Wounded Lover: Part 2 of my "Meet the Faith" review
Last Sunday's episode of "Meet the Faith" is a taste of an ongoing tension two branches of Zion that rarely get together and discuss what's going one in America. Each branch draws the boundary lines in what's really wrong in America. I am a lover of both but they are like two brides that don't talk to each other that often.
In Mark Noll's Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, he describes in himself as a "wounded lover" in relation to American evangelicalism. I haven't read the book yet but he basic thesis is that evangelicalism suffers from a bout of anti-intellectualism. I would like to borrow this moniker and use it to describe myself as a "wounded lover". I have two loves that don't seem to get along when invited to a party: American Evangelicalism and the Black Church.
Now many researchers/scholars would argue that the largest segment of the evangelical tradition come from the African American community. But for many African American Christians, the word evangelical carries a very negative connotation. The word connotes complicity with the status quo. The Black Church has been a "prophetic voice" against systemic oppression and poverty. Historically many in the white Evangelical community haven't helped in the fight for civil rights. Some of the most central figures in the so-called Religious Right openly promoted racial segregation in public schools, churches, and marriages. Currently the Black Church doesn't generally align itself with the Republican party, while the white Evangelical Church generally does.
The Black Church is very diverse in itself. Some scholars include any non-Christian traditions i.e. Islam, Yoruba within its definition. The Black Church features evangelicals, Catholics, mainline Protestants, Holiness, and Pentecostals/Charismatics. The Black Church has been a central socio-political citadel since its inception during the late 1700s. The Black Church was the advocate for the people. It was a meeting place for worship and social change strategy-formation. Today the Black Church is experiencing a civil war. With the upsurge of black megachurches, the so-called "prosperity gospel", and the taboo subject of homosexuality within the Black Church being challenged, the Black Church is in a battle to keep its social relevance.
The stereotypical preoccupation with my two loves are as follows: mainstream Evangelicalism is preoccupied with traditional marriage and abortion, the Black Church elimination poverty, reforming public school education and improving the health care system, and advancing black economic empowerment. One branch primarily promotes private traditional morality while the other promotes social justice or public government morality. When will we will ever talk with one another, pray with one another, and most of all love one another?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
It's all Greek to me! And it's scary!!! Part 1. of my review of 06/24/07's BET's "Meet the Faith" program.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us it is the power of God." I Corinthians 1:18 KJV
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid from them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." I Corinthians 1:23-24
I watched BET's "Meet the Faith" hosted by Dr. Ian Smith. The topic "Black Homophobia". The topic dealt with the issues of the treatments of black gay people inside the black community specifically the black church. The panelists were acclaimed actress/singer Sheryl Lee Ralph, social commentator and author Keith Boykin, and pastor and author Bishop Bernard Jordan. I must say that I was deeply grieved in my spirit watching this "debate". Smith asked if homosexuality is a sin. Bishop Jordan, taking the conservative position on homosexuality, was not match for Boykin and Ralph's sharp rebuttals from the liberal side . When dealing with this topic, Boykin and Ralph invoked "support" from the Bible: the silence of Jesus on the issue (if one believes he was really silent of the issue), the history of treatment of the blacks in America: how religion specifically the Bible was used to oppress Blacks, not permitting them to marry because they were considered subhuman therefore not U.S. citizens; the "cursed race" descending from the biblical figure Ham. Using quick rhetorical wit, Boykin and Ralph won the debate!
I must say as I watched this debate, I was deeply saddened. Saddened because as a Christian, what was said can cost someone an eternity because death and life are in the power of the tongue according to Proverbs 18:22. This post will be the first part of my take on Keith Boykin's theological arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality as a variant norm of God's creation. I must preface by stating that I am not a trained scholar of the bible (yet), theology(yet), religion(maybe), sociology, history, psychology, sexology, cultural studies, law, and ethics, nor politics. I am just an observer. These are just my postings on what very little knowledge I have accumulated in my short 21 years of living on the Father's earth.
