Thursday, July 26, 2007
A Few Thoughtz: The Politics of Jesus, pt. 2
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
Thursday, April 26, 2007
What Does It Take? (Pt. 1)
Peace and blessings,
By now, I'm sure most of us have heard about the comments Imus made a few weeks ago. The fact that civil rights leaders came at Imus for his remarks and that he got fired was not surprising. What was surprising, in my opinion, was the fall-back that mainstream hip hop has experienced as a result. Note: I use the term "mainstream" to refer only to the more popular and accessible forms of hip-hop as portrayed on radio stations and music videos. Although I did not expect mainstream hip-hop to be criticized, I believe that this criticism is warranted. In the words of Sam Cooke, "it's been a long time coming." Inan interview with representatives form the hip-hop sites AllHipHop.com and SOHH.com,
the SOHH representative mentioned that the issue is about personal accountability on behalf of the record companies, artists, and everyone else. She also said, in response to the AllHipHop representative's claim that rappers put out offensive language because that's what consumers want (e.g. the supply and demand argument), that it is not that people want this music as much as they have grown accustomed to it.
If Imus would have made those comments a few years ago and mainstream hip-hop would have been under fire, I would have been in the camp of those like Russell Simmons and others who argue that people should point the finger at social inequities and not artists for the degrading lyrics within mainstream hip-hop. Although this position is a legitimate one, and in fact a true "solution" to the problem with artists' degrading lyrics does require that we correct social inequalities and opportunity structures, I no longer consider myself as solely a member of that camp. The more and more I listen to hip-hop and try to analyze their lyrics (both positive and negative), the more I realize that it is not just a social issue, but a moral issue. If society is entirely responsible for hip-hop artists' degrading lyrics, then the social and economic conditions through which these artists are (or were) apart of would shape ALL of their lyrics. However, this is is rarely the case. Most artists tend to show some awareness of the moral responsibility they have to uplift others, but this awareness is thwarted in two ways. One way is through the pursuit of money, such that an artists' album will have 90-95% of their album be about violence, materialism, and misogyny, and the other 5-10% be about something positve. While this may be influenced by social inequalities (e.g. using hip-hop as a way to get out of a severely impoversished condition), I don't think that it is the only factor. Another way that this awareness is thwarted is through distortion. Again, social inequalitities can play a signifcant role as growing up in severely harsh conditions can alter one's views on what is right and wrong. For instance, a person who did not grow up with their parents may feel that it is better to not trust anyone and only look out for oneself. Further, they may, through their music, encourage youth to do the same, and believe that by telling them to not trust others and thus to avoid serious, meaningful relationships, that they are "looking out" for the youth in a good way. Even in this case, I think that social inequalities are still only a part (although a significant part) of the problem.
In light of the recent discussions on the role of (mainstream) hip-hop in the denigration of women, and after watching
part 1,
part 2, and
part 3 of the Oprah show on this issue, I've gained a better understanding as to why I now belong in both the moral camp as well as the social camp. In my opinion, Russell Simmons, Kevin Liles, and even Common were quick to talk about the larger societal (social) issue, but danced around the issue of personal (moral) responsibility on behalf of the artists. No one will argue against the fact (at least I hope not) that the structural inequalitites that exists within our country and throughout the world play a significant role in the myriad of problems we face and will continue to face unless these inequalitites are addressed. However, I feel that while this is important, the greater issue WITH RESPECTS TO THE LYRICS THEMSELVES is what can artists do, and what are they willing to do, to put an end to these degrading lyrics. Talking about one's personal experience, and even the experiences of those in one's community is one thing. Portraying these experiences as absolute truths (e.g. "this is just how it is") to the point where the youth who are listening to this music are encouraged to seek out and glorify this experience is a different thing entirely. The solution to this problem does not lie in either the social or the moral realm, but in both. Society needs to change, but society can only change when the individuals within that society change. Society is made up of people, and because people change, then society can change as well. We determine what society should be, society does not determine who we are.
A prime example of this point can be found in the history of people from African descent. If our actions and behavior are solely a result of our social conditions, then we would still be in slavery. In fact, we would have been complicit with the slavery system, such that we would seek out such a system if we had a choice, seeing that was all we knew. However, history clearly shows us that as a people, WE WERE NEVER defined solely by our social conditions. From the Nat Turners to the Mariah Stewarts, to the Nelson Mandela's to the Martin Luther King's, we have always acted (directly or indirectly) on our moral convictions despite society telling us to do otherwise. One of the main reasons I think that those mentioned (as well as countless others) always worked to change the social conditions that sought to confine them is because they recognized that, despite their own experiences, they had a moral obligation to make things better for those who looked up to and/or came after them. It became less about themselves and more about the welfare of others who would later inhabit this world. In King's famous "I have a dream" speech and also throughout his ministry (activism), much attention is often given to his goals for unity among the citizens of that time. Less attention is given, however, to his emphasis on the welfare and life chances of the children who would come after him. These are just a few exerpts of his 1963 speech to illustrate this point:
"Now is thetime to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid
rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children."
