Ink Fruit

Church Drains: The Epidemic of the Worthless Servant Pt. 1

2016-08-01T15:28:00.002-04:00

Imagine you find a church you enjoy....the music is pretty good and the preaching is awesome...it's probably your fourth or fifth time going...you pile up the kids, remembering that your occasionally hyperactive 7 year-old invites his occasionally hyperactive 7-year old friend...so he comes too...but you're cool because the children's church is good as well...aaaaannnd you get there to find there's no children's church this Sunday. It turns out that of the 5,000 members that attend, the church couldn't scrape together 20 that could replace the usual 20 that serve in that ministry...every Sunday...for uncountable consecutive number of Sundays. That team had been wanting to take a break since last year, but they couldn't because there were no replacements. They did all they thought was necessary to solicit help in the children's ministry. But out of the large number of teachers and daycare workers that attend that church, none of them felt the need or desire to serve. You start to feel bad...and then judgmental. Thoughts like, this big church can't keep a children's thing going and how they gonna just leave parents hanging like that swarm through your head. And these thoughts must be heavy, too; because never did you think that in the 20 years of you going to church(es) you haven't even asked if anyone needed any help.

There's not a clever way to write this up...you 'gotta-get-the-word-for-this-week' types are the worst ever. You take up valuable air. You patronize the system of growth. You are selfish. You are dull. You are near-sighted. You are the worthless servant. You think you're an exceptional Christian because you're second row, shouting and amen-ing at every other sentence your pastor says. Not knowing that your pastor is hoping you won't show up a few times so a non-believer can get that seat and receive something that will improve their life....since you refuse to help in the improvement of others. In fact, that's all you think of Christianity...a life-improvement strategy. And in a way, you're right...but you left out the part that a life gets improved when a person makes an effort to help another life. You believe the 'what God has for me is for me' lie. Yet you disregard the truth in Matthew 28:18-20...that God looks for the bold servant and not the scared sitter. Yeah I know the joke is people gotta pay to hear the word, but you actually should pay.

How did you get so cold in your heart to think that a system put in place since the beginning of time (a relationship with Christ, not church businesses) is all about your relationship(s), your finances, your possessions, your family? Who convinced you that church was a production merely for your fleeting entertainment needs? Well...I think I know that answer, I digress. What happened that made you believe being a worthless servant to be logical? When you look at the passage about being that...worthless...you should notice that the three people were identified as servants...meaning no one was a patron. Yet somehow you consider yourself to be.

So...you've been Saved...or at least affiliated with Christ...years before you started taking hourly pictures of yourself. You've got undeniable talents and gifts that only come around once every three generations. You can literally change the world. But apparently you go to church only to check in, post a fairly descent quote, and take more selfies. Stop being worthless. You're much more than getting your emotional needs soothed. Your personality is just what a non-believer needs to become one. You're maturity supersedes just getting a message without living it so someone else can get through. You should be serving. You should be sowing into someone else's life. You should be conducting the mission and heart of your pastor. But you're just leeching. More than likely, because you aren't serving in a church body you probably aren't serving in "the real world" either. Like at church, you're just taking up space.

Next Sunday, ask where you can help. Inquire about what ministries could use a body. Even before you go to church, instead of praying about "your enemies", pray about your own gifts and talents and where they can best be used in the place where you've been sucking up oxygen for a couple years now. At the least...show up without the attitude of just showing up. If you love your pastor like you claim, I'm sure he or she would appreciate you actually serving instead of looking all googly-eyed in their face every Sunday. Just do something. Well, talk more about this later...

(Sorry for the overuse of the word "you", but, you know...)

The Mirage of Pain: How Social Media Discredits Social Issues

2016-07-11T15:44:00.002-04:00

Domino's Pizza, 2-liter sodas, tossed salad, and a mix of Generation Xers and Millennials. About 30 of us packed in a warmly lit room to just...talk. The organizer asked for everyone to write down a topic on a torn piece of paper and toss it in the "bucket of discussion" for breakdown and evaluation. Yep, you guessed it, police brutality was near the top of the pile. Unlike the other topics that were approached with slight anxiety, this one was jumped on with force. I wasn't at all surprised by the cliche-esque nature of the conversation...we were all African-American and mostly female (sorry...not sorry). But I was a little frustrated by it. I'd been seeing it all day on Facebook from these VH-1 groupies-turned-activists, and I was about filled up with the "my heart is so heavy" and "I have no words (right before a 17 sentence paragraph)" post. So before a you guys can't be serious flew out of my mouth, I stopped the convo and asked how many people in the room had been brutalized (not harassed) by the police. Out of 30 only myself and another young lady raised our hands. The conversation turned into a lesson after that point.

One of the concerns my mother had about my deep interest in rap music, particularly the kind that's been affectionately termed "gangsta", was the possibility of me internalizing issues that weren't necessarily mine. Gangs, drugs, consistent violence, and other things were items that we all new and even were familiar with; but it wasn't part of my childhood. In fact, the aforementioned wasn't apart of my adolescence until...well...I started rapping about it. So my mom had a point; but I enjoyed the story around it...the drama...so much that I didn't realize it was utter foolishness until it was too late. I hadn't considered my roll in hearing the music, which was probably more geared towards assisting the problem, until I became a part of the problem. I was immersed without intention.

Relatably and sadly, news media has the same effect. Although a person may live in the northwest corner of North Dakota, seeing enough activity in south central Los Angeles can convince that person he or she is connected to the issue that truly only directly affects people thousands of miles away. Being able to racially or by gender identify with the people dealing with the issue only heightens the sense of connection. This, my friends, is what we've experienced last week.

I'm willing to bet the percentage of African-Americans who've actually experienced police brutality is about the percentage in that room...around 7%. Yet somehow many of us have expressed a strong connection to the problem. And while it is a problem, the issue of black on black crime, and to go even further...murder, greatly increases the percentage of experience. But that connection doesn't appear to be as strong. Are we being duped? Even in that meeting, with most of us vividly remembering the Rodney King incident and the subsequent trial, we had quickly forgotten how video-taped police brutality was nothing new. We also remembered the narrative then that to many blacks that happens often, it just was the cameras weren't available. How did this become a phenomenon all of a sudden....one that's jumped over the more constant one of interracial murder?

Facebook and Twitter. There's no deep answer to it. Facebook and Twitter made us feel like everyone has gotten beat up by cops. Facebook and Twitter convinced us that only black people get shot by police. Facebook and Twitter told us that civil rights activists have never gone to jail before last week. Because it's not professional, but it's just people, we think it's real. When many times it's actually more false. Last night I read a post from a satirical site about a conversation between Donald Trump and Serena Williams. When I notified the poster that it was satire, the individual responded something to the effect of just because it's satire doesn't negate the racial mindset. Huh? Are we really that social media hypnotized that we'll promote a fake story to continue the Black Power rhetoric? Doesn't that make us as bad as them? Aren't we smarter than that?

Look, I'm not suggesting to ignore the issue. I'm saying evaluate is it really your issue without the assistance of a social media website. It's clear that many of us believe more frequent African-American problems that most of us are actually closest to...aren't our issues; and that appears to have it's roots in it not being promoted by Facebook enough. I mean, the same people that have posted videos of fights between young women are now flooding timelines with Black Lives Matter memes. Rappers who've spent 10+ albums drilling murder music in our ears are "talking" unity...while between yet another project of murder music. We had mothers with 10 year old sons saying they now have to talk to them about being a black boy in this world. You actually had to wait for a murder to do that? The truth is that the model is brilliant because a successful business should generate that much intrigue. But it's ridiculous, because we [should] know better. I'll just make it plain, what problem in your community...better yet in your household...did you step over last week to give attention to police brutality...which is a problem you only saw on your timeline?

Peace

The 21st Century Family: Does Gender Translate into Love

2016-05-16T16:31:00.000-04:00

My late grandmother showed me throughout the years what possessions were really designed to do. Cars and homes weren't only for a persons' personal desires and needs, they were (or at least should be) used to help others. I kept this philosophy when I purchased my first home by allowing two families and another individual to live there with me during different times. It was far more rewarding than I could fathom at the time, and there are some benefits I'm still reaping from...one of which being a better understanding of the modern family. I myself grew up in what would be considered traditional family; two parent household, both parents working, everything is everything. This wasn't an exception in my neighborhood, although I had several friends coming from one-parent homes. Back then, those families would've earned the non-traditional label. That label is changing, though. And now the "non-traditional" tag is moving to yet another demographic of people. I was able to view this first hand.

Of the three living situations my house endured while I was there, the best group that stayed with me by leaps and bounds was a biracial lesbian couple with three children - a teenage boy and girl, and a boy toddler. The rest of this blog could be filled with comments of how excellent the adults were and how respectful and dutiful the kids acted. While they were there my house was cleaner than it was when I stayed by myself. They were...in a word...awesome. And in another word, a real family. The mother of the two children was employed full-time and worked as security at various locations. The mother of the toddler worked part-time, with the other time spent making my house spotless. They studied with the kids, directed them clearly with their chores, and they cooked for all of us. The teens carefully watched over and cared for the toddler. And their love for each other was evident. There was not one lesbian stereotype action that I encountered. They were a unit.

I was asked yesterday about an article concerning the transgender bathroom issue. I was probed about whether I believed there was a hidden agenda by the LGBTQ community to destroy the family...and I do. Not in the sense that that community is looking to ensure that adults never live together or ever care for children; but to remove the importance of gender within the family unit is a (not so hidden) agenda item. I believe that for this LGBTQ goal out of several, this isn't just created to bring sympathy to the cause. This one is honest and fair. This one examines the notion of what tradition really is, and if it's any good. Gender doesn't prevent a child growing up in an alcoholic, drug addicted, or abusive home. It doesn't ensure that the parents will go to all extents for a child's education. And it doesn't automatically lead to love. All of these things, as the argument goes, can be achieved regardless of gender. Truthfully, there is no argument in that, but there is an argument.

Columbia Law School, the University of Colorado at Denver, and the University of Oregon all have recent studies that show children raised by homosexual parents fair "no worse" than children raised by heterosexual couples. And while I'm sure one could find as reputable studies that debunk the others, I don't think the debate needs to go that far. The key phrase in my mind is 'no worse.' It sounds approving, but it doesn't at all mean 'any better.' In fact, because 'no worse' doesn't mean 'any better' then the argument for LGBTQ families only produces lateral results per the data. According to the studies I've seen and those you will see, the gay community has a point stating that gender doesn't necessarily translate to healthy families, but that's a fact that confirms the state of society as a whole...including the LGBTQ portion of that. (There is actually data that does show children are worse, depending on what is considered to be worse - see chart below). So then, what's missing?