Theological and Philosophical Assumptions of (Homo)Sexuality
Keith Boykin, from what I observed, believes that as a [progressive/liberal] Christian, God made some people ontologically gay/lesbian/bisexual. His argument can be summed up by in the following: God could not have made a law against persons of the same sex/gender from engaging in sexual acts if they by nature have emotional, affectional, romantic, physical and/or erotic attractions for others of the same sex. If he did, he would not be a just, loving God because "same-gender loving" people are made to love one another in such a manner. If God calls gays to celibacy, he calls them to a life of sadness, denying a fixed, immutable part of the being thust ultimately denying their humanity "being who they are." (This is the essentialist philosophy). Science says that homosexuality can be found in the natural world i.e. in animals. So homosexuality is perfectly natural just as heterosexuality and any sanction against it is coming from pre-scientific (primitive) minds, ignorance and fear of the unknown i.e. homophobia.
To any thinking person, this may sound like a legitimate reasonable, coherent argument. One can easily can accept this argument for people being "who they are". I must find that his argument is valid... within a pagan Greek philosophical understanding of humanity. Western Christianity and Western culture in general are heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. When one reads the Bible through these Greek glasses, one can and most likely will interpret the Scriptures through this prism. The concept of nature maybe be generally assumed to be agreed upon but it's not. Nature, especially human nature from a Greek influenced post-Enlightenment/modernist view is drastically different from the view from the Scriptures which were written within a heavily Judean/Semitic culture spanning over 1500 years.
Side note: Granted, many conservatives generally use as argument from the Scriptures for women's restricted roles in the church and the home. But truth be told, virtually all traditional theological anthropology in Christendom is heavily influenced by Greek philosophical assumptions of humanity. Early church theologians were trained in Greek philosophy before converting to Christianity i.e. Justin Martyr. I am not saying that some didn't see the error in a lot of Greek philosophical and religious thought however humans are generally subject to culture and cannot be unscathed by their surrounding traditions. Many argue for the subordination of women in the home and the church and appeal to some ontological quality of a woman that makes in natural for her to be submissive in the home and the church. But many don't realize that this assumption is more pagan than Scriptural. Many evangelical complementarians would not agree with many of early church theologians view's of women's ontology but have modified their arguments for the restrictions of women in church leadership and equal partnerships with their husbands in Christian homes. The Holy Scriptures are God's Word revealed in human cultures foreign to our 21st Western sensibilities. Scriptural exegesis should engage literary, cultural, historical context as well as languages. Language cannot be separated from culture.
Many take the existentialist view on sexual orientation, meaning one is not born or chooses to be gay/straight/bisexual/lesbian, but one becomes gay/straight/lesbian/bisexual. Being or Dasein is always in the process of becoming in the world. So is Boykin's view of gay people biblical? Is gay a ontological category (who) according to the Scriptures? Let's see:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
So the answer is ... no. Here's a thought. According this Scripture; straight is not an ontological category neither. This might stump people. A conservative Christian may ask "Didn't God intend for us to be heterosexual?" This might help answering that question; here's a spirit-quickening quotes from Conservative Jewish philosopher and theologian Rabbi Joel Beasley:
As far as the Jewish religion goes, there are no homosexuals in the world, nor have there ever been. There are no Jewish heterosexuals either. Both terms are pejorative. They imply that the essence of [human] existence lies somehow within the crass and the carnal. Human beings are reduced to their most primal function, as if the point of life was to contemplate the smörgåsbord of sexual possibilities in the world.