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character."
In closing, I think that despite the complexity of the problem with and solution regarding the degrading lyrics in mainstream hip-hop, a step in the right direction requires a fundamnetal understanding: Just as those who have come before us have never been defined by their social conditions and have worked to improve the life chances of those who look up to and/or would come after them, we must also realize that societies change because people change, and that we have a personal (moral) responsibilty to work to change things for the better. Not just for us, but for those who may look up to and/or are coming up after us. Not only are hip-hop artists targeted in this understanding, but due to their influence on the youth and their visibility, they are in the optimal position to take a stand and eliminate degrading lyrics. We can point the finger at society all we want, but until we as individuals take resonsibility for what we say to people and how we treat them, we will constanly revisit this issue to little or no avail.
What do you think? To what extent are the artists responsible for what they say? Do you think that individuals must change before society changes, or vice versa? Weigh in and speekonit...
By now, I'm sure most of us have heard about the comments Imus made a few weeks ago. The fact that civil rights leaders came at Imus for his remarks and that he got fired was not surprising. What was surprising, in my opinion, was the fall-back that mainstream hip hop has experienced as a result. Note: I use the term "mainstream" to refer only to the more popular and accessible forms of hip-hop as portrayed on radio stations and music videos. Although I did not expect mainstream hip-hop to be criticized, I believe that this criticism is warranted. In the words of Sam Cooke, "it's been a long time coming." In
the SOHH representative mentioned that the issue is about personal accountability on behalf of the record companies, artists, and everyone else. She also said, in response to the AllHipHop representative's claim that rappers put out offensive language because that's what consumers want (e.g. the supply and demand argument), that it is not that people want this music as much as they have grown accustomed to it.
If Imus would have made those comments a few years ago and mainstream hip-hop would have been under fire, I would have been in the camp of those like Russell Simmons and others who argue that people should point the finger at social inequities and not artists for the degrading lyrics within mainstream hip-hop. Although this position is a legitimate one, and in fact a true "solution" to the problem with artists' degrading lyrics does require that we correct social inequalities and opportunity structures, I no longer consider myself as solely a member of that camp. The more and more I listen to hip-hop and try to analyze their lyrics (both positive and negative), the more I realize that it is not just a social issue, but a moral issue. If society is entirely responsible for hip-hop artists' degrading lyrics, then the social and economic conditions through which these artists are (or were) apart of would shape ALL of their lyrics. However, this is is rarely the case. Most artists tend to show some awareness of the moral responsibility they have to uplift others, but this awareness is thwarted in two ways. One way is through the pursuit of money, such that an artists' album will have 90-95% of their album be about violence, materialism, and misogyny, and the other 5-10% be about something positve. While this may be influenced by social inequalities (e.g. using hip-hop as a way to get out of a severely impoversished condition), I don't think that it is the only factor. Another way that this awareness is thwarted is through distortion. Again, social inequalitities can play a signifcant role as growing up in severely harsh conditions can alter one's views on what is right and wrong. For instance, a person who did not grow up with their parents may feel that it is better to not trust anyone and only look out for oneself. Further, they may, through their music, encourage youth to do the same, and believe that by telling them to not trust others and thus to avoid serious, meaningful relationships, that they are "looking out" for the youth in a good way. Even in this case, I think that social inequalities are still only a part (although a significant part) of the problem.
In light of the recent discussions on the role of (mainstream) hip-hop in the denigration of women, and after watching
A prime example of this point can be found in the history of people from African descent. If our actions and behavior are solely a result of our social conditions, then we would still be in slavery. In fact, we would have been complicit with the slavery system, such that we would seek out such a system if we had a choice, seeing that was all we knew. However, history clearly shows us that as a people, WE WERE NEVER defined solely by our social conditions. From the Nat Turners to the Mariah Stewarts, to the Nelson Mandela's to the Martin Luther King's, we have always acted (directly or indirectly) on our moral convictions despite society telling us to do otherwise. One of the main reasons I think that those mentioned (as well as countless others) always worked to change the social conditions that sought to confine them is because they recognized that, despite their own experiences, they had a moral obligation to make things better for those who looked up to and/or came after them. It became less about themselves and more about the welfare of others who would later inhabit this world. In King's famous "I have a dream" speech and also throughout his ministry (activism), much attention is often given to his goals for unity among the citizens of that time. Less attention is given, however, to his emphasis on the welfare and life chances of the children who would come after him. These are just a few exerpts of his 1963 speech to illustrate this point:
"Now is thetime to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid
rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children."