We don't have to look so far back as to what went wrong. Homosexuality wasn't the first 'wrong' in human relationships. The first wrong was perpetuated by a heterosexual couple (Genesis 3), and from that the other wrongs (some made more vile than others) were to follow. So we know what's missing. The issue is our society has developed into one that chooses to work with it's detrimental aspects instead of eliminating them. This isn't to Donald Trump gays, but it is to say the ball is already rolling....so before we look at stopping it we should ask what's at risk if we do? Does a gender neutral bathroom law effect people so insensitively that the comfortably of other citizens should be compromised? Does a lesbian family run by good people mean that there should be legislation that approves all LGBTQ family units? Does good for the common really mean good for everyone? Is this all just left-media driven (yes)? The answers are probably unsearchable (except the left media part), so to that end, this is your 21st century traditional family: one that can be one or two parents, who can be of different or the same race and different or the same gender. They can love each other or they cannot. They can be God-fearing, or not, or partially. They can be...whatever as long as there is one adult and one child. There is no traditional family anymore, and frankly, it's debatable if there ever was one. And if there was no traditional family this means that their may have not been any love either. Then again, that depends on what a person recognizes as love.

Christian Wealth: The Intended Goal of Influence

2016-05-02T15:18:00.000-04:00

Whenever a political conservative makes the statement that the United States needs to get back to it's Christian roots, I quickly think of this quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

That statement, which references the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution secures why America is not only not founded on the Christian principles of submitting all things under God (Psalm 2:9-11, 1 Peter 5:6), but is in fact godless. In fact, the argument could be strongly made that the United States at its highest levels was never intended to be Christian. This, unfortunately, is the consensus with most Americans...separate God from government. I said it that way purposely; as saying separation of Church and state gives validity why the separation was recommended in the first place (with evil Popes and "Christian" kings and all). But the bare bones of this is people want the governance of God over portions of their lives, but not all...with the 'overall authority' being one of the things we'd like God to keep His hands off. Interestingly enough, there are some Believers who feel the concept has no place in American government. That number, however is small, too...particularly at the top. How do I know this, because church organizations don't pay taxes. In that case, the love is for God to stay out of the government.

Crazy how when money gets involved the evil intentions of vile men seem legit. Most U.S. churches advocate for you to come in the door ready to spend spend spend; but won't shoot the government that allows for them to spread their message without getting bombed a dime. I get it, the wealth of the wicked stored up for the righteous. But how do we know if the secretary at the IRS is wicked. Plus, Jesus promoted paying the government taxes so...never mind. The point is, not only is the Church responsible in exploiting this loophole, it's missing an advantage of rightful dominion.

In the Bible, many of the major spiritual and political leaders had wealth (i.e. Abraham, King David, King Solomon, etc.) Not only does Jesus' ministry indicate a financial stability, but he also choose many of his disciples from lucrative professional backgrounds (i.e. Matthew - tax collector, Luke - physician). Also throughout scripture is the reoccurring theme of freedom that was either enhanced by or included monetary increase (for example, Exodus 12:35-36). Therefore, the concept of godly-inspired wealth is solid, the problem we have is the intent.

Yesterday, when it was tithe and offering time and someone spoke about how the windows of heaven were opening because of your giving, did you shout because of some financial desire you have or for a societal problem that money can help fix? Did you shout because you knew you were going to receive enough money to help that school that's falling down, or for something you just want to wear? Do you believe God's intent for financial increase solely rests on personal enhancement...or policy influence? The thought is that the church can do great things through the power of prayer, love, and everything else that doesn't require significant financial sacrifice from the head. And we can talk all the church isn't moving in the spirit jargon all we want, but the truth of the matter is the church is not a major economic player in the direction of government, entertainment, or anything else...and to that point, that is a key factor on why the spirit is relatively still. You know the treasure of your heart scripture (Luke 12:33-34), and I know you wanna tell me how much God is the ruler of your churches' heart. What how does the church bank account verify that? What organization can attest to that via your generous giving? How does your local government and workforce rely on your direction because you swing a sizable money stick? How serious do you take the financial influence that is designed to go with the manifestation of financial blessings?

I mean, you can march and pray forever, but when the powers that be are in a [alleged] deficit, they just want to know where's the cash coming from. The sad part is, we Believers are asking the same question, but we're either driving, wearing, siting in, or living in the answer.

This is not an indictment against people who like nice things or who have them. Nor does it seek to condemn senior pastors for living luxurious. I get serious financial needs, we all have them. But this is a message for those at the head of their church body. What's obvious is that there is a general mismanagement of the money that the church has and has a right to. There are countless numbers of social and public ills where at least the image of financial strength can change the laws and make a tremendous impact. In fact, if as a church body your track record of giving towards your community needs is sub-par, there is a honest right to question the mission of your ministry. Because, unfortunately we relegate the giving speech for the patron, not considering the church branch holds an ever greater giving responsibility.

Peace

Why just pray for the school when you can pray and pay for the school?

Christian Wealth: Make it Personal

2016-03-28T17:19:00.000-04:00

Every year on the Friday before Easter, the church I attend has an evening event called Project G.O.O.D. It serves for several purposes, with the more promoted reason being that all church members and partners can come together and assist the ministry in satisfying the debts of its creditors. The biblical foundation of this event is pulled from two main places in biblical scripture (although arguments supporting it can be found throughout the Bible): Luke 6:38 and 1 Chronicles 29. If you're familiar with Luke 6, you can understand why this scripture is the more popular one that tags the event....as most people what something in return when they give anything. But the story in 1 Chronicles 29 explains the intended motive of the art of giving; as the Israelites, led by King David, gave deliberately and generously for the honor of God, for the benefit of the entire nation, and not for themselves (at least to where it was so obvious that it could be recorded). The eternal principle of God proved faithful as after that event the young country experienced exponential growth in finance, resources, and production that positively impacted most of the population. Things tangibly got better. Now, the thought that's usually pushed in situations like relies heavily on the spiritual component...which is crudely captured now by the statement "won't He do it." But I believe it's something more practical than the opening of the windows of Heaven. And I think it involves personal responsibility for others.

I'm not gonna disclose the numbers that Project G.O.O.D. (G.O.O.D. meaning Get Out Of Debt) bring in, but here's what I will say....at least 5 members, who just moments ago gave with all their heart and soul, will see that number and ask, "where's all the money going?" And the assumption game is on from there; usually starting with what the pastor drives. Actually though, that question is completely legitimate. I think it's only right that all non-profit organizations disclose the dollar amount of the donations they received and how those resources are allocated...and I think the federal government should force this information to be easily available. It's only right that a person knows what is being done with their hard-earned money that they give away. However, the disclosure shouldn't stop there in terms of Christian giving. This question should be a personal one also.

Her-menuetics.com contributor Liuan Huska wrote "it’s so much harder now to follow Jesus in his call to downward mobility—to love and identify with the lowliest among us, to give sacrificially and not just out of the leftovers—now that I am upwardly mobile." Her entire article was her revelation that in her wealth, she had become much more stingy and selfish than she was when she was broke. I couldn't help but reflect on this as I saw the plethora of luxury and high end cars in the parking lot yesterday. "I wonder if they tithe or give offerings?" "Do they have a favorite charity?" "Are they sending money to missionaries?" "Is this the only result of Christian wealth?" People lost their marbles when they heard that Creflo Dollar, pastor of World Changers Ministries "solicited" for a luxury jet...and got it. No one, however, asked what he really used the jet for; they just assumed it was for personal use. But, isn't that the reason you got that Mercedes Benz...just for personal use? Are you picking up homeless people to take them to get something to eat in your 745LI? Is Christian wealth only designed for the Christian that "made" the wealth in the first place, or is there more to it? Even further, does the accumulation of wealth directly lead to the hoarding of it?

Going back to the 1 Chronicles 29 reference, it's safe to say the extra cash didn't just fall out of the sky. Records and scriptures show that there was a commitment by the people to ensure the welfare of the people. Businesses opened, people got hired, people worked, and people gave. After all, that's what a thriving society is....a population where goods, services, and philanthropy are in abundance. And again, this type of activity includes everyone. It's actually irresponsible to direct the blame of lack...in whatever area of industry or community...to the Church or a church organization. Additionally, it's of poor practice to limit giving to tithes and offerings (1 John 3:17). In doing this, a person is selfishly capping his or her generosity and service; an infinite ability that God equipped all Believers with.

Far too much, Christians of all denominations and levels of dedication rely on church administration to implement the development and use of financial resources while tightly holding on to their own. But it's not an issue that should be shifted to the administrative unit. It should be assumed in the hearts of each person. It should be personal. It's a decision to be the change agent that so many in the world pray for. It's a dedication to include all necessities of life with ministry of the Gospel. It even puts earning money in the proper perspective...knowing that the money isn't all for personal consumption, but should be distributed to those in need.

To that end, I don't believe a person is justified to ask where their tithe or offering money is going when their personal finances only reflect self-centered purchases. I mean, a person can ask or comment on whatever, but wouldn't that be somewhat hypocritical? Can one criticize a ministries' need for any item when their home is filled with useless and wasted materials? At the least, the church organization provides a platform for an individual to hear a message of eternal inspiration. The key word there is eternal, so if your giving is scarce and in a reluctant spirit, what service are you to the Kingdom and those who want to be included?

A personal challenge should be important in a Believers' financial relationship with God. Saying that (financial relationship with God) probably steered some of you down an uncomfortable thought. But the reality is that you have financial relationship with a variety of people you determine important. So, if you can quantify your dedication to your spouse with gifts, paid memberships, etc., and you can't do the same to the alleged Lord of your life....I digress.

Practice sacrificial giving. Practice planned giving. Practice Spirit-led giving. Practice growth giving. Practice the understanding of as you need God, someone may need the God in you. Stop limiting the distribution of blessings with kind words and scriptural-based affirmations. Position yourself where your deeds supersede the impact of your words. Make the financial promises of a Kingdom citizen a reality for others. Freely you have received, freely give....

Spousal Abuse: The Forgotten Marriage Ministry Topic

2016-03-14T15:35:00.000-04:00

I believe that when a person is able to remember where they were or what they were doing when a certain event...whether joyous or traumatic...occurs, that it speaks more about the impact that event made on their life that day instead of the magnitude of the event itself. Although 9/11 was obviously one of the worst days in American history, if you weren't there or had a family member there...it was probably more about how the world looked to you right at the moment when you got the news and how you believed your world would continue. You knew you changed, even if just a little, because the event was so pivotal, so poignant. You could've been a foreign student from a U.S. ally on the way back in a couple weeks. It still changed you. It was that important. I'd be interested to know how many Christians, Christian leaders mores specifically, will remember where they were when they heard gospel music icon James Fortune plead guilty to assaulting his wife.

I wonder if the news story, a familiar line for Fortune (in 2002 he plead guilty to assaulting his son with scalding hot water), was jolting enough to generate that type of memory...that type of attention to detail...that "what in the world is going on" type of feeling. I wonder if ministers and preachers took the opportunity to reinforce the biblical facts that are diametrically opposed to any type of spousal abuse during their sermons. I wonder if the marriage small group ministries around the country will engage each other about anger and the expression of it towards a wife or a husband. I wonder if the leaders who hold their annual marriage conferences will even look at the topic. And then I wonder why hasn't much of this been done already.

Of all the taboo subjects that the American Christian community has, spousal abuse has to be the most forbidden of them all. Usually, the subject is skimmed over with comments like "and love doesn't mean go upside her head" or "you protect her, no hurt her." But no real conversation about prevention and spiritual treatment for both parties. Even the church I attend, that's very well respected and led and has a few thriving marriage small groups; there isn't a real component that deals with abuse. There aren't many groups that are visually promoting for an abused woman or man or an abuser to go to, be welcomed, and be counseled. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't going on in a more private way for many churches, including mine. But if that is the case, why?