From the Jewish perspective, identifying as a homosexual or a heterosexual is as irrelevant as identifying as ptyallizer(a person who whose saliva flows excessively). The words may describe predilections or behavior, but hardly capture the essence of the person. The Torah (law of Moses) labels people not by their primal urges, but by their obligations to God. (Jewish Spectator, Winter 1998, pg. 27)
Here's another stunning statement fromRabbi Barry Freundel:
It seems clear from this that halacha (literally "the path" aka Jewish law) never viewed the homosexual as a member of a unique category or as different from the non-homosexual. He has no greater or lesser rights or obligations... In fact the term "homosexual" is an essentially inappropriate description for him. We should, rather, refer to this individual as a person engaged in homosexual activity. "Homosexual" is therefore not a noun that identifies and categorizes the individual but an adjective that describes his activity. (Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume XI, 1986)
Christians generally would agree with this reasoning. Of course, we would to this New Testament theology revealing the law of Moses is perfect and no one can completely keep the law, and what Christ did for us is free us from the curse of the law, dead. Certainly the law applies to Christians because we believe that we fulfill the law by walking in the Spirit. With these quotes in mind one can understand the evangelical Christian cliche "Hate the sin, love the sinner", but if one gives this Christianese sound-byte to the average gay person, he or she will be highly offended because for them being gay is an essential part of who they are. So this debate is not really about homosexuality per se, it's about worldviews that clash.
What did Jesus say?
Boykin said that when he read his Bible Jesus never said anything on the homosexuality. Quite frankly that he's right. One can read the Gospels and find no record of Jesus discussing anything explicitly relating to homosexual activity. However, Boykin engages in a logical fallacy. Just because Jesus did not discuss the subject of homosexuality in the Gospels does not implicate his acceptance or disapproval of homosexuality. As a man of reason (Boykin's a trained lawyer) he should know that is not logically sound. I bet he does. As Christians, our faith is based not on what Jesus didn't say but what he said. Isn't Paul who said faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God? When discussing the Law in the Beatitudes, Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish it or the prophets (Tanakh), he came to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). He also said that the Law will remain until heaven and earth will pass away and that one who relaxes the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (v.18-19). "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20 ESV)
Jesus preaching extensively on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees using the Scriptures. They who were zealous for keeping the Law disobeyed the Law in secret and covered it up with oral traditions to exempt from the penalty for breaking the Law, death by stoning. Many in today's world don't obey God's Word because of many hypocrites within churches. Though that isn't really a valid of obeying God, I can understand. Boykin pointed the religious hypocrisy in many churches in America. However, he can't use this as an opportunity to revision the Scriptures. Jesus also spoke to the Pharisees concerning marriage in divorce in Matthew 19 appealing to the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. It was unfortunate that Bishop Jordan didn't point this out to Boykin or Ralph. I guess he's not a trained bible scholar and a trained rhetorician thought he's a preacher. Little must be said in an half-hour program.
Conclusion
This issues is important to us who have family members who are gay. It seems that members in the Black Church tradition have a special obligation to point out injustice in our society being historic victims of systemic oppression. But as believers in Christ, when do we draw the line to using our experience as a prism to interpret Scripture as a justification to support an activity, a desire, an ideology that may be sinful? I will write more on this in a later post.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us it is the power of God." I Corinthians 1:18 KJV
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid from them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." I Corinthians 1:23-24
I watched BET's "Meet the Faith" hosted by Dr. Ian Smith. The topic "Black Homophobia". The topic dealt with the issues of the treatments of black gay people inside the black community specifically the black church. The panelists were acclaimed actress/singer Sheryl Lee Ralph, social commentator and author Keith Boykin, and pastor and author Bishop Bernard Jordan. I must say that I was deeply grieved in my spirit watching this "debate". Smith asked if homosexuality is a sin. Bishop Jordan, taking the conservative position on homosexuality, was not match for Boykin and Ralph's sharp rebuttals from the liberal side . When dealing with this topic, Boykin and Ralph invoked "support" from the Bible: the silence of Jesus on the issue (if one believes he was really silent of the issue), the history of treatment of the blacks in America: how religion specifically the Bible was used to oppress Blacks, not permitting them to marry because they were considered subhuman therefore not U.S. citizens; the "cursed race" descending from the biblical figure Ham. Using quick rhetorical wit, Boykin and Ralph won the debate!