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character."
In closing, I think that despite the complexity of the problem with and solution regarding the degrading lyrics in mainstream hip-hop, a step in the right direction requires a fundamnetal understanding: Just as those who have come before us have never been defined by their social conditions and have worked to improve the life chances of those who look up to and/or would come after them, we must also realize that societies change because people change, and that we have a personal (moral) responsibilty to work to change things for the better. Not just for us, but for those who may look up to and/or are coming up after us. Not only are hip-hop artists targeted in this understanding, but due to their influence on the youth and their visibility, they are in the optimal position to take a stand and eliminate degrading lyrics. We can point the finger at society all we want, but until we as individuals take resonsibility for what we say to people and how we treat them, we will constanly revisit this issue to little or no avail.
What do you think? To what extent are the artists responsible for what they say? Do you think that individuals must change before society changes, or vice versa? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: artist, children, controversy, degrading lyrics, Don Imus, hip-hop, inequality, Mariah Stewart, MLK, Nat Turner, Nelson Mandela, social, society, videos, youth
Friday, December 08, 2006
A few updates (More to come soon)
Peace and blessings,
I apologize for not giving the page much attention this past week or so, but what can I say? It's finals time. Once the storm is weathered next week, I will be back on my hustle. Until then, here are a couple of treats for you to enjoy. A great friend of mine sent me info on documentary directed by African American teenage girl, and it's about how black women view themselves. The film is entitled "A Girl Like Me." Also, I included a video on a study that was conducted either in 1968 called "eye of the storm." If you haven't seen it, I won't spoil it for you by telling you what it's about. Just check it out. I think the study relates to the documentary because the documentary includes the famous doll study, in which children were told to indicate their preferences as to which doll they liked, the black or the white doll. Let me know what you think of these videos, as they raise important questions about how perceptive and malleable young children and adolescents are, and what happens when they are "taught" to devalue themselves and others. Have a blessed weekend and speekonit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGDMevuZZVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJLUQzwCFIo
I apologize for not giving the page much attention this past week or so, but what can I say? It's finals time. Once the storm is weathered next week, I will be back on my hustle. Until then, here are a couple of treats for you to enjoy. A great friend of mine sent me info on documentary directed by African American teenage girl, and it's about how black women view themselves. The film is entitled "A Girl Like Me." Also, I included a video on a study that was conducted either in 1968 called "eye of the storm." If you haven't seen it, I won't spoil it for you by telling you what it's about. Just check it out. I think the study relates to the documentary because the documentary includes the famous doll study, in which children were told to indicate their preferences as to which doll they liked, the black or the white doll. Let me know what you think of these videos, as they raise important questions about how perceptive and malleable young children and adolescents are, and what happens when they are "taught" to devalue themselves and others. Have a blessed weekend and speekonit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGDMevuZZVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJLUQzwCFIo
Labels: A Girl Like Me, adolescents, African American, children, Eye of the Storm, media, news, race, videos, White
Monday, October 16, 2006
The Unpredictability of Prayer
Peace and blessings,
I wanted to share something with you, something that God revealed to me a few about 6 months ago. But first, I have to add some contextual background...
About a week and a half ago, my girl told me about an interesting phenomena she observed while at Kaiser. Basically, she was telling me how she watched a woman who, after having an unpleasant interaction with a woman of a different race, kept telling her young son (who by girl thinks could not be any older than 7 years old) that the other woman was mean. In particular, the mother kept telling her child something to the effect that "see, now that's a mean, mean woman," and so forth. Moreover, the mother made sure that her voice was extremely soft and her demeaner was overly nice, as to provide her son with a sharp contrast between the nice, sweet mother and the mean woman of another race. After my girl told me exactly why this observation upset her so much (namely because she felt that the mother was using her influence as his mother to convince her son that the other woman was mean), we came up with the following "theory" regarding the development of prejudice and/or racist attitudes among children. In particular, the idea that the development of prejudice and/or racist beliefs within a child may result from the child's learned association between a person of another race and another trait. Further, this association (and thus its affects on the child's development of discriminatory attitudes) is stronger when the child learns this association from an influencial authority figure (e.g. his mother, etc...).
