should be different (changed) simply because we are in it. This is not to say that it is something about us that people should pay attention to, because first and foremost it is not us but God through us, and we are called to be humble. What it is saying is that when people see and interact with us, they should see that God lives in and works through us. This idea of the Gadlfy was also expressed by

LPG, a southern California Christian hip-hop group.

Regarding this matter, Jesus proclaimed that

"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste (its strength, its quality), how can its saltness be restored? It is not good for anything any longer but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a peck measure, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house." (Matthew 5:13-15)

The conference speaker's statement, and its scriptural justification, deeply resonated with me on two levels. For one, the statement resonated with me because pragmatically, it makes sense. Since we have been saved by, and thus called to represent JC, then this representation should be evident through our daily actions. Again, this is not to say that we intentionally draw attention to ourselves as if we're saying "look at me, the super holier-than-thou Christian." This should never be our motivation for doing anything. On another level, the statement resonated with me because it causes me to constantly evaluate my life and ask the following questions: Am I letting my light shine in every situation that I find myself in? Am I decreasing so that God can increase and get the glory?

No what's the connection between what I've just mentioned and the ugly insect at the beginning of the post? The connection, at least in my opinion, will easily be seen once the Gadfly's actions are explained in further detail. As mentioned earlier, the Gadlfy is known for annoying livestock. Although the term "annoying" tends to have a negative connotation, there are times when being annoying can be a positive and loving thing. If the purspose of annoying someone or something is to preserve their life (e.g. it could very well be the case that if not agitated by the Gadfly, some livestock would die in their sleep through choking or through some other means), then such agitation is warranted. Similarly, I think that we as Christians have a similar calling, to agitate those persons, structures, and ideologies that seek oppress and destroy. Through LOVE, we should constantly be letting our light shine in a way that represents JC in a world that often tries to suppress Him. In terms of being a loving agitator, JC was the best to do it. During his ministry, he showed unconditional love for prostitutes, criminals, and sinners, while at the same time changing (spiritually, mentally, socially, and in some cases physically) every situation He was apart of. In Matthew 10:34-35 he says

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to part asunder a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a newly married wife from her mother-in-law--"

What I take from this is that although JC loved us so much as to die for us and incur the burden for our sins, he also came to "shake things up" so that people can follow Him. Given that Jesus was a revolutionary (e.g. he challenged the oppressive structures and advocated for the marginalized) in addition to being our Savior and Redeemer, we are called to "shake things up" in our groups, organizations, communities, and sometimes even our families, so that God's light can be seen through us.

What do you think? What do you think it means to be a Gadfly? To let your light shine in all situations? Weigh in and speekonit...

Labels: agitate, Christians, communities, gadfly, God, humble, ideologies, JC, love, Matthew, mental, ministry, organizations, social, society, spiritual

Peace and blessings,

I mean I joke about things being "apocalytpic" (i.e., that mini snowstrom steez in Cambridge, MA last year) and that we are in the end times, but now it doesn't seem so funny. For those of you who have not yet heard, here's some info on

Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda

Despite the fact that his claim to be the second coming of JC is all wrong, his steez is wrong on so many levels:

#1: He "preaches" that there is no such thing as sin because JC destroyed sin when He died on the cross. Therefore, we can do no wrong in God's eyes.

This statement is beyond inaccurate on at least two accounts. The first account is the fact that although JC died and resurrected, he did so so that we, through Him, can have a closer relationship with God, given that we accept and live for Him. The second account is due to the fact that sin is still very real. You would be lying to yourself and jeopardizing your soul if you tried to convince yourself otherwise. Jesus is very much alive, and yes He did die and rise for our sins, but that does not mean that we are exempt from obeying His commandments and trying to live like Him. If anything, His death and resurrection is all the more reason to live right. Lastly, JC, who was there since the beginning of time and will be there after the end, never said anything about there will be a time when we could do no wrong in God's eyes. Although He often told people to "go and sin no more," He NEVER said "do what you want because there's no more sin."

#2: He "preaches" that prayer is a waste of time (as if "#1" was not inaccurate enough).

There are too many bible verses where JC emphasized the importance of prayer and fasting. I mean dang, He did both for forty days! If he prayed, fasted, and was tempted with sin (although he NEVER succomed to the temtpations), who are we to think that we are exempt? If anything we should be treated more harshly than He was, but instead He showed HIs unconditional love for us by humbling Himself among us and paying the ransom for our transgressions. Neglecting prayer is spiritual denial because it's like saying that there's no need to talk to God, and that God doesn't work through/answer prayers.

#3: He makes His congregation get a "666" tatoo like him. What more is there to say?

How can one speak this blasphemy when the very things that he claims are irrelevant now (sin and prayer) are two things that JC spoke of passionately and often. Heck, that's what most of his ministry was about. Also, if there is no such thing as sin, then why did JC often speak about the sin of greed and how it can prevent one from entering heaven (Matthew 19:23-25; Luke 16:19-23)? If there was no more sin, the JC would have told His disciples that after He died, that everyone would automatically go to heaven. Further, He would not have comissioned us to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20).

I don't know what bothers me more. The fact that he has the audacity to promote such garbage, or the fact that his followers are growing. In one conversation with the disciple Peter, JC speaks against everything that Miranda "preaches" about:

"Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan has asked excessively that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain, But I have prayed especially for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, strengthen and establish your brethren."
-Luke 22:31-32 (NKJ AMP)


What do you think? Are you more bothered by Miranda's claims or his increasing number of followers? Weigh in and speekonit...

Labels: blasphemy, God, JC, Jesus, Jose De Jesus Miranda, Luke, Matthew, Peter, prayer