I must say as I watched this debate, I was deeply saddened. Saddened because as a Christian, what was said can cost someone an eternity because death and life are in the power of the tongue according to Proverbs 18:22. This post will be the first part of my take on Keith Boykin's theological arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality as a variant norm of God's creation. I must preface by stating that I am not a trained scholar of the bible (yet), theology(yet), religion(maybe), sociology, history, psychology, sexology, cultural studies, law, and ethics, nor politics. I am just an observer. These are just my postings on what very little knowledge I have accumulated in my short 21 years of living on the Father's earth.
Theological and Philosophical Assumptions of (Homo)Sexuality
Keith Boykin, from what I observed, believes that as a [progressive/liberal] Christian, God made some people ontologically gay/lesbian/bisexual. His argument can be summed up by in the following: God could not have made a law against persons of the same sex/gender from engaging in sexual acts if they by nature have emotional, affectional, romantic, physical and/or erotic attractions for others of the same sex. If he did, he would not be a just, loving God because "same-gender loving" people are made to love one another in such a manner. If God calls gays to celibacy, he calls them to a life of sadness, denying a fixed, immutable part of the being thust ultimately denying their humanity "being who they are." (This is the essentialist philosophy). Science says that homosexuality can be found in the natural world i.e. in animals. So homosexuality is perfectly natural just as heterosexuality and any sanction against it is coming from pre-scientific (primitive) minds, ignorance and fear of the unknown i.e. homophobia.
To any thinking person, this may sound like a legitimate reasonable, coherent argument. One can easily can accept this argument for people being "who they are". I must find that his argument is valid... within a pagan Greek philosophical understanding of humanity. Western Christianity and Western culture in general are heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. When one reads the Bible through these Greek glasses, one can and most likely will interpret the Scriptures through this prism. The concept of nature maybe be generally assumed to be agreed upon but it's not. Nature, especially human nature from a Greek influenced post-Enlightenment/modernist view is drastically different from the view from the Scriptures which were written within a heavily Judean/Semitic culture spanning over 1500 years.
Side note: Granted, many conservatives generally use as argument from the Scriptures for women's restricted roles in the church and the home. But truth be told, virtually all traditional theological anthropology in Christendom is heavily influenced by Greek philosophical assumptions of humanity. Early church theologians were trained in Greek philosophy before converting to Christianity i.e. Justin Martyr. I am not saying that some didn't see the error in a lot of Greek philosophical and religious thought however humans are generally subject to culture and cannot be unscathed by their surrounding traditions. Many argue for the subordination of women in the home and the church and appeal to some ontological quality of a woman that makes in natural for her to be submissive in the home and the church. But many don't realize that this assumption is more pagan than Scriptural. Many evangelical complementarians would not agree with many of early church theologians view's of women's ontology but have modified their arguments for the restrictions of women in church leadership and equal partnerships with their husbands in Christian homes. The Holy Scriptures are God's Word revealed in human cultures foreign to our 21st Western sensibilities. Scriptural exegesis should engage literary, cultural, historical context as well as languages. Language cannot be separated from culture.
Many take the existentialist view on sexual orientation, meaning one is not born or chooses to be gay/straight/bisexual/lesbian, but one becomes gay/straight/lesbian/bisexual. Being or Dasein is always in the process of becoming in the world. So is Boykin's view of gay people biblical? Is gay a ontological category (who) according to the Scriptures? Let's see:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
So the answer is ... no. Here's a thought. According this Scripture; straight is not an ontological category neither. This might stump people. A conservative Christian may ask "Didn't God intend for us to be heterosexual?" This might help answering that question; here's a spirit-quickening quotes from Conservative Jewish philosopher and theologian Rabbi Joel Beasley:
As far as the Jewish religion goes, there are no homosexuals in the world, nor have there ever been. There are no Jewish heterosexuals either. Both terms are pejorative. They imply that the essence of [human] existence lies somehow within the crass and the carnal. Human beings are reduced to their most primal function, as if the point of life was to contemplate the smörgåsbord of sexual possibilities in the world.