Why is it common place to have groups in the church that will openly discuss teenagers with sexual identity issues...which is a choice they are making, and not the obvious knowledge of groups that will talk about abused spouses...which is a situation no one chooses to be in? How is it that Christian marriage counseling is much more known for combating financial hardship, sexual disconnection, and infidelity...but not violence? Are we saying that the threat of violence is so small because we assume with Believing marriage partners that it's not necessary? Do we understand Satan's attacks to be limited to only communication, money and side chicks? Is it so unfathomable that a Holy Ghost-filled man or a woman can get so upset with their spouse that they violently and repeatedly strike her or him? Or is this one of those things we're just gonna pray away? That we just will believe God for healing in that situation. With everything associated with the increase of money we have groomed millions of follows to proceed with an action that usually requires giving money to a church. What's the action to reduce and eliminate the threat of attacks in the marriage?

This could be the father of two girls in me talking, but I dread to believe that if one of my daughters gets in a relationship that her boyfriend or husband attacks her, that there aren't people in my church and the Church that aren't organized, aren't willing, and aren't ready to help. This type of absence of service not only is the reason why people search for worldly counsel, but it also speaks to why the validity of church offered programs is often met with skepticism. If healing, all healing is in the body of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, as given by the Father; I have a difficult time understanding why this form of healing is shunned.

I challenge all ministry leaders to investigate the part that you play in preventing spousal abuse. In this challenge, I won't accept "we're just gonna pray through it," because you don't address the new addition to the building that way. I also won't accept "our ministry doesn't have a need for that" as that would be a lie. In fact, if you believe your ministry and its couples aren't susceptible to spousal violence then your role as a leader should be examined. Millions of women are depending on you to allow them to express the warning signs, the aggressive tones, and the violent tendencies that they face in their homes. They're believing that you will be so compassionate that you'll invite them over to your home where they can be loved and they can create a plan of action...or escape. And yes, they need you to pray for them...as you very well may be the answer to their prayer, which more than likely will include an action to reach out. Consider...how does your ministry, do you, help prevent a James Fortune, or help heal a Mrs. Fortune.

Peace

Black Future: Black Enough

2016-02-29T14:47:00.000-05:00

I grew up in the Chamberlayne area of Henrico County, Virginia. It was and still is a mixed-race, multi-class community ranging from white, black, Asian, Hispanic; low, working, middle, and upper class families. An only child living with happily married parents in our modest but loving home, I played and excelled at baseball, enjoyed reading, history and social studies, and did very well in school. I was in art clubs, the debate team, student government, and was in an honor or "talented and gifted" program every year of my formal education. My second elementary school and my middle schools were predominately white. All of this and more has allowed me to have a unique opportunity for exposure throughout my childhood years...which helped me gain the skills to communicate with people from a variety of races and socio-economic backgrounds. I've had real white, Asian, and Hispanic friends. By the account of many, many people I've associated with.....particularly from more urban areas than Chamberlayne, I wasn't black enough.

It could be because I didn't use slang around teachers or any other adults...I was raised to reserve that language for my friends. Or maybe because I played baseball in a time (that still exists) where far more white kids played. Or it could've been because I had nothing in style until I could buy it for myself. Or because I openly had white friends. Or because I was a "county" boy in a time where the City of Richmond was apparently the blackest place to be in nation...and Henrico (and other counties) was seen as the whitest. Especially my part. People who lived in Henrico areas like Glen Lea and Ratcliffe got passes, not because of there proximity to the city (Ratcliffe and Chamberlayne are no more than a couple miles from the city, respectively), but those areas were less diverse both economically and racially. And because of Glen Lea's closeness to Richmond, they even believed they were an eastern extension of the notoriously known black, drug hotbed Highland Park (in all fairness, Glen Lea is formally referred to as East Highland Park...but it's not Highland Park by any stretch). At any rate Chamberlayne was none of that.

I know very well what Ben Carson meant when he said that President Obama didn't "grow up black." He wasn't just talking about biracial make-ups within the household, nor was he merely referring to people of African descent who's next to kin were born in Africa. He was also talking about people who weren't raised in the negative assumptions of black American culture. He was referring to the kids who spoke English properly, who had two parent households that were relatively stable, who didn't necessarily have to endure a "struggle". He was talking about me.

Surprisingly though, I'm amazed that many of you acted like you didn't know what he was talking about. Because you were the kids making fun of black kids who understood proper noun/verb agreement in the 5th grade. It was you who said that the baseball, tennis, golf players, and swimmers were playing white sports. You couldn't understand how a black person could listen to other forms of music than hip-hop. The level of knowledge and diversity, and the articulation of such that's so attractive now was the same thing you considered acting white a very short time ago. You attempted to make blacks feel inferior to other blacks in a country where any color of skin is unacceptable in several levels. You were Ben Carson....just accept it. Now, ask yourself why.

Does being black enough mean going to an HBCU? Does it include a certain dialect and vocal tone? Does it restrict you to a certain type of music, dress, style of worship, food? Does it mean displaying a black fist every so often? Civil Rights leader John Lewis made this quote in the early 1960s in response to young black adults coming from northeastern and western parts of the U.S. to help with the movement:

"They came with their afros and dashikis in an effort to affirm their blackness. In Alabama, we don't need any of that, we already know we're black."

Still, that question is relevant today, as, for example, Tiger Woods was real black when he was winning tour after tour. But when he got caught cheating on his white wife with [allegedly] other white women, he was then deemed not black enough. I was laughed at by some of my militant peers for not attending an Virginia State University. These individuals quickly forgot that founder of the Black Panther Party Huey Newton attended predominately white institution University of California-Santa Cruz. Even today, I have associates who would consider me not black enough because I choose to move past the atrocities of slavery and Jim Crow that neither they nor I experienced. However, when my work grows into a more public platform, I'm sure I'll be black enough then...at least so they can claim close association.

I believe the reality is that no black person has the wherewithal to tell another black person that they are or are not black enough. Of course, statements and actions towards one's own people should be questioned to a degree...but more as an indictment against that person being against people. Ask yourself this, do you think your ancestors in 1914 think you wearing Filipino and Brazilian hair....to hide your natural black hair...black enough? Do you think they would consider you supporting music that drives home killing black people....black enough? Do you think they believe financially neglecting your black community for fashion....black enough? Honestly, they might...because even when we think that yesteryear was a period of being black enough, there was still a movement that housed the same life-strangling issues that we face today; confirming that the term black enough is non-existent.

Why isn't there an argument that people don't love enough?

Black Future: The Police

2016-02-22T15:51:00.002-05:00

In 2007, Harlem-based hip-hop artist Cam'ron told Anderson Cooper during an interview that he believes there's never a reason to ask for police assistance or help police during a crime investigation. This was around the tail end of his "Stop Snitchin'" campaign, aimed at telling his community and fans to stop involving the police in, well, anything. This was also after he had been shot in a botched robbery attempt after leaving a nightclub in Washington D.C., where he drove himself to the hospital and told the police he didn't know who shot him or anything else about the incident. Cam'ron, by all accounts, is solid on his anti-police rhetoric. By word and deed, there's no cooperation about cooperating. Because of this he should be honored as an urban legend. They should rename the club he was attending the night of the incident Club Cam and Howard University should have a course on him. Unlike Tupac Shakur (who has courses about him in a few colleges across the country) Killa Cam didn't talk to the police or go on record to discuss working with them, like Tupac did. Cam'ron was real...at least to himself. To most of black America, however, he and his anti-police views are media fodder and fantasy....because we really, really love the police.

This is a real scenario. Shortly after Super Bowl Sunday Lady A, inspired by pop superstar Beyonce's halftime performance gets on Facebook and voices her devotion to Beyonce and her performance geared to combat racist police policy. Lady A goes further and promotes disgust towards the several police departments who [allegedly] are refusing to protect her during her tour when she stops in their city. Days later, Lady A loses a family member to gun violence...and then posts a message for those aware of the situation to allow the police to "do their jobs." I can't recall the officer who said this, so I'll paraphrase. But he said something like "they claim to hate the cops...until they need us." Without getting offended by his use of the word "they", I knew exactly what he was referring to. We hate the cops on social media, when marching, while rapping or signing, or water cooler-ing. But in real, real life...we love the cops more than we love God.

You been to a funeral of a murder victim lately? You heard a news report about one? You ever notice God gets asked why (in some more emotional than others) but the cops get the cooperation? Did you hear former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the comfort of Fox Studios essentially say that Beyonce has some nerve bashing the cops when it was the cops who protected her at the same event she bashed them? He had a point. The Beyonce brand is no idiot. And instead of soliciting protection from a defunct Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, or Black Lives Matter, she went with the proven candidate...or at least one she felt she could trust with her safety...the local police.

And so do you. See, when it all goes down, when you need protection, when you want to feel safe, you're not protesting or posting or getting in formation. And you're certainly not Cam'ron, You're gonna snitch and you're be as honorable to the police as you can. You're gonna demand they help you and wait in the freezing cold until they do. The organization that you continue to verbally dismiss you depend on tremendously. And if they do what the media is reporting some departments are doing to Beyonce, you'd scream every ism in the book.

I believe the general African-American perceived relationship with the police is one of blatant disrespect. Clearly, the key word here is general, still it's hard to find the opposition to this perception. For every meme posted about good police there's dozens that highlight bad police. For every article written about outstanding policing there's also dozens more of pieces written about how broken the system is. And in all of this, no one is offering any real solution...except the one I offered that imposes federal fines on police departments that have instances of excessive aggression and brutality. Regardless, the consensus is so against police that it seems ridiculous that we use them so much. We laugh at the deranged white militias across the nation; but the closest thing urban, ethnic communities have are street gangs. This actually is one of those instances where urban liberals are more conservative than they would like to admit.

What if there was a unified effort to support the officers and departments that respond to our calls efficiently, that help our children get to school, and that patrol our neighborhoods just as we hope they do? What if we, instead of falling into highlighting those who have no understanding of their task, we honor those that take "to protect and serve" seriously? No? Then where's your protection agency? The Crips? Vice Lords? Your church? Of course not. So just stop it. Learn to get so involved in the community that you live in (not the virtual one) that the collective effort won't tolerate unfit police officers. Pay more attention to who you vote for for sheriff and who's selected as chief. Blow your senators' mailbox up with requests to look at your police department. Stop grouping everyone in one negative light. Or...just be Cam'ron and don't use them at all. But you know that's not gonna happen, you and your part-time fight the power antics aren't built like that. Because the truth is that there's so much anti-system talk that I believe we've forgotten we continue to draw from that same system...willingly.

Black Future: The Political Arena

2016-02-15T16:44:00.002-05:00

When it's all said and done...and by done I mean after the various "farewell" gatherings around the D.C. area and across the country, the BET, Centric, and TV One specials, the nearly defunct free news publication commemorative editions, and the absurd amount of non-factual memes....we will see that President Barak Obama was a slightly above-average U.S. president. Some of us will. Most of us will remember the "good" things like the gas prices falling in the last two years of his term, the commuting of hundreds of unfair illegal drug-related prison sentences, and how cool he appeared to be. Yet most of us will forget how the Affordable Health Care Act strained the resources of many black-owned small business, how Obama kept American soldiers in the volatile Middle East, how he his administration sent troops to raid American homes to deport Hispanics, and how there was no legitimate, legislative response to police brutality. All of the negative aspects of his administration will be blamed of course on Republican opposition. But very few African-Americans will acknowledge that we didn't hold him accountable for anything that we knew wasn't good (according to white president standards). And in the end, if we're honest we'll be able to confirm we only voted and re-voted for President Obama because he was black.

I would even argue that's not a bad thing, though. Simply put, I like seeing the diversity at the highest levels of American politics. But I also recognize that just being able to see different races and genders is a shallow standpoint...as it's not so much the race that makes the policies (ex. the mayor of Baltimore is black and female); instead it's who they answer to and the dollars. If there was one thing that happened during the Obama Administration it's the attention from young, urban, and minority groups that was garnered from it. Unfortunately, the majority of it was just that only...attention. Great start but....

Blackdemographics.com reports 44 black mayors in the United States. While some are exceptional in a number of things (i.e. Cory Booker of Newark, NJ), others are as crooked as how white politicians are stereotyped to be (i.e. Dwight Jones of Richmond, VA). Yet it doesn't take this list or any other data to know that black politician doesn't necessarily mean good politician, but when it comes to the Senate and the President that logic seems to disappear. Is it because blacks are still a group of glorifying the "first" and not the best? The data for this shows that could be true, as the percentage drops between the past two presidential voting turnouts and all of the primary and gubernatorial turnouts were horrid. In fact, the Republican opposition argument is supported because of the voters who didn't find anything worthy of elation and joy to go vote. The majority of the people who claimed to stand by Obama only did it when he was the main event, and didn't anywhere else.

Have you noticed the black story lines concerning the approaching presidential election? It's all about who not to vote for. There's no handsome, smooth, black candidate. No [allegedly] black female hero. No rap star endorser. Nothing for lukewarm black voters to attach themselves to. The best candidates in this election are actually Republican and no one is even mentioning the Green Party because 1. the media hasn't told you about them and 2. you've been convinced that Democrat means "uplift black people". In 2014 those of us who claimed to be so politically enlightened should've been preparing for a group of candidates, but our focus was on protecting our president against the hole(s) he himself dug. 8 years later, things are poised to look very familiar.

This presidential election and the primary ones that follow will prove what we really were about as a community...agenda, voting, accountability, all that. It will solidify if we were just hyped or if we turned around our collective thinking and really got involved. It will show if you defended the President in the name of fair policy or just because he was black. And actually, that proving process started years ago. Now if we're gonna say it's an individual thing, I can respect that...because it is. I'm willing to bet that many who spent hours arguing about Obama with a bigot they've never met from some backwoods town in Idaho won't spend those same amount of hours researching who's the best candidate for mayor, governor, senator, or president today. They won't write their senator and ask them what's being done to enforce proper police protocol. They won't hear the political trends at the educational institutions in their state. And they won't dream of attending one city hall meeting. In this situation, it's not even about why that is, it's just time to make the adjustments wherever they are. Remember, it's all about policy. So before you put on your "my president" hat...do you even know what policy he and those behind him stand for?

If there's not a candidate in your town or in this country that doesn't represent what you value, ask yourself what you did to present a candidate that does. That answer alone will let you know if you support the political future of African-Americans or you're willfully stuck in the past.

Black Future: Black Christianity

2016-02-08T15:47:00.001-05:00

To all my black Christians out there, can you remember the first time you heard that white southern slave owners beat Christianity into the African slaves? Do you remember who it was, what it was, or where you were? How do you remember feeling? What did it do to you? What did it do to black Christianity?

Look, it's true that all Believers in Jesus Christ have various issues they've got to deal with. Some appear more serious than others, and some are corporate while some issues are individual. But I think it's fair to say that with black Christianity's infamous relationship to slavery, there is a very unique perspective that has a number of dynamics concerning today's black Christian living in the United States. There's a faction that thinks all black Christians are lost...there's a faction that thinks all black non-Christians are lost...there's a faction that thinks black Christianity isn't Christianity at all. And then there are the internal foolishness we gripe with that can be attributed to the remnants of slavery. Things like disdain for influential and wealthy pastors and the taboo of homosexuality. This ain't your grandma's church. While that church was perceived to be a credible resource for the community; it's recently lost some of that perception for a more entertaining, fashionable, and trendy one....yet it's hard to evaluate the effectiveness of both. It's just understood that the black church is, different (except concerning Catholicism). But is the state of the black church any different from the state of the Church as a whole? And if so, how and why?

I guess the quick answer would be yes. The black church is filled with black people; so of course it's different. And why is that? Because, if we're talking along racial lines, the majority of the white American population isn't experiencing...or being forced to acknowledge the notion of social injustice and all that entails. So while most whites aren't positioned to confront such realities and assumptions, black people are. And frankly, people are carrying their experiences or the results of propaganda right where they should...to church. One would be right to consider any emotional, social, or any type of problems should be addressed through the love of Christ. It's just difficult to tell if that's what's going on and how, if at all, is it happening.

As I've shared before I'm bewildered about how little information there is about the evangelical and pastoral efforts of men like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and other men of God. Speaking as someone who's lived in a much different time then those aforementioned, I first present this: without a doubt social equality is extremely important. But doesn't eternal Salvation trump that? I mean, let's just say that all racism and the related isms disappear, and black people are "equal (using a general term, don't get too deep)." Outstanding...and then you die...then what? If there is a true belief in the things of God, was black nationalism more pressing than biblical righteous living? I'm not saying this to suggest we neglect either, but it is to question if the charge in Matthew 28:19 is a primary point for the overall black church body.

For example, BET's Celebration of Gospel is by many understood as the networks' attempt to touch the black Christian community. Yet with just a few minutes of viewing the production, it's clear that the event is geared to acknowledge the impact of Gospel music and to promote its artists....not necessarily preach the gospel. Of course someone can receive something from that, but that doesn't appear to be BET's aim. Is this a reflection of what black Christianity looks like in a nutshell? Mere entertainment and motives other than glorifying God?

If so, then how does this change? If not, then why isn't the black church doing more to promote the true basis of it's operations? Because the facts are that thousands of African American Christians are impacting America and the world in ways that only their white counterparts get credit for. And in this instance, I can't accept the "they give the attention to them" excuse; because another luxury car can be shelved for a more potent and far-reaching media component. We can't blame their cameras for not coming here when we can buy our own cameras...and don't chose not to. The time is now where we see young black Christians in El Salvador, China, and Chicago touching people with selfless love. It's inspiring and encouraging in our own paths of evangelism. But oddly enough, at least for me, the most times I see blacks in these images in when they're affiliated with white ministries. That then leads to this question, is a church along racial lines even a necessity any more? Does it really boil down to being around our own kind? Well if our own kind is Christian then....never mind.

Too much to type, too much to talk about with this. But here's where it can start: ask yourself why you are a black Christian, and what is the state of the relationship with Jesus Christ in your own life. And then, when you get that answer, then ask yourself...how is that evident to others?

Note: Africans were Christian before America was even thought of (see Acts 8:26-39).

Peace

Black Future: The 'Serious Challenge' of Reparations

2016-02-02T13:44:00.004-05:00

After a week long tour of the Untied States, the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent released some recommendations after meeting with African Americans and others from around the country. Now these are their preliminary thoughts according to various reports, but they believe the Untied States should put some serious effort into closing in race driven past. For starters, they suggest the U.S. government consider reparations for all of the descendants of African slavery, establish a national human rights commission, and publicly acknowledge that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a crime against humanity. The group was reportedly was "extremely concerned about the [current] human rights situation of African-Americans." Mireille Fanon Mendes-France, chair of the organization said "the colonial history, the legacy of enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism, and racial inequality in the U.S. remains a serious challenge as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent." Should their recommendation be built on? Should some of today's black Americans receive money for their ancestors being enslaved? Can this really happen?

Clearly, this entire issue is convoluted. We got what payouts might look like, how they'll be dispersed, the process of verifying slave ancestry, and other key things that will turn this into a never ending conversation even if the intent from the government is good. But the base of this, at least today, is it being all about the money.

In the movie The Barbershop, Ricky (Michael Ealy's character) made a statement during a reparation discussion. He said something to the effect of reparations to black people would only make Cadillac the largest dealership in the world. The joke points really to the large issue of whether or not the black community is truly prepared for swift economic empowerment. We all should've heard about the black spending dilemma; generally only buying fake hair and Jordan's, rarely buying anything black owned, supporting racist brand owners, not spending any money in the black community. Would reparations change any of this? Would things stay the same, or would they be worse?

Well, we can imagine the outcry from white America if this was to go down. And there would be a justifiable reason as there was a mildly significant number of enslaved whites. Still, the report discussed black slave descendants. The report considered that the Jim Crow Era was equally as damaging as slavery. It also mentioned that the country has no real effort towards this sole group of people. Apparently, the poor white isn't in the same category as the poor black, according to the UN team.

We also can look at the additional legislation that would accompany the reparation payments. Just going out on a limb here, but I believe a racist, elitist government is not going to make monies available to blacks in any easy way. And if you think Alabamians [still] have trouble getting voting ID's, just imagine getting "unearned" money. This move could actually merge the Tea Party, the KKK, and the Neo-Nazi's into a white supremacist super group.

But then we can look at the development that will quickly occur when people get those payments. There could be a real economic boom that will vibrate for centuries. But still, when you look at who's dishing out the money, there's gonna be some sorrow with it more than likely. Honestly, this could start a war.

Honestly, there's no way it would be fair to even guess this. While economic empowerment is a collective issue, it's an individual responsibility. I know most of us would like to attribute financial failure to all poor black people. And of course I have my opinions about what would or could happen. But can we honestly say the entire middle-class black population would do the "right thing" if the federal government sent checks for...say...$500,000? Would you? It is a strong possibility some of the money would fall into slippery hands, but also some of that money will help produce politicians that can prevent Flint-esque problems, plant real resources in challenged communities, and establish generational ownership within several areas of the African-American community. It any rate, there needs to be follow up on this event and dialogue. You better believe that the United Nations group sees an opportunity for them with this research. I think it's time we at least see if one exists...that is, exists for us.

Church Value Pt. 3: What's a Servant or Worker Worth?

2016-01-18T16:36:00.003-05:00

At a time where many church boards and staffs are holding or have held their year end meetings, I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at what the value of a church is in the local and global community. For the sake of the next few pieces, when I say church, I'm not referring to the Church as described in 1 Corinthians 12:27, Colossians 1:18, and other places. I'm referring to the business of church, which would include the sale of what's known as Christianity. To guide this, I've identified four areas where we can look at various regulation and data to get solid opinions about the church; the value of a pastor, the value of the music department, and the value of the worker, and the value of the congregant or consumer. Let's take a look at the worker or the servant.