How does this incident relate to prayer you might ask? I provide this story as contextual background because as a child, I underwent a similar process in which I came to associate a behavior with an influential person in my life. That person was my great aunt. She's a matriarch of the family in that all of my cousins and I grew up over her house, as she would babysit all of us. She also one of the most annointed, sweet, and "filled with the holy ghost" type folks I have ever met. In fact, I truly believe that she is an angel, always providing the family with the type of love and spiritual guidance we always need but rarely know how to ask for it or truly appreciate it. Every day, she would pray over all of us( her children, myself and our cousins). In addition, she would spend hours in her room praying to God. As a look back, i realize that she provided me with a great deal of the spiritual foundation that I working to strenghten today.
Although as a child I didn't fully understand what the Christian walk would entail, or who God was for that matter, But started emulating my aunt's prayer behavior for two reasons. One was that you simply couldn't grow up in her house hold and not talk to God, lol. The other, and more important reason, was that even though I didn't quite know what she was doing or why, I knew HER. I knew that she always had my best interests at heart, and whoever she was praying to must be pretty important, because she truly was (and still is, of course) a strong, wise, and beautiful person. So, whenever I would be experiencing hardships, i would get on my knees and attempt to talk to God. Out of the many things I would pray for ( and out of a need to preserve my character I'm not going to name all of them, lol), the thing that I prayed for the most was for my parents to stop arguing. When I was younger, they used to argue all the time, and I was scared that they were going to get a divorce. Despite many nights of praying, my parents continued to argue (and in some instances the arguments got worse). Once my sister came into the picture and was old enough to realize what was going on, I became less concerned with how the arguing affected me, and more concerned with how I could prevent it from affecting her.
Now plenty years have passed and I've gotten older. Further, I have come to know for myself, the same God that my aunt so fervently prayed to day in and day out. Although I could now say that I had a personal relationship with God, at times I would still feel that because my parents didn't stop arguing, that God did not answer my prayer. However recently, out of nowwhere, it was if God spoke to me and was like "look at the bigger picture." I thought about my fellings regarding the answering of prayer, and how sometimes when I would tell others to trust God I would feel like a hypocrite because deep down I felt like that one my sincerest prayers as a child did not get answered. However, as I widened my perspective of who God is and the extent of our relationship, it became clear that many times when i pray, my "prayer-scope" is limited due to the limitations of my human nature and rationality. Because my parents didn't go from arguing to "the Huxtables," I thought that God "dropped the ball" with regards to that prayer. Despite my doubting of God, he nevertheless reminded me that He did in fact answer my prayer, but He answered it HIS way, which was in much broader scope than I had initially perceived. Even though in my prayer I wanted my parents to stop arguing, what I really wanted (e.g. my heart desired) was for my parents to stay together. By the grace of God they just recently celebrated their 23rd anniversary and I don't have to spit out divorce statistics to illustrate how much of a blessing that is.
So in sum, it took alot of wrestling and growth to realize that God answers all your prayers (assuming they are in accordance with His will), but He does so His way. Further, His way is the way that has our best interests in mind. So if I've learned anything from this realization, is that not only does God answers prayers, but that if we feel like we have been constantly praying to God for something to no avail, then it probably means that our "prayer scope" is too small, and that when God answers it, He's going to do so in a way that 1) gives Him the glory and 2) goes over and above what we thought we wanted or needed. Until next time, speekonit...
I wanted to share something with you, something that God revealed to me a few about 6 months ago. But first, I have to add some contextual background...
About a week and a half ago, my girl told me about an interesting phenomena she observed while at Kaiser. Basically, she was telling me how she watched a woman who, after having an unpleasant interaction with a woman of a different race, kept telling her young son (who by girl thinks could not be any older than 7 years old) that the other woman was mean. In particular, the mother kept telling her child something to the effect that "see, now that's a mean, mean woman," and so forth. Moreover, the mother made sure that her voice was extremely soft and her demeaner was overly nice, as to provide her son with a sharp contrast between the nice, sweet mother and the mean woman of another race. After my girl told me exactly why this observation upset her so much (namely because she felt that the mother was using her influence as his mother to convince her son that the other woman was mean), we came up with the following "theory" regarding the development of prejudice and/or racist attitudes among children. In particular, the idea that the development of prejudice and/or racist beliefs within a child may result from the child's learned association between a person of another race and another trait. Further, this association (and thus its affects on the child's development of discriminatory attitudes) is stronger when the child learns this association from an influencial authority figure (e.g. his mother, etc...).