From the Jewish perspective, identifying as a homosexual or a heterosexual is as irrelevant as identifying as ptyallizer(a person who whose saliva flows excessively). The words may describe predilections or behavior, but hardly capture the essence of the person. The Torah (law of Moses) labels people not by their primal urges, but by their obligations to God. (Jewish Spectator, Winter 1998, pg. 27)
Here's another stunning statement fromRabbi Barry Freundel:
It seems clear from this that halacha (literally "the path" aka Jewish law) never viewed the homosexual as a member of a unique category or as different from the non-homosexual. He has no greater or lesser rights or obligations... In fact the term "homosexual" is an essentially inappropriate description for him. We should, rather, refer to this individual as a person engaged in homosexual activity. "Homosexual" is therefore not a noun that identifies and categorizes the individual but an adjective that describes his activity. (Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume XI, 1986)
Christians generally would agree with this reasoning. Of course, we would to this New Testament theology revealing the law of Moses is perfect and no one can completely keep the law, and what Christ did for us is free us from the curse of the law, dead. Certainly the law applies to Christians because we believe that we fulfill the law by walking in the Spirit. With these quotes in mind one can understand the evangelical Christian cliche "Hate the sin, love the sinner", but if one gives this Christianese sound-byte to the average gay person, he or she will be highly offended because for them being gay is an essential part of who they are. So this debate is not really about homosexuality per se, it's about worldviews that clash.
What did Jesus say?
Boykin said that when he read his Bible Jesus never said anything on the homosexuality. Quite frankly that he's right. One can read the Gospels and find no record of Jesus discussing anything explicitly relating to homosexual activity. However, Boykin engages in a logical fallacy. Just because Jesus did not discuss the subject of homosexuality in the Gospels does not implicate his acceptance or disapproval of homosexuality. As a man of reason (Boykin's a trained lawyer) he should know that is not logically sound. I bet he does. As Christians, our faith is based not on what Jesus didn't say but what he said. Isn't Paul who said faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God? When discussing the Law in the Beatitudes, Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish it or the prophets (Tanakh), he came to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). He also said that the Law will remain until heaven and earth will pass away and that one who relaxes the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (v.18-19). "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20 ESV)
Jesus preaching extensively on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees using the Scriptures. They who were zealous for keeping the Law disobeyed the Law in secret and covered it up with oral traditions to exempt from the penalty for breaking the Law, death by stoning. Many in today's world don't obey God's Word because of many hypocrites within churches. Though that isn't really a valid of obeying God, I can understand. Boykin pointed the religious hypocrisy in many churches in America. However, he can't use this as an opportunity to revision the Scriptures. Jesus also spoke to the Pharisees concerning marriage in divorce in Matthew 19 appealing to the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. It was unfortunate that Bishop Jordan didn't point this out to Boykin or Ralph. I guess he's not a trained bible scholar and a trained rhetorician thought he's a preacher. Little must be said in an half-hour program.
Conclusion
This issues is important to us who have family members who are gay. It seems that members in the Black Church tradition have a special obligation to point out injustice in our society being historic victims of systemic oppression. But as believers in Christ, when do we draw the line to using our experience as a prism to interpret Scripture as a justification to support an activity, a desire, an ideology that may be sinful? I will write more on this in a later post.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Disturbed... But not at what or who you would suppose.
I am sitting at my computer perusing YouTube looking for clips to the new music project by Bishop T.D. Jakes and the Potter's House Mass Choir's "Grace" CD. I see on the side of the screen clips posted by a certain person of Bishop Jakes preaching for TBN Praise-A-thon a couple of years ago. I happened to watch that WHOLE sermon and thought it was edifying. This person referred to Jakes "pimping". As I was reading his comments along many others I was really disturbed and taking back at the rhetoric. I had come accross this person's blog and his remarks on "prosperity pimps" among other things. I wonder if that's in the Bible (tongue in cheek)? He is not the only person who refers to certain Pentecostal/Charismatic televangelists as "prosperity pimps" (whether warranted or not) on the Web and in Christendom. Many Christians from diverse backgrounds: white conservative Evangelical, Mainline, Black Church traditions, and Pentecostals have had their say in media both broadcast, internet and print. There's even a website dedicated to expose these so-called "pimps".