I can't remember having a job where I worked on Sundays, and once I understood the truth about the Sabbath I haven't worked on Saturdays either. Since a teenager with a work permit, the first job I got I made strong assertions that I wasn't to be scheduled on Sunday so I could be free to attend church services. For me as a kid it wasn't so much about just attendance, but usually I was scheduled to serve. At the least, I had to be available to serve...and that has stuck with me over the years. In fact, I don't know how to go to church by just going and "getting the word." Because of this, I can't understand when an aspiring preacher says things like "going into ministry full-time." From what I understand, being a Believer, showing the love of Jesus, has always been a 24/7 gig.

There's millions of people like me. Grew up in the church, working in the church. And if we were to talk labor costs (which we are for these pieces), there are four Richmond-area churches that have gotten millions of my work. Using some generous math (in their favor) I would've been paid over $100K working 10 hours a week for 27 years. Aside from being a kid taking church trips and things like that, neither church has paid me a dime. Is that fair? Should a church servant get paid?

I think the best answer for this would be to look at how the first Christian body (or church) did it. Acts 4:32-37 details how the first members funded the church mostly with selling their possessions. But not only was there a building fund, there was a thriving "reward" system where the all of the sales proceeds were brought to the apostles for even distribution among any and everyone. The idea was that all who were dedicated to the cause of spreading the gospel shouldn't have to be concerned with financial needs. This model comes from Jesus' own outline of compensation; as in Luke 10:7 he tells his evangelizing followers to stay at one location, ministering to the house, and "eating and drinking" what was offered...further closing this thought that "a worker is worth his wages." Practically speaking, there's not an entertainer on the planet whose team...no matter if they're the sound man or the lowest person on the entourage....that doesn't get some form of pay. In fact, the only industry where the opposite dominates is the church. The non-profit status that nearly all churches fall under is a legal smokescreen to this reality, but the scriptural and practical truth is the people should get paid.

But how much? Part-time, minimum wage? That's fair...I guess. I mean, the average person works...what 2-6 hours a week at church? And no matter how many leaders like to preach that the "real" ministry is done in places like the parking lot, the lobby, and the hallways; no one's coming to see the portly greeter. The worker might help sell the tickets, but his name isn't on them. So to the church organization, it's only fair. To the worker though, if the the church decides to move on this fairness, then the question is what particular worker is worth a hire?

Here's an easy way to identify: any person looking primarily (or close to it) to receive compensation for serving in a church organization in any way should not only not get paid, but they should be considered for temporary removal from their position. Why? Because that person is an employee who's only concerned earning the lowest level of compensation...which is a pay check. Any job in the church, from women's ministry leader to senior pastor, requires that the employee invest their career in people. They aren't tracking their performance so it can be reported on a duties sheet, but so it can be cemented in eternity with the Lord God. These people are working for what Jesus describes as "treasures in heaven" that don't "rust", not the ones that the IRS monitors. In my mind, that "they need to pay me" for my time person is actually not worth any ministries' time. Their intentions not only are very low for value, they can in many ways hurt the kingdom's bottom line...which is names staying in the Book of Life.

What ministry pays as good as heaven anyway?

Peace

Church Value Pt. 2: How Much is Your Praise Team Worth?

2016-01-04T15:10:00.000-05:00

I used to always wonder why male musicians...especially drummers, guitarists, pianists, and signers...no matter how they looked physically, would get the most beautiful women. In many ways that curiosity made me start rapping in high school. After my experience I figured out why; it's the mix of art (or the passion behind it) and confidence. In my mind, music artists are right at the top of the list of people whose confidence is an arrogant, narcissistic mess. In the American Church industry, this confidence is multiplied by 3,000. And in most situations the desire to get paid for "using their gift as unto the Lord" is as equally as strong as any senior pastor. But how is a praise team or worship band any different from say, an usher or a greeter? What is music really worth to the church?

First, let's investigate the importance of music to Christianity, and then the church industry. We can assume that the Lord God greatly appreciates not only music that praises and worships Him, but also music that engages Him, seeks Him, reveals human emotion about Him, points to the truths and intent of Him, or anything that will provoke Him to reveal His magnificent power and love. For me, this assumption is verified by the over 150 works in the Books of Psalms and Song of Solomon, as well as various songs throughout the Bible. God obviously likes it...but how does that translate into compensation?

Well, and I know many senior pastors might shy away from this truth, but the music is definitely the second reason that people are buying, and in many cases the first. Music drives it all...and I mean all. It's the difference between a Potter's House (mega American church outlet), with no significant worship band and a Hillsong (global church outlet), with arguably the most significant worship band of all time. It's the emotional narcotic your church provides to serve a huge emotionally dependent population, that's dying to give away money. It's why pastors are putting their sermons over instrumentals. And these are just the carnal reasons...we won't even discuss the spiritual side. But in a nutshell, the huge majority worships the Lord with their musically sensitive ear...so it's really everything.

But there's value-reducing challenges, too. As stated earlier, I believe generally musicians have interesting personalities...and that gets more interesting when Jesus is "the reason." But Christian artists, and again speaking generally here, are quite possibly the laziest artists to ever do it. They don't write anything and cover everything, they release an album once every four years...if ever, and some call a tour a three-church stop in an 100 mile radius. From all that, they have the nerve to have riders and stipulations when performing....I mean, worshiping. I don't know what's more ridiculous, the fact that some of these guys ask thousands of dollars a week or that ministries actually pay that. At the end of the day, Christian bands of every race and style sell relatively very little units....even the popular ones. This translates into no real staying power for the average Christian artist; only good for a few church services, some conferences, and a couple weddings.

Unfortunately, the value is usually as long as the time the worship set is. In fact, the African-American church outlet largely is unconcerned about the praise team on Sunday; as culturally the preached word is the more important part of the show. That being said, if a praise and worship team believes that attendance will be dramatically altered because of them, they're absolutely clueless. As implied earlier, the spirit of musician is what makes a musician great. No one likes the artist that's just doing it just for the money, and with Christian music it's much worse. Maybe the answer is there is a dollar value, but it's the church musician that's ignorantly driving it way too high.

To wrap it all up, pay the piano player, but if the piano player wants big bucks...then that piano player needs to get their anointed self in the studio and make a hit. Otherwise, take this $250 that the house band usually pulls in and worship with all your heart.

Church Value Pt. 1: What is A Pastor Worth?

2015-12-28T16:19:00.000-05:00

With all that, knowing that the pastor is the CEO (and in many cases the owner) of a church business, let's just get right to it...is a pastor worth a six or seven figure salary?
Before we get there, let's look at whether or not pastors should even get paid. The obvious answer would be yes, as the pastor does carry the responsibility of the church as it's chief executive. And while I do agree with that, I also believe that this question opens a discussion for compensation for other executives (elders, deacons, and/or leaders) and staff as well...to be discussed later. But what does scripture indicate about compensating pastors?

Several passages are available and used...in and out of context. Many pastors oddly point to the kings of Israel and Judah to justify being paid and being paid well; especially using the financial might of King Solomon. But just a surface look at First and Second Kings in no way confirms God's intent for a pastors wealth or existing salary. In fact, I often wonder what some pastors are eluding to when comparing their own "blessing" of wealth to Solomon's', as that king taxed his population so much that easing the financial stress was not only the main topic after his reign, it ended up starting a civil war (1 Kings 12).

Then there's the prophet thing...highlighted by Elisha getting a room made and having everything taken care of in 2 Kings 4. But again, no salary indicated.

We can also look at Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus-turned-apostle who gave the first sermon that ministered Salvation in Christ...getting around 5,000 people to commit their souls to Jesus. It's well understood that he (as well as the other apostles and church members) did not have any financial need that wasn't met (Acts 4:32-37), but what's less discussed is an incident in Acts 3, when Peter healed a man, first saying "silver and gold I do not have." Does this indicate that pastors should in fact not be overtly rich?

Then there's the Apostle Paul, who was an evangelist but can also be considered as a pastor. He started, worked in, and supervised churches across the Mediterranean region, but did not take a salary with any of them and worked a full-time job as a tent maker. He did however, support the thought of paying not only pastors but ministry workers as well in 1 Corinthians 9. In this passage and also in 1 Thessalonians 2:9 he decided against it because he didn't want to "be a burden." With all of this, we get some great information and insight on God's intent.

God wants people to be compensated for their work, and this includes pastors. With that are these things: heavy "taxing" to support a huge salary isn't advised, and there isn't a reason why a pastor shouldn't work to earn a living outside of ministry. Still, what these scriptures don't consider is the billion dollar business Christianity has become. So now, we must look at things a little more carnally.

According to the Evangelical Christian Credit Union's 2013 Study on Church Budget Allocations, Learning Priorities, and Quarterly Financial Trends, 36% of a church business budget goes to the senior pastors' salary. To find out whether that's fair, we have to look at the value of a pastor...past what a pastor does, but what is a pastor supposed to do, and what (if any) is the dollar amount attached to that.

As with athletes and music stars, the demanding factor is butts in the seats (as well as television and internet viewers). Keep in mind, the pastor is the primary product...purposely and inadvertently. He or she is Lebron James; the difference between a thriving downtown and a few poppin' sports bars. And contrary to regulation, people pay tithes as a result of a talented pastor. He or she is the earner. In comparison, Kobe Bryant, the legendary Los Angeles Laker guard that has been the attraction of that team for 18 years, is 35% of the Lakers salary budget. Even on a bad team, he's why people come to the Staples Center night after night. So the answer for the pastors' 36% may not be that it's fair, but it is normal in American capitalism. This then does not indicate the actual value of a pastor, but only his or her popularity.

Because even though the best pastors building other pastor, are incredible givers of time, money, and resources, do not love or purport to love money, unfortunately that's not what the majority of consumers pay for. It's like Bryant, Terrell Owens, or any other ultra-gifted poor attitude athlete. We're not paying for personal off the field character or the other incentives that make a good person. Most of us aren't even paying for how many souls get saved off of a pastors' sermon. We're paying for a winner, or someone that makes us feel like a winner. So again, the question is already clear about whether a pastor is worth that big check. As long as the seats stay full and the ratings keep climbing, it's completely justifiable. The more important question is what are you getting out of the product? McDonald's without a doubt is mostly unhealthy, but that doesn't stop the billions and billions served. That's not Mickey D's fault, that's the people buying the fries. In this sense, the earning potential for the business should be evident, but the worth of a pastor is strictly personal.

I guess now you should ask yourself this question: are you paying for popularity or value?

Race Matters: How Christian Movies Create Non-Belief

2015-12-14T16:37:00.001-05:00

When The Passion of Jesus Christ hit the theaters I thought Mel Gibson was going to save Christian Hollywood. Just like most Christian art forms, works about about that time period...arguably the most significant era in the history of the planet, have done a huge disservice to the event and the message that's trying to be portrayed. I've always thought those movies did more harm than good; but The Passion was supposed to be different. Graphic depiction of Jesus' trial and crucifixion; check. Aramaic language throughout the entire film; check. Jesus' skin tone reflecting the skin tone of first century Jews; ch..., wait, Jesus still looks like an Italian model. **Sigh**...so close, yet so far.