How does this incident relate to prayer you might ask? I provide this story as contextual background because as a child, I underwent a similar process in which I came to associate a behavior with an influential person in my life. That person was my great aunt. She's a matriarch of the family in that all of my cousins and I grew up over her house, as she would babysit all of us. She also one of the most annointed, sweet, and "filled with the holy ghost" type folks I have ever met. In fact, I truly believe that she is an angel, always providing the family with the type of love and spiritual guidance we always need but rarely know how to ask for it or truly appreciate it. Every day, she would pray over all of us( her children, myself and our cousins). In addition, she would spend hours in her room praying to God. As a look back, i realize that she provided me with a great deal of the spiritual foundation that I working to strenghten today.
Although as a child I didn't fully understand what the Christian walk would entail, or who God was for that matter, But started emulating my aunt's prayer behavior for two reasons. One was that you simply couldn't grow up in her house hold and not talk to God, lol. The other, and more important reason, was that even though I didn't quite know what she was doing or why, I knew HER. I knew that she always had my best interests at heart, and whoever she was praying to must be pretty important, because she truly was (and still is, of course) a strong, wise, and beautiful person. So, whenever I would be experiencing hardships, i would get on my knees and attempt to talk to God. Out of the many things I would pray for ( and out of a need to preserve my character I'm not going to name all of them, lol), the thing that I prayed for the most was for my parents to stop arguing. When I was younger, they used to argue all the time, and I was scared that they were going to get a divorce. Despite many nights of praying, my parents continued to argue (and in some instances the arguments got worse). Once my sister came into the picture and was old enough to realize what was going on, I became less concerned with how the arguing affected me, and more concerned with how I could prevent it from affecting her.
Now plenty years have passed and I've gotten older. Further, I have come to know for myself, the same God that my aunt so fervently prayed to day in and day out. Although I could now say that I had a personal relationship with God, at times I would still feel that because my parents didn't stop arguing, that God did not answer my prayer. However recently, out of nowwhere, it was if God spoke to me and was like "look at the bigger picture." I thought about my fellings regarding the answering of prayer, and how sometimes when I would tell others to trust God I would feel like a hypocrite because deep down I felt like that one my sincerest prayers as a child did not get answered. However, as I widened my perspective of who God is and the extent of our relationship, it became clear that many times when i pray, my "prayer-scope" is limited due to the limitations of my human nature and rationality. Because my parents didn't go from arguing to "the Huxtables," I thought that God "dropped the ball" with regards to that prayer. Despite my doubting of God, he nevertheless reminded me that He did in fact answer my prayer, but He answered it HIS way, which was in much broader scope than I had initially perceived. Even though in my prayer I wanted my parents to stop arguing, what I really wanted (e.g. my heart desired) was for my parents to stay together. By the grace of God they just recently celebrated their 23rd anniversary and I don't have to spit out divorce statistics to illustrate how much of a blessing that is.
So in sum, it took alot of wrestling and growth to realize that God answers all your prayers (assuming they are in accordance with His will), but He does so His way. Further, His way is the way that has our best interests in mind. So if I've learned anything from this realization, is that not only does God answers prayers, but that if we feel like we have been constantly praying to God for something to no avail, then it probably means that our "prayer scope" is too small, and that when God answers it, He's going to do so in a way that 1) gives Him the glory and 2) goes over and above what we thought we wanted or needed. Until next time, speekonit...
Labels: children, family, God, learn, parents, prayer, prejudice, racism, spiritual
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Weekly Bible verse(s)
Peace and blessings,
The verse I wanted to share this week is the following:
" Drink waters out of your own cistern [of a pure marriage relationship], and fresh running waters out of your own well. Should your offspring be dispersed abroad as water brooks in the street? [Confine yourself to your own wife] Let your children be for you alone, and not the children of strangers with you. Let your fountain[of human life] be blessed [with the rewards of fidelity], and rejoice in the wife of your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant doe[tender, gentle, attractive]-let her bosom satisfy you at all times, and always be transported with delight in her love. Why should you, my son, be infatuated with a loose woman, embrace the bosom of an outsider, and go astray? For the ways of man are directly before the eyes of the Lord, and He [Whou would have us live soberly, chastly, and godly] carefully weighs all man's goings. His own iniquities shall ensnare the wicked man, and he shall be held with the cord of his sin. He will die for lack of discipline and instruction, and in greatness of his folly he will go astray and be lost."