I am certainly for contending for the faith "which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3), but I believe something terribly wrong about Christian apolegetics done on the Web today. Apologetics is an skilled practice. Men and women spend years training to humbly presenting themselves to God as approved workmen accurately handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Unfornately this person doesn't seem to accurately handle the word in presenting his case against these individuals. Taking pit shots at people and taking their teachings out of context i.e. posting sound bytes on YouTube and given them derogatory epithets for all the world to see is doing more harm than good and the credibility of the accusers are damaged. Sure I have disagreed with some of Bishop Jakes' methods (being a bit too entrepreneurial in church affairs and he's not the only one), but he preaches and teaches the Word. I wouldn't call him or his colleagues' heretics. By the way, his continual affiliation with Oneness Pentecostals doesn't convince me that he espouses Oneness theology either. (Read David A. Reed's essay on Oneness Pentecostalism in the Journal of Pentecostal Theology issue 11 (1997) and Jakes' own church's belief statement at http://www.thepottershouse.org/ to understand why). Honestly I would be disturbed if many people agreed with every preacher who claims to be biblical, whether conservative Evangelical or Pentecostal! We all have to try every teaching by the Word and that takes corporate witness of the Body of Christ.
It is my sincere belief that using terms like "prosperity pimps" doesn't edify the Body of Christ to guard their hearts at real false teaching and it says a lot more about the ones calling these "pimps" out than the "pimps" themselves.
Yes the extremists that came out of the Word of Faith movement have crossed over the airwaves into the homes of Americans and ravaged the Majority World especifically Africa resulting in baptized materialism and have produced more socioeconomic hardships for many people around the word. I believe the essential point of the Word of Faith was to deal with whole man. There is good Word of Faith teaching out there beside the televangelists many see on TV. God is a provider of our needs in every area of this life. So don't get me wrong; I love my Word of Faith brothers and sisters and BIBLICAL prosperity should be taught. I said BIBLICAL prosperity! Prosperity (material wealth and land) was granted to the people of Israel by God after leaving Egypt to establish his covenant with them as promised to their forefathers. God gave them laws on how to manage their wealth and minister to widows, the orphans, and the poor. God commands rich Christians and any other Christian for that matter to minister to the those who have need with their monetary resources. (More importantly, as my brother Antoine Wright taught me, the poor like all of us need hope, that is the Gospel of CHRIST).
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 2 Timothy 2:26
This doesn't sound like many apologists today, especially my good brother.
The apostles, Paul, Peter, John, and our Chief Apostle Jesus Christ do warn us about false prophets and teachers. Paul admonish Timothy to teach SOUND doctrine.
The Church historically hasn't taught well about money, wealth and financial management. Preachers either taught that money is the root of all evil and it's blessing to be poor (which are abberations of the Scriptures 1 Timothy 6:10 and Mat 5:3). When Isaiah 61 declared that good tidings would be preach to the poor, he didn't mean that the gospel is not for the rich. The rich because are their proclivity to trust in their riches, ARE POOR without God!
There seems to be a lot of carnal-minded Christian apologetics being written on the Web. Though well meaning, it could lead people to not discern for themselves the truth. The apostle John told believers that we have the anointing and know all things(1 John 1: 20)
Preaching the truth about real false prophets and false teachers in the spirit of love will reach people. Christ warns us about that we will give an account for every idle word that we speak on the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36). I pray that we assess our real motives and intentions before we attempt to "expose" false preachers. Dare we expose ourselves?
It's past my bedtime. Peace and God bless.