And just when you thought all was covered. With all of the historical records and uncovered literary and art works produced. Even regardless of the Bible addressing the common Afro-ethnicity features, it would seem that a film could be produced that would not reflect Jesus Christ in the flesh as a Caucasian. Another movie, Risen...a new film about a Roman soldier understanding the divinity of Christ....does the same thing. When will it change? Does it even need to?

Before we get into all of that, let's take that verse out of the Book of Revelation that's got the revolving Black Power population sold on the 'Jesus was an African' campaign. Along with Daniel 10:6, Revelation 1 seems to give a racial account of Jesus. However, one must realize that both of these descriptions are from people seeing spiritually enhanced images...not the actual skin color of Christ. If we were to use those scriptures to confirm race, we'd also have to acknowledge that Jesus as a human also had white hair...when in fact, the Black Power advocate continues to insist His hair was black. So, we can't use these scriptures as reliable racial identification. But what we can use are the works that support the scriptures.

Assyrian relief works and Egyptian paintings, most of which date centuries before any European work concerning the subject, depict Jesus and other Hebrews of His time with brown skin and African features. Additionally, Judah, the region and Jewish tribe that humanly produced Jesus, was less populated by other populations (as a result of captivity) than other regions of the Israel. Meaning, people from Judah were more likely to present the physical features of the ethnic native. It also means that the probability of Jesus looking like Russell Brand is less than 1%. We don't need to ask the question of why do we get Russell Brand Jesus every movie. We're somewhat passed that. The question now is more ministry related. How does continuing to promote an inaccurate account of Jesus physically help people receive Christ?

While many argue that it doesn't matter, I'd counter that it just may. Evangelists, ministers, and others make pleading cases concerning the reality of sin, eternity, hell, and how Jesus paved the way to an ultra-pleasurable life with God. But with so much emphasis on "reality", why can't the image itself be real? In my mind, this is one of the easiest ways to dissuade young minorities away from Christ....because we're starting off lying. Now, this doesn't change the fact of who Christ is as much as a preacher with a side chick doesn't effect another persons' Salvation. But if we're purposely promoting a well-accepted falsehood we have two choices: we remove imagery from the conversation all together (which is what was commanded in Deuteronomy anyway) or we tell the truth...all of it. My vote actually would be for the former, but that's only because I know the truth and understand where the lies come from. But for the young, smart, African-American who still believes all blacks learned Christianity from European slave traders and not from Christians in 1st and 2nd century Ethiopia, this may not be the case.

This Jesus' race thing is yet another example of what happens when avoiding biblical law. Many times, doing that will lead down a path of difficult return...and deep untruths that kill people. We can't, however, say Jesus' earthly race doesn't matter; because in a sense it does. Not from the viewpoint that one skin tone being superior than the other, but from the viewpoint of understanding why lying was suggested in the first place. It always interests me what we Christians determine to be important reality.

Peace

The Scandalous Relationship Between Politics and the Black Church

2015-12-07T16:05:00.000-05:00

Donald Trump thinks that you are dumb. Not just African-Americans or Hispanics, all of you. Whoever is reading this right now, Donald Trump thinks you're absolutely stupid. He believes you're easily controlled. He feels that he knows all of your triggers and motivations; your desires and needs. And if you can't be easily controlled then he believes you can be more easily discarded. In his mind you're a fleeting number whether you vote for him (especially if you vote for him) or not. And he knows that even if you know all of this you'll get furious...and he's not sure it really matters, because he believes in data. And whether it's the data that's real or the kind he's imagined, he knows what all the tricks are. And just when you thought Mr. Trump's ego finally got the best of his circus of a campaign, well, you thought wrong. Because the reality is there is a slim chance your pastor was one of the dumb people Trump was counting on.

In all honesty though, I would've gone to the meeting if I was invited. How could you not? You've got a front row seat to the most ignorant show on earth. You get to hear first hand the mind of what appears to be a rich, bullied, 7th grader that's actually running for the President of the United States. And there's a rumor going around that if you go you actually might get to talk. You've got to make that meeting. So I'll just assume that at least a third of the pastors that went had the right idea. Unfortunately, things don't always yield the results they should. And just like going to see a Tyler Perry film, apparently people left the room carrying lots of emotion but forgetting to take their intelligence with them.

Out of respect for the position, and how idiotic this whole thing is, I'll refrain from using actual names. But to go there and to not have an agenda to address Trump with was more than foolish. Additionally, to leave there without understanding (or even hearing) proposed policies for whatever you stand for reveals immaturity and the clueless attitude many people feel that the majority of black preachers have. Lastly, it reveals the reason why it's always dangerous grounds for ministers of the gospel to get involved in American politics on any level.

Let's remove the stereotypical image of the preacher that's stealing money and women from his locality. That's surface stuff that results from more rooted issues and doesn't need a political title to happen. But for the sake of logic, consider two documents that a pastor, seeking or working in public office must adhere to....the Bible and the U.S. Constitution (and to a lesser degree, what ever leading legislation that a state, city, etc. has in place). As a Believer, it is widely understood and demanded (Deuteronomy 17:19 and Matthew 4:4) that the Word of God is the guide and manual to our daily lives. This document, which in fact is not just that, contains how we are to deal with every situation imaginable. This includes those financial, social, and even political ones. What's also widely understood (except by Tea Partiers) is that much of the U.S. Constitution does not always speak towards the Bible; and is in fact more Masonic in it's doctrine. Even what's considered the American patriotic normality (i.e. the Pledge of Allegiance) is highly questionable and should be avoided (Matthew 5:33-37). To that end, what about the more difficult scenarios that involve abortion, gay marriage, and the like? How can that person be expected to govern along biblical lines?

As Believers, not only are we encouraged to resist compromise, but we should do our best to steer clear of the possibility. However, as a Believing politician compromise is the daily agenda item. How then, can a person completely lead others to live as Christ lived, while working in the depths of a satanic political arena...unless he or she is driven to change it? How can a pastor "pump and prime" congregants every Sunday for monetary offerings while getting in agreement with corporations that oppress working class citizens through inflated taxes and food deserts? How can he or she say "Jesus is the only way" during service but then promote six different ways (non-Jesus related) during the press conference. I mean, we all know Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great social activist; but we don't know if he lead anyone to Salvation. In my mind it has and will always be a situation of choosing; where the Gospel always is on the outside. Trump knows this, he knows the black preacher [allegedly] has a price, and he knows that for many of you your preacher is your real god. Timeless strategy.

Well, if your pastor got the invite and went to the party, the choice is yours but I think it's fair to ask your man or woman of God why they went and what were their takeaways. And when you get the manicured answer you get, then ask him or her how do they believe attending this meeting helped get people to receive Jesus. And if you get a manicured or a disturbing answer to that one, that says less about your pastor and more about why you're a follower.

Peace

Why Boycotting Should Be a Lifestyle and Not an Event

2015-11-30T16:45:00.001-05:00

I think I've got to take a small bit of pride that my personality, flaws and all, have prevented me from jumping on trends. I didn't feel compelled to dump ice water on myself, I'm not latest-dance-craze guy, and rarely (only because I may have and it escapes my memory right now) get moved to hashtag an alleged tragedy or watercolor my profile pic. Not attempting to be heartless or drive myself to be the odd one out, but when I spend a couple more minutes thinking about the various causes and the message my participation would send, I usually find out that it doesn't line up with my assigned purpose and that the "awareness" really isn't the answer. Come to think about it, that's what it is...I'm obsessed with the answer, the solution, and not the struggle. And while you spent the last 4 or 5 years standing in lines while battling a post-Thanksgiving food coma; praying that you don't have to punch someone or that someone doesn't punch you...over a blender...I've been getting outstanding sleep. So, congratulations America for finally starting to catch up with me and leave the Black (Thursday) Friday fiasco alone. Well, some of you. At any rate, there's another level you should hope to achieve.

You've heard the reports by now...10% decrease in spending during 2015 Black Friday season. Now before you get all power to the people, consider that online spending during the same time and on Cyber Monday is projected to have a 12% increase. Turns out that the part time activists did indeed shut down the stores, but the couldn't handle the biggest store of all...the internet. Nevertheless, the reduction made headlines and sent a sense of achievement to and through millions. I suppose we can learn the true effectiveness of this move sometime after January 2, 2016...when all the real Christmas spending is accounted for. After all, I believe for some, the decision to not spend on Black Friday was to bring awareness to the importance of the African-American dollar...and the African-American in general. And that decision is a good start...but it's only just that.

Again, if it's all about spending, we don't need to make space on the mantle for a trophy until the Christmas season is over. So what if Black Friday spending is down, if overall spending is up...the boycott wasn't fully effective. But that's only because there wasn't a clear plan after that. But what if one was developed?

In fact, why can't one be developed...that can last around 10 years? Or at least one with a goal that commands continuation until the objective is met. The University of Missouri situation has shown us the way. Former school president Tim Wolfe wasn't thinking about Concerned Student 1950 and their demands...that was until the football team decided they weren't going to play until a change was made. No institution is in the position to lose millions of dollars; and that's what Mizzo was facing. So, say what you want, Missouri didn't remove the president because of protests, but because keeping him threatened serious revenue. What does this tell us? Well, what I think we all know is that you can't fight oppression with something that the oppressor (not calling Missouri an oppressor, don't know enough to make that allegation, but you get my drift) isn't concerned about, but only with what he holds valuable. But going further then that truth is the fact that the oppressor will rarely change his object of desire. To that end, boycott should be life.

Do you know how many times a week I hear from Believers of how reality TV and other programs are sending the world to hell...but they themselves are faithful viewers? Or how this company is racist and this company is sexist, but they give those companies marked up dollars? With Christianity being the major religion in America, and with African-American product and goods consumption percentages remaining unnecessarily high, it's ridiculous to think that by continuing this support to corporations that they will comply with your social and spiritual needs when they are serving the needs you clearly tell them you really have. If we were really that serious about our causes entire companies would fold and policies and personnel would rapidly change. The question is, are we that serious?

How about this: don't buy from the store that allows the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors; it doesn't matter if it's a thriving chain or a local corner spot. Refuse to let your home be counted in the ratings of shows that degrade women, that is if you really care about the degradation of women. Do some research on the products you, we adore and find out what they do for your community...our global community. Then ask yourself, do you want to continue to allow them to do "that" or to not do "this'? Family, this is easy work.

But it does require honesty and commitment. The truth is if your dollar goes toward the object of "your" enemy then you are actually in agreement with it. You can march and post all you like, but it has been and will always be about the dollars. My concern is that some of us portray to be so enlightened that we believe it's deeper than that. But it's not at all. Case and point, Martin Luther King, Jr.s March on Washington was formally titled the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Jobs first, freedom later.