Proverbs 5: 15-23 (KJV-AMP)
In my opinion, this verse speaks to four themes. The first is importance of remaining faithful in marriage and resisting the temptation to "dip out." The second is consequences that "dipping out" in marriage can have on the married couple's children. The third theme is the sanctity of marriage. That is not to say that everyone is supposed to get married (because God may have not called some people to get married), but that for those God calls to marriage, it is imperative to use that union as a testimonty to God's love and grace. This testimony is for the benefit of the couple, the couple's children (their children, etc...), and for others. Therefore anything that threatens that union (i.e. "dipping out"), inevitably thwarts are ability to realize and actualize God's purposes for the married couple'd lives. Further, children often shape their perceptions of and reactions to relationships based on that of their parents (or guardians who fulfill that parent role), therefore married couples have a moral responsibility to their children in that respects. The fourth is less of a theme and more like an application for today's times. American society prides itself on effieciency and variety, and their depictions of relationships is no different. Epecically with regards to men, there's this dominant idea that the more women the better (at least when you're young, because eventually when you get older you'll settle down). I argue that this is especially true for Black men, as we are constantly being fed images and messages (e.g. music, videos, other aspects of popular culture, etc...) that having many women is the signifyinf marker of what it means to be a man. However, I urge us a Black men to be men of God and to not to succumb to societal pressures. I am in no way saying that this would be easy. By the fact of simple demographics alone, black men are disproportionatley dead or incarcerated, creating situations in society where in various institutions (schools, churches,e tc...) and places of employment, the women heavily outnumber men. So in essence, black men have a large pool of women to choose from, making it that more difficult to maintain a one-woman relationship. This temptation is what makes the reliance upon and word of God so critical to our (and everyone's ) approach to relationships. Let's pray that God will revolutionize how this country values relationships and the sanctity of marriage, so that male and female relationships reflect God's image, and not ours. Until next time, stay blessed and speekoinit...
The verse I wanted to share this week is the following:
" Drink waters out of your own cistern [of a pure marriage relationship], and fresh running waters out of your own well. Should your offspring be dispersed abroad as water brooks in the street? [Confine yourself to your own wife] Let your children be for you alone, and not the children of strangers with you. Let your fountain[of human life] be blessed [with the rewards of fidelity], and rejoice in the wife of your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant doe[tender, gentle, attractive]-let her bosom satisfy you at all times, and always be transported with delight in her love. Why should you, my son, be infatuated with a loose woman, embrace the bosom of an outsider, and go astray? For the ways of man are directly before the eyes of the Lord, and He [Whou would have us live soberly, chastly, and godly] carefully weighs all man's goings. His own iniquities shall ensnare the wicked man, and he shall be held with the cord of his sin. He will die for lack of discipline and instruction, and in greatness of his folly he will go astray and be lost."
Proverbs 5: 15-23 (KJV-AMP)
In my opinion, this verse speaks to four themes. The first is importance of remaining faithful in marriage and resisting the temptation to "dip out." The second is consequences that "dipping out" in marriage can have on the married couple's children. The third theme is the sanctity of marriage. That is not to say that everyone is supposed to get married (because God may have not called some people to get married), but that for those God calls to marriage, it is imperative to use that union as a testimonty to God's love and grace. This testimony is for the benefit of the couple, the couple's children (their children, etc...), and for others. Therefore anything that threatens that union (i.e. "dipping out"), inevitably thwarts are ability to realize and actualize God's purposes for the married couple'd lives. Further, children often shape their perceptions of and reactions to relationships based on that of their parents (or guardians who fulfill that parent role), therefore married couples have a moral responsibility to their children in that respects. The fourth is less of a theme and more like an application for today's times. American society prides itself on effieciency and variety, and their depictions of relationships is no different. Epecically with regards to men, there's this dominant idea that the more women the better (at least when you're young, because eventually when you get older you'll settle down). I argue that this is especially true for Black men, as we are constantly being fed images and messages (e.g. music, videos, other aspects of popular culture, etc...) that having many women is the signifyinf marker of what it means to be a man. However, I urge us a Black men to be men of God and to not to succumb to societal pressures. I am in no way saying that this would be easy. By the fact of simple demographics alone, black men are disproportionatley dead or incarcerated, creating situations in society where in various institutions (schools, churches,e tc...) and places of employment, the women heavily outnumber men. So in essence, black men have a large pool of women to choose from, making it that more difficult to maintain a one-woman relationship. This temptation is what makes the reliance upon and word of God so critical to our (and everyone's ) approach to relationships. Let's pray that God will revolutionize how this country values relationships and the sanctity of marriage, so that male and female relationships reflect God's image, and not ours. Until next time, stay blessed and speekoinit...