I am sitting at my computer perusing YouTube looking for clips to the new music project by Bishop T.D. Jakes and the Potter's House Mass Choir's "Grace" CD. I see on the side of the screen clips posted by a certain person of Bishop Jakes preaching for TBN Praise-A-thon a couple of years ago. I happened to watch that WHOLE sermon and thought it was edifying. This person referred to Jakes "pimping". As I was reading his comments along many others I was really disturbed and taking back at the rhetoric. I had come accross this person's blog and his remarks on "prosperity pimps" among other things. I wonder if that's in the Bible (tongue in cheek)? He is not the only person who refers to certain Pentecostal/Charismatic televangelists as "prosperity pimps" (whether warranted or not) on the Web and in Christendom. Many Christians from diverse backgrounds: white conservative Evangelical, Mainline, Black Church traditions, and Pentecostals have had their say in media both broadcast, internet and print. There's even a website dedicated to expose these so-called "pimps".
I am certainly for contending for the faith "which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3), but I believe something terribly wrong about Christian apolegetics done on the Web today. Apologetics is an skilled practice. Men and women spend years training to humbly presenting themselves to God as approved workmen accurately handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Unfornately this person doesn't seem to accurately handle the word in presenting his case against these individuals. Taking pit shots at people and taking their teachings out of context i.e. posting sound bytes on YouTube and given them derogatory epithets for all the world to see is doing more harm than good and the credibility of the accusers are damaged. Sure I have disagreed with some of Bishop Jakes' methods (being a bit too entrepreneurial in church affairs and he's not the only one), but he preaches and teaches the Word. I wouldn't call him or his colleagues' heretics. By the way, his continual affiliation with Oneness Pentecostals doesn't convince me that he espouses Oneness theology either. (Read David A. Reed's essay on Oneness Pentecostalism in the Journal of Pentecostal Theology issue 11 (1997) and Jakes' own church's belief statement at http://www.thepottershouse.org/ to understand why). Honestly I would be disturbed if many people agreed with every preacher who claims to be biblical, whether conservative Evangelical or Pentecostal! We all have to try every teaching by the Word and that takes corporate witness of the Body of Christ.
It is my sincere belief that using terms like "prosperity pimps" doesn't edify the Body of Christ to guard their hearts at real false teaching and it says a lot more about the ones calling these "pimps" out than the "pimps" themselves.
Yes the extremists that came out of the Word of Faith movement have crossed over the airwaves into the homes of Americans and ravaged the Majority World especifically Africa resulting in baptized materialism and have produced more socioeconomic hardships for many people around the word. I believe the essential point of the Word of Faith was to deal with whole man. There is good Word of Faith teaching out there beside the televangelists many see on TV. God is a provider of our needs in every area of this life. So don't get me wrong; I love my Word of Faith brothers and sisters and BIBLICAL prosperity should be taught. I said BIBLICAL prosperity! Prosperity (material wealth and land) was granted to the people of Israel by God after leaving Egypt to establish his covenant with them as promised to their forefathers. God gave them laws on how to manage their wealth and minister to widows, the orphans, and the poor. God commands rich Christians and any other Christian for that matter to minister to the those who have need with their monetary resources. (More importantly, as my brother Antoine Wright taught me, the poor like all of us need hope, that is the Gospel of CHRIST).
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 2 Timothy 2:26
This doesn't sound like many apologists today, especially my good brother.
The apostles, Paul, Peter, John, and our Chief Apostle Jesus Christ do warn us about false prophets and teachers. Paul admonish Timothy to teach SOUND doctrine.
The Church historically hasn't taught well about money, wealth and financial management. Preachers either taught that money is the root of all evil and it's blessing to be poor (which are abberations of the Scriptures 1 Timothy 6:10 and Mat 5:3). When Isaiah 61 declared that good tidings would be preach to the poor, he didn't mean that the gospel is not for the rich. The rich because are their proclivity to trust in their riches, ARE POOR without God!
There seems to be a lot of carnal-minded Christian apologetics being written on the Web. Though well meaning, it could lead people to not discern for themselves the truth. The apostle John told believers that we have the anointing and know all things(1 John 1: 20)
Preaching the truth about real false prophets and false teachers in the spirit of love will reach people. Christ warns us about that we will give an account for every idle word that we speak on the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36). I pray that we assess our real motives and intentions before we attempt to "expose" false preachers. Dare we expose ourselves?
It's past my bedtime. Peace and God bless.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Loneliness Sucks... Aloneness Still Matters!