Eternal vs. Temporary: When Social Activism Becomes A Distraction

2015-11-16T16:54:00.001-05:00

I used to hear a lot of people who were lovers of history or social justice or civil rights, and were not alive during the many movements of the 1960s, talk about how exciting those times must have been. It's a valid thought; especially knowing that the term 'excitement' can go a few ways. For example, when I consider the various readings depicting churches with standing room only crowds...squeezed in to hear the messages of liberation, citizenship, and humanity from fearless men of God..I can't help but wonder what that adrenaline surge would feel like. Of course similar meetings are happening today, but I think the difference is those meetings in those times were the first. Again, not to lessen today's movements, but there's really nothing like the initial push. Truly invigorating. But the other thing that I can't help thinking about is, "all these people in those churches, and that preacher's got everyone's heart in his hands, did anybody get Saved?"

I don't know if there's a stat on that...how many people during a meeting lead by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference ended up accepting Jesus Christ...and I don't know what about that I'm more concerned with; the fact it wasn't tracked or the probability that it wasn't considered given the social situation. Whatever it was it started a trend; using Christian people and facilities to aggressively promote a cultural movement...important as it may be...but not including the primary focus of Christianity. Now, in all fairness it's pure speculation to say that evangelism didn't take place. I'm sure during of what all was included in the Civil Rights Movement as directed by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s SCLC, that people came to receive Christ. But what can't be argued is that social activism was the primary goal of this organization, not salvation. And then, when I couple that with the activities of SCLC-inspired contemporaries like Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson, who also don't appear to promote the clear objective that Christ has for all of His followers, it's a red flag to me that we may be missing the entire point.

In this, many Believers have disregarded the commandment in Matthew 28:19-20. Obviously, this disregard doesn't only appear when social tensions heighten. Scores of men, women, and children who proudly profess Christ in the face of achievement rarely share the reality of grace with their non-believing neighbors on a daily basis. So, it's only logical when pressure appears, the primitive responses of survival are pushed. However, this logic forgets that survival in Christ is in fact the only real survival there is. I could insert my the enemy tricks line here, but who really is the enemy tricking in these situations? Is it the people who don't know about the truth in Jesus at all, or is it to those who don't know and choose to only address the temporary trick on it's surface?

We are so turned on by the less important, more popular issue. We are so consumed with life at this very moment, that we neglect the power (and directive) we have to change life forever. This could be because many of us come Jesus in a "struggle" mind state...and decide to stay there. It could be that our frustrations with what the media is showing can't be contained. Or it could be that we are actually on the front lines of the offensive(s). But at some point we have to evaluate what Christianity entails for us and those around us. Simply put, is the all-powerful Savior we claim really not all powerful? Are some things not meant to Christ-addressed? With personal perspective considered, does the objective that dies when we die command more importance than the objective that has eternal implications for us and everyone else?

There should never be an ignorant attitude towards the suffering of people...anywhere. But to proactively deal with these problems is to promote salvation in Jesus...everywhere. This includes a full commitment to the message and the lifestyle. Because the reality is that there will always be bigotry, there will always be terrorists, and there will always be injustice....until the coming that we believe in happens. Then it's not white or black, man or woman; it's just Believers and non-believers. The non-saved socially-conscious black activist and the fierce racist will be left behind to deal with an openly-ruled Satanic world. And it would be an awful matter to find out during Tribulation that these issues really weren't the pinnacle of existence.

Peace

Violence Love Affair: Looking Past Abuse in the NFL

2015-11-09T17:54:00.001-05:00

As entertaining as it is to watch Cowboy fans nowadays (that's if you can see them; many of them disappeared...only hoping to return at the emergence of a healthy Tony Romo), part of the reason of their disastrous season so far has nothing to do with their 2-6 record. Nor is it just a Cowboy problem; or an National Football League issue. It's a football fan problem...which pretty much includes all of us. The problem isn't new, we all know it, we all claim not to like it, but we all support it, feed it, and make it worse. And unfortunately, after reading this, 99% of us won't work towards change one bit.

The wake up call to domestic violence within the NFL, an issue that's plagued the league arguably as long as their has been an NFL, was supposed to be the Ray and Janay Rice incident last year. The great fans of this great game were not only determined to maintain a zero tolerance for domestic abuse, but we were also committed to being proactive in every aspect that was related to professional sports. We promised to be advocates of counseling, therapy, discussion, policy review, and all the other catch words and phrases that always seem fitting when problem-solving is on the table. There was a level of accountability we were to hold players, coaches, and owners to. We demanded a better human being to be involved in the game we hold so dear. To this date, what actually happened was a revelation of a grotesque truth...which is above all things, play the game.

Greg Hardy beat his girlfriend. Not in the Rices' fashion...this was not a fight. He beat her. She's got the war wounds to prove it. He's even got a retaliation scar or two. As if the story of him beating her and throwing her on a bed covered in guns wasn't enough, pictures of her bruises were released to the public last week. It show no-excuse -violence at it's absolute worst. But we all looked past it.

We were first guided to look past the horror this summer when Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, signed Hardy to a contract. The campaign was continued when he stepped on the field after a brief suspension (Hardy violated the NFL Personal Conduct Policy with the incident); and it was driven home after the pictures appeared...as Jones commented that he was eager to keep Hardy on the team. Many of us gasped at Jones' comments, but that was about it.

Last night, the Cowboys-Eagles game was the most watched Sunday Night Football game this season. It was the most watched prime time Sunday program since the 2014 Academy Awards that March. 24.3 million viewers quickly forgot what Nichole Holder's back, arms, wrists, neck, and feet looked like. We forgot how sick we were to see what a punch between a male professional football player and a small framed woman looked like. We forgot to be concerned. Instead, we told ourselves because Hardy gave Holder a huge sum of money in a settlement agreement (this was after he was proven guilty, but then appealed) that it wasn't that bad. We we were convinced that if the Cowboys saw Hardy fit to play, then it wasn't really abuse. And when the pictures came out, we....well....just waited for the game to start.

I think we, meaning all professional, part time, and occasional human rights activists who are also football fans need to question our real concern with anything that threatens the showing of the game. And if we go any further, we can also connect that question to our thoughts about any and every form of entertainment we enjoy. While many of us have said we wouldn't want a Rice or a Hardy on our respective teams, the truth is it really doesn't matter...because we're watching even if it's the Jaguars in London.

The numbers prove that and say much, much more. They say that domestic violence is desperately important to most of us only when it involves a close family member. But concerning an artist or athlete, we indeed are not moved. The entertainment value is much too high. But just imagine if those 24 million people said we're not watching as long as Hardy's on the field. Not only would Hardy be released instantly, but he would've been forced to re-analyze his overall behavior...possibly get on the pathway to change; as if you look at the games and read the reports, that's happening now. All of this we forewent for the love of the game, not the love of people, With that being said, either get real about addressing domestic violence consistently, or admit it's not that big of a deal.

Peace

Government Agenda: What Secret KKK Members Being Exposed Means

2015-11-02T16:13:00.002-05:00

In the mid-2000s I got into a verbal altercation with an Henrico County police officer; which led to him assaulting me and me getting booked. During the ride to the jail, the cop and I figured out we had close mutual friends, even partied together, and we were both in error. He continued this attitude even in front of the magistrate, where he advocated on my behalf as much as he could. I was released hours later, feeling better than a person would after fighting with the cops about his upcoming court date. When that day came, the officer was dressed in plain clothes and in great spirits. We dapped each other up and met with the commonwealth attorney to discuss the case. She, however, was trying to burn me; wanted to give me years for supposedly assaulting a police officer. The officer himself tried to talk her out of that, and she wouldn't relent until she received further advice against it from her team. At the time I couldn't help to think was there a secret plan to take me down, orchestrated by a secret organization. I wasn't anywhere near the "voice my consciousness" person I am now, so I figured it was all in my head. Today, a possibility of my assumption has been verified.

Anonymous, a successful hacking group, began exposing names of secret Ku Klux Klan members today...with one of the names on the list being somewhat local; belonging to the Mayor of Norfolk, Va. They forewarned about the move last week and are also allegedly promising to start a social media campaign to increase the exposure. You can bet the car that at least a third of the names (if not more) will have prominent positions in business, education, politics, and the medical field. And if that estimate proves to be true, then what is also true is the covert terrorism agenda woven within the fabric of America.

So here we are again. We're looking at a situation where men and women who could be responsible for several aspects of American life are members of an organization that tries to destroy it...or at least preserve an American life that wasn't designed for all persons living in America. It's possible the white middle-school principal, oddly selected to guide a school in an urban, ethnic area in Any City, U.S.A., could very well be on the front end of his or her schools funding and resource problems, and for "good" reason. The 1,000 names of the Anonymous hack indicates the chance of the smart, racist, and driven doctor...secretly vaccinating black children with elevated dosages of mercury. Your county sheriff could by heavily influenced by not only Tea Party, but Confederate States ideals. Wouldn't this, on some level, qualify as ongoing terror?

We know the facts; the Ku Klux Klan is the largest organized terror group in U.S. history. This group is not only directly responsible for murders, beatings, and other forms of violence; but it's also been the most recognized symbol of American racism since it's peak during the 1920s. So the answer in my mind to whether or not this is ongoing terror is a resounding yes. Therefore, why is this group still legal is the real problem. And knowing that says two things: the governmental machine behind the Klan is still alive with more efficiency and that this exposure is essentially useless.

Some people have already come out denying the truth behind their names being on the list. But what does that prove? Was there any belief that these people would come clean after exposure? Why would they, they can continue being racists in secret. It's not like local or federal law enforcement is going to chase them down and rip out there dresser drawers looking for KKK paraphernalia. Others might loose their jobs or other affiliations, but do you think a 100+ year old organization like the Klan doesn't already have resources in place for dedicated members? How many people exposed will leave the KKK because of this? This isn't the same as the Ashley Madison thing, and even then many, many people worked their relationships out. What's a non-credible list from a non-credible group gonna do? How will the KKK agenda be altered at all?

This will go away with the fleeting news cycle and the United States will continue to support terrorism on it's less desirable citizens....and the Klan will continue to play a part in that. Until there is state and federal legislation that considers affiliation with the KKK to be acts of terrorism in the same breath as Arab and African groups (being that the Klan has killed far more Americans anyway), your sons' teacher will possibly still be a hidden but active racist. If anything, this information should encourage some to not allow the attention of foreign threats to supersede the attention given to the proven domestic ones.

Peace

How Godliness Exposes Insecurity

2015-10-26T14:25:00.001-04:00

Every now and then I'm confronted with reminders of a past lifestyle. None of it is flattering, none of it makes me reminisce about 'the good 'ol days', none of it is anything to brag or even talk about (which is why I won't here); all of it is pretty embarrassing, foolish, and sad. I could go all cliche' and say it made me the man that I am today, but the truth is that it didn't...not in a positive way. I actually could've been the positive man I am today much earlier by listening to the people...both positive and negative...I was surrounded by. But like every adolescent and young adult...and these days not-so-young adult, I had to do me. Doing me hurt people, though. Doing me was dumb. So when I see young men going about things the way I didn't; much better, much smarter, much more respectful....I feel wonderful.

Along with this I realize the "skills" or thinking I've acquired was only meant to survive in the lifestyle I was in...nothing more. And the only reason that stuff isn't useless is because it helps me help others. But I believe that in most instances "I didn't have to go through that" is a better testimony than "I survived". An example of this better testimony could be the news of Brelyn Bowman, daughter of Dr. Mike Freeman of Spirit of Faith Christian Center, presenting her father with the medical results showing that she was a virgin up to her wedding day. Much of America...and surprisingly Christian America...didn't see it as a cause for congratulations, however.