Labels: Bible, children, God, marriage, Proverbs, scripture
Sunday, February 19, 2006
More than meets the eye?
Peace and blessings,
Ever since I can remember, I have always been a fan of superheroes. It started with Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoons. Around 9 or 10 years old, I also became interested in comic books, more specifically marvel comics. My all time favorite superhero group by far is the X-men, and my favorite solo superhero is Spiderman. It has since been over a decade later, and I still find myself buying comic books and watching classic superhero cartoons. As I get older, one of my goals is to become more purposeful in all I do, business and recreational. Therefore, the question arises: why am I just as, if not more interested in superheroes now than I was back when I would have had the costumes to match? Not surprisingly, the answer to this question led to more questions. I realized that my current fascination with superheroes stems from the fact that I actually learn from them. More specifically, when I watch an episode of X-men or Spiderman, I see more than just action-packed characters. I see individuals who struggle with complex issues of identity, relationships, and moral agency within a socio-political context. The following pics are courtesy ofMarvel .
For example, I argue that the life of Peter Parker (a.k.a. Spiderman) somewhat mirrors the Christian Walk. Once he received his powers, he struggled with whether or not to use his powers for self-ish reasons or to help others. Similarly, as Christians God has entrusted us with wisdom, discenrment, and spiritual authority over Satan, but it's up to us to decide whether we are going to use what God has blessed us with to bless others. It may sound Cliche-ish, but it's on that "to whom much is given, much is required" steez.
On more of a social level, the X-men are a group of mutants who've dedicated their lives to working towards unity between humans and mutants. I believe that the X-men's decision to protect those who fear and hate them (i.e. humans) and their strivings for unity resemble the civil rights movement and the ills of racisim. This idea of racism and societal outcasts was made more clear to me while learning about the plight of a group of mutants known as the Morlocks in an episode of X-men. Like the X-men, they are feared and hated by humans. Unlike the X-men, however, their mutant characteristics are more visible (i.e. they have more physcial and facial deformities), therefore they cannot "pass" as human. As a result, they live underground, and have to steal food to survive. This dynamic of having one group of mutants who are more marginalized in society than another group relates to past and contemporary divisions bewteen people with darker skin and those with lighter-skin, and how "light-skin" black and brown people appear more acceptible in mainstream American media.
In terms of superheroes' political relevance, the Black Panther's name should speak for itself. The Black Panther is the first prominent Black superhero. He lives in an African nation that was unaffected by European colonization. He protects his nation from colonization and other countries' attempts to exploit his nation's resources. Sound familiar? He first appeared in issue #52 of the Fantastic Four in 1966, the same year that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was formed in Oakland, Ca by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton. Coincidence? Hardly. It doesn't take deep analysis to see there's a connection. In a recent Black Panther comic (part of a four-part crossover series with the X-men), the Black Panther addresses the issue of the death penalty in Texas. Such a comment would not have been necessary if he was simply an action-packed character, suggesting that there's more to many superheroes than what meets the eye.
The above examples have led me to the following theory: Although superheroes are often known for their special powers, they provide insight into moral, political, and societal issues. Moreover, I argue that because children are often fascinated with superheores, adults and educators should atleast consider the potential educational import of superheroes such as Spiderman, X-men, and The Black Panther as tools to promote critical thinking and the awareness of social and political issues among children. I am really interested in this issue, so I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about it. Peace, Blessings, and speekonit...
Ever since I can remember, I have always been a fan of superheroes. It started with Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoons. Around 9 or 10 years old, I also became interested in comic books, more specifically marvel comics. My all time favorite superhero group by far is the X-men, and my favorite solo superhero is Spiderman. It has since been over a decade later, and I still find myself buying comic books and watching classic superhero cartoons. As I get older, one of my goals is to become more purposeful in all I do, business and recreational. Therefore, the question arises: why am I just as, if not more interested in superheroes now than I was back when I would have had the costumes to match? Not surprisingly, the answer to this question led to more questions. I realized that my current fascination with superheroes stems from the fact that I actually learn from them. More specifically, when I watch an episode of X-men or Spiderman, I see more than just action-packed characters. I see individuals who struggle with complex issues of identity, relationships, and moral agency within a socio-political context. The following pics are courtesy of
For example, I argue that the life of Peter Parker (a.k.a. Spiderman) somewhat mirrors the Christian Walk. Once he received his powers, he struggled with whether or not to use his powers for self-ish reasons or to help others. Similarly, as Christians God has entrusted us with wisdom, discenrment, and spiritual authority over Satan, but it's up to us to decide whether we are going to use what God has blessed us with to bless others. It may sound Cliche-ish, but it's on that "to whom much is given, much is required" steez.