I have to admit for the past few weeks I have been feeling a bit lonely. I'm 21 years old and I never had a girlfriend. This was intentional on my part. I didn't want to be detoured from establishing myself professionally, financially, geographically, and emotionally. I hated high school and it seemed that most of the girls around me back then weren't noticing me and had been around the block a couple of times if you know what I mean. I'm in my last leg of college and I haven't really been attracted to any girl up on campus except two but I reckoned their taken.
I truly think also that I'm not ready to enter in a relationship of that capacity let alone marriage. I have a lot of insecurities that has deep roots in my past. So I try not to pursue anybody even if I was presented with a opportunity.
When I am alone they seem to creep of on me. The Scriptures say that we are to cast down imaginations (2 Corinthians 10: 5 KJV) that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. It's truly a daily struggle. I share my struggles with a dear friend of mine Aisha. She has similar struggles as myself. Aisha is one of a handful of people I can be honest about my pain.
Loneliness really sucks... if I keep seeing myself as lonely. Loneliness is optional. Aloneness is inevitable in life. Aloneness is good when I realize that my Father is ever so near. The Scriptures say that "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." (Psalms 46:1 KJV). Everyday God reminds us that I don't have to feel or be lonely. God is with me all the time.
It would be nice to have a companion, but slowly but surely she will come in God's timing. So the Heavenly Father is my constant friend and companion. He alone truly understands the deep wounds inside my soul that I wrestle with everyday and He alone is the Healer and Keeper of my soul. Thank You LORD God that Your are there when I need You and You are there to guide me into all Truth by the Spirit. Thank you, Abba.
I have to admit for the past few weeks I have been feeling a bit lonely. I'm 21 years old and I never had a girlfriend. This was intentional on my part. I didn't want to be detoured from establishing myself professionally, financially, geographically, and emotionally. I hated high school and it seemed that most of the girls around me back then weren't noticing me and had been around the block a couple of times if you know what I mean. I'm in my last leg of college and I haven't really been attracted to any girl up on campus except two but I reckoned their taken.
I truly think also that I'm not ready to enter in a relationship of that capacity let alone marriage. I have a lot of insecurities that has deep roots in my past. So I try not to pursue anybody even if I was presented with a opportunity.
When I am alone they seem to creep of on me. The Scriptures say that we are to cast down imaginations (2 Corinthians 10: 5 KJV) that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. It's truly a daily struggle. I share my struggles with a dear friend of mine Aisha. She has similar struggles as myself. Aisha is one of a handful of people I can be honest about my pain.
Loneliness really sucks... if I keep seeing myself as lonely. Loneliness is optional. Aloneness is inevitable in life. Aloneness is good when I realize that my Father is ever so near. The Scriptures say that "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." (Psalms 46:1 KJV). Everyday God reminds us that I don't have to feel or be lonely. God is with me all the time.
It would be nice to have a companion, but slowly but surely she will come in God's timing. So the Heavenly Father is my constant friend and companion. He alone truly understands the deep wounds inside my soul that I wrestle with everyday and He alone is the Healer and Keeper of my soul. Thank You LORD God that Your are there when I need You and You are there to guide me into all Truth by the Spirit. Thank you, Abba.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Transition
It's been over a month since I last posted. Here's an update: I have finished spring semester at Millersville University maintaining a GPA of 3.0 average. I have taken driving lessons, thanks to my cousin, in Philadelphia. I am back at MU working as a summer RA (resident assistant), and will start summer school next Monday. I am anticipating to finish my final leg at MU. I graduate in December. I am currently looking at three cities, Chicago, Virginia Beach, and Los Angeles (wait a minute, that's four!) to live after college and attend graduate school. I have no experience in the media industry. I'm don't know what to do in that area. Didn't make time to do an internship. Please keep me in your prayers. I know the Lord's calling into church ministry. I don't know if I am ready to enter seminary. I'm 21 and still a bit immature. A lot of growth and healing needs to take place in my life. God knows this. Again keep a brother in prayer. God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