Instead it was a cause for jokes, disbelief, and the intelligent yet underachieving social media troll to express their opinions and insecurity. Yes, insecurity. You would think in a never-would've-made-it culture that elates over success stories that this would be at the top of the list. But because the American Christian population is filled with sexual failures such as teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, fornication, homosexuality, adulteries, and others; and because they choose to be defined by these failures, many didn't celebrate her doing something right, they hated her because they didn't do it. All of these "young, fly, and saved" people couldn't add "virgin" to their t-shirt...and they're flat out jealous.

That self-condemnation is sneaky. It doesn't appear until someone achieves what you've wished, or never even thought was possible. It won't allow a person to find happiness in someone else doing something as simple is proving that they kept their word. It drives us to find underhanded reasons that someone reached their goal, conquered their doubts, and obtained new understanding. It makes people haters. It denies honesty.

I believe this is what many, if not all, who criticize the 20+ year act and ceremony of Brelyn are experiencing. Unfiltered insecurity. They took that purity pledge in middle school and had sex in the 10th grade. They slept with their boyfriend or girlfriend with full confidence they were "the one" and are now on their 13th "one". And these actions alone aren't making them insecure, but it's the memory of the shame and disappointment they assumed themselves . Mrs. Bowman's achievement made them feel....less. And they, saved by grace from Christ, have denied the ever-present power of redemption from loss and remission from sin.

I think this is what living in thanksgiving (Ephesians 5:20) is to help us with. Instead of even considering our failures and mistakes we are to celebrate God's deliverance from them. See, the reality is that Mrs. Bowman messed up too...big time...in something...because she, like us, is human. We miss the mark, sometimes daily. And if that makes you feel better then that says more about you than her. But what's comforting (or at least should be) is the fact that before we were even born God provided the solution for our failure. Essentially, we were winners before we even started playing the game. Knowing that, there is no justifiable reason to direct any negativity her direction. And to blast her for winning at something is completely contradictory when we want people to celebrate us cutting our hair off, or getting a money bonus, or any other accomplishment that the non-Christian population can agree with. It's not only cruel to her, it's insulting to yourself.

Learn to appreciate other peoples' victory, not just your own.

Peace

Million Man Anniversary: When Blaming Media Coverage Goes Wrong

2015-10-12T15:05:00.000-04:00

The demands laid out by Minister Louis Farrakhan and the #JusticOrElse team for the 20th Anniversary of the Million Man March I believe were well thought out, clear, and impactful...well at least to them...and maybe to some others. We won't really know until the 30 year anniversary. That would be the only fair mark to when their can be assessment. And it's also the only time when it will be in my mind significant news.

I think by now we've all heard a lot about the lack of professional media coverage from outlets like NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and FOX. And I'm also sure many of us has liked at least one meme or favorited at least one tweet about that lack of coverage. Therefore, my statement: Just like bringing huge attention to who did or did not win an Academy Award, this was yet another time where people are making a mountain out of air...and unfortunately, begging for attention has become a personality trait of the American; particularly the young African one.

So ask yourself this question...why should there have been off the wall media coverage? And before you answer that, let me ask the question again by what you have determined what deserves significant coverage. What was being sold? Who was playing? What were people wearing? Who was fighting and over what were they fighting for? Who was performing? Who was being killed?

If it wasn't for the entertainers who showed face, would you even watch? If you weren't there, did you watch (as it was streaming)? The channels that you have relentlessness supported...MTV and VH1...didn't feel the event was important enough to even have reporters and cameras on the ground. Why then, do you?

Now after answering those questions with your many defensive and dishonest answers, please recognize something you've known all along...the media is after a story. And while there are factors that seek to sway what is being viewed and/or heard, the large reason for airplay is based off of demand. You have told these giants what is important to you and covering peaceful gatherings isn't really important. Yet little of you turned your television to another channel while all of the aforementioned companies where in Ferguson and Baltimore covering violence and destruction. Even when the protests were peaceful in B-More, you didn't demand the coverage until after they started showing the mayhem. In fact, there are several peaceful demonstrations around the nation daily...but you don't request the footage....ever.

You really want justice for blacks? Then stop supporting the media outlets that diminish our relevance. You really want justice for the incarcerated? Then refuse the media-glamorized activities that increase the numbers of incarceration. You truly want justice for women? Then stop pouring in record ratings to television shows that continue to degrade them. That's the real work; and that's the reason why most of those outlets didn't come. They know the real story is whether or not this event sparked a wave of economic and social improvement among African Americans...and that story is yet to be told.

Peace

Gun Control: The Latest American Issue That's Always Been an American Issue

2015-10-05T16:47:00.000-04:00

Another high-profile [alleged] shooting...another bipartisan picket about gun control. I think we're close to seeing around one shooting per quarter now; and if the consistent news coverage about violent crime isn't enough, hearing about lethal violence in public, or on the job, or in the classroom ensures a presence of fear. And I'm not sure if there will ever be a numbness to these occurrences like there is to other crimes, because as long as people can buy guns the sensationalism of gun control will forever be thrust upon us.

Have you gotten caught up in it yet? Do you believe the federal government needs to step in and better regulate firearm distribution and sales? Are you a second amendment through and through type of person? Do you have a hard-line stance against guns in the wrong hands? Who do you identify as "the wrong hands" anyway? I digress...but you have a real opinion about it I'm sure. Because there's a chance you've been affected by gun control (or lack thereof) before it was popular to be affected by gun control.

See, if we can get away from politics and agendas for a minute, we can make sense of this entire debate. There doesn't have to be one more mass shooting for us as voters to consider whether gun control should be a bullet point (no pun intended). The reality is gun control should've been important in 1980 as Los Angeles County saw 335 gang related murders in one year. Gun control should've blasted our radio and TV waves when cities like New Orleans; Gary, Indiana; Washington D.C., and Richmond, Virginia were saturated with astounding murder rates in the 1990s. There should be a gun control office in South Side Chicago. But we all know why none of that was or is the case.

I'm gonna go ahead and say it....gun control is the hot term because white people are getting shot. Try to get around that if you'd like, but we all know it's true. This isn't a new idea...rap music wasn't evil until white kids started wearing Adidas and they're baseball caps backwards. The heroin epidemic wasn't that until suburban white kids started stealing their parents' OxyCotin. President Ronald Regan and Oliver North's Iran-Contra Affair started the need for gun control; but it wasn't that then because the guns that needed controlling ended up in Brooklyn and South Philadelphia and St. Louis, not as gun control, but as population control. And as if that was the intent, never did this explode to be a national discussion until middle class white teens died at Columbine High School.

What does all of this mean? Well, gun control was and still is an issue...and I'm glad majority America has caught on to that; although it's unfortunate the circumstances that brought about the revelation. But what it also means is that the gun control debate exposes many issues that contribute to the problem, and the majority still refuses to specifically acknowledge. Services that work towards mental health, anger management, conflict resolution, and grief counseling go underfunded and often times lack adequate professional personnel. Drug abuse has been totally mishandled and poverty is only nationally prevalent during campaign time in liberal circles. We all say we want gun control, but we don't seek to control the factors that control the misuse of guns.

Look, if you get caught up in the debate, then you're out of touch with a longstanding American issue. But that's alright. But the next time a friendly American scene is ruined by gunfire, just remember that the American scenes you've ignored have endured that for decades.

Are Political and Religious Identities the Same?

2015-09-28T15:10:00.001-04:00

There's noble, brave, unwavering, and solid. And then there's dishonorable, unsteady, compromising, and flighty. To many conservative Christians, county clerk Kim Davis would embody all of the former traits with her stance against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex partners. From this act she's apparently earned the reputation to have the real character of an American follower of Jesus. She's got that grit and determination to not move an inch from her beliefs. She's the image of standing on the Word of God. It's political drama at it's most mediocre.

I don't think it is (or was) intentional to evoke a Tebow-esque following from the job to the jail and then back to the job. In fact, I don't think she's taking advantage as much as others might think....but the conservative wave's pounce at opportunity is another story. They've milked the situation so much that Mrs. Davis has reportedly changed her political affiliation from Democrat to Republican.

First, let me make clear that I fully agree with what Mrs. Davis did in regards to refusing to issue the marriage licenses. We are in an ever-increasing time of Christian oppression via popular Western society; and that sometimes includes an non-supportive (or supportive...depending on where you stand here) federal government. Actually, this shouldn't be the last incident we see of this type. And I believe as people become more agitated with certain legislation they'll make the same type of move. But what's baffling to me is why get that job back if you feel so strongly about what the job represents? Mrs. Davis' brief stint in the county jail isn't going to change the law...unless maybe she decides to remain in jail as protest...which she wasn't willing to do...so why continue to work for the oppressive and ungodly state government?

To that question one might reply because she, everybody needs a job. True, but I would counter that I believe she already had one waiting for her...with the Republican party (at least temporarily). I even think she knows this, which is why I believe she and her husband made that switch; and I also believe that at this point it's less about Christianity and more about political assertiveness.

There's a general image of today's conservative as being rigidly Christian. In fact, that perception tends to cast the liberal side as being anti-Christian completely. Issues such as abortion, gay rights, and others are understood to be addressed by Republicans in a Christlike, founding father way. Meanwhile, the Democrats ideologies are so current and socially appeasing that many believe they disregard biblical principles. Both assumptions, however, are just that....assumptions.

The reality is first the founding fathers weren't as Christian as today's patriots would like to believe. Most of the men attributed to that title (i.e. George Washington, John Adams, etc.) were more Masonic in their philosophies than Christian. Likewise, the image of the conservative Christian is more reflective of the white Antebellum or Jim Crow Christian instead of the true New Testament one. Their hard-line stance on American capitalism, their shunning of socialism, and their thirst for foreign conflict is by no means supported in scripture positively. In fact, I can argue that the Kingdom of God is really an absolute monarchy; completely headed by God without any input from His population, outside of what His law allows. Now, unlike the absolute monarchies of the past kingdoms, the Lord God rules with love, His laws make provision for dominion, advancement, and rewards, and He shares His wealth with all who come to Him through Christ. The bottom line, though, is Christ. So for me, no political party promotes the saving grace of Jesus enough to be seriously affiliated with. And if Kim Davis knows and understands this (50-50 chance) and still is willing to make that move, then ladies and gentlemen meet your new and more intelligent Sarah Palin.

In the end, I hear people say all the time they "vote for Bible and not for man." Truthfully that's never the case. First, the United States in no way, shape, or form is having a Spirit-filled Believer as President. The root itself of U.S. politics is compromise, so it's virtually impossible. And even if it was, we as humans are too complex to be all Bible all the time. And unfortunately, the public is a little too unforgiving for that.

If you see Kim Davis at the Republican National Convention...you're welcome...and enjoy the show. But don't believe for one second that one party is more or less Christian that the other. If you really want to vote Bible...don't vote.

Peace

Feed the Fire

2015-09-21T14:48:00.000-04:00

In an era where kids in the safest