On more of a social level, the X-men are a group of mutants who've dedicated their lives to working towards unity between humans and mutants. I believe that the X-men's decision to protect those who fear and hate them (i.e. humans) and their strivings for unity resemble the civil rights movement and the ills of racisim. This idea of racism and societal outcasts was made more clear to me while learning about the plight of a group of mutants known as the Morlocks in an episode of X-men. Like the X-men, they are feared and hated by humans. Unlike the X-men, however, their mutant characteristics are more visible (i.e. they have more physcial and facial deformities), therefore they cannot "pass" as human. As a result, they live underground, and have to steal food to survive. This dynamic of having one group of mutants who are more marginalized in society than another group relates to past and contemporary divisions bewteen people with darker skin and those with lighter-skin, and how "light-skin" black and brown people appear more acceptible in mainstream American media.
In terms of superheroes' political relevance, the Black Panther's name should speak for itself. The Black Panther is the first prominent Black superhero. He lives in an African nation that was unaffected by European colonization. He protects his nation from colonization and other countries' attempts to exploit his nation's resources. Sound familiar? He first appeared in issue #52 of the Fantastic Four in 1966, the same year that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was formed in Oakland, Ca by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton. Coincidence? Hardly. It doesn't take deep analysis to see there's a connection. In a recent Black Panther comic (part of a four-part crossover series with the X-men), the Black Panther addresses the issue of the death penalty in Texas. Such a comment would not have been necessary if he was simply an action-packed character, suggesting that there's more to many superheroes than what meets the eye.
The above examples have led me to the following theory: Although superheroes are often known for their special powers, they provide insight into moral, political, and societal issues. Moreover, I argue that because children are often fascinated with superheores, adults and educators should atleast consider the potential educational import of superheroes such as Spiderman, X-men, and The Black Panther as tools to promote critical thinking and the awareness of social and political issues among children. I am really interested in this issue, so I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about it. Peace, Blessings, and speekonit...
Labels: African, Black Panther, Black Panther Party, cartoons, children, comic book, education, moral, political, social, Spiderman, Superheroes, Voltron, X-men, youth
Friday, December 09, 2005
The Drought in Malawi, Africa
It has been estimated that about 5 million citizens in Malawi will need food to last them until April 2006, because they are suffering from a severe drought, resulting in them not having any food. Once I saw the video of a family in Malawi eating termites, I was motivated to create a space for people to pray for issues plaguing us in the U.S. and abroad. To the left is a link to the transcripts of that report. I plan on putting up links to various topics to prompt discussion on this blog. Often I see or read about things, have passionate reactions to them, yet feel that as an individual student, there are times when there isn't much I can do to alleviate the situation. I realized however that for poverty for example, it is about much more than giving money to a stranger here and there. There is power in prayer, and I can testify that where I currently am in my life is a direct result of the prayers of my family, friends, and those who came before me. Therefore, it is my hope that people who view this blog will contribute to it by praying for these issues. Regardless of the political beefs or whatever else is going on between governments, things should NEVER get to the point where families have to eat termites. It seems like after all this time on this earth, we still do not understand the value of all human life. Even if the government in Malawi is experiencing political conflict, other countries are too wealthy to allow families to starve like this. I mean there was a child who couldn't be no older than 1 or 2 being fed termites by his or her mother. I understand that the families have to do what they must in order to provide for them and their children, and given the impoverished conditions they are in, I admire them for their courage and love for themselves and their children. Speaking of the families, the CNN correspondent describing the families' methods as "primitive" upset almost as much as the video itself. For one, what is primitive about creatively coming up with a way of getting food for your children? Second, even if the methods could be interpreted as primitive (which I highly doubt because to me there was nothing primitive about it), what does that have to do with the bigger picture? Oh wait, I almost forgot, that when it comes to the big picture (i.e. the value of all human life), we tend to drop the ball. If a family had no food, and was not receiving any local or international assistance, how else are they supposed to survive? When thinking about this situation, I can't help but think of the beatitudes and the various accounts in the bible when Jesus would heal (as well as direct His disciples to heal) those who were sick and impoverished. I pray that God will bless everyone in Malawi suffering from this drought and provide for them, especially when those who are aware of their plight and have the means to alleviate it, do nothing. Peace, blessings, and I'm interested in people posting their prayers and/or opinions on this issue. So speekonit...
Labels: African, children, drought, family, food, Malawi, politcal conflictm, poverty, prayer, starvation, suffering, wealth
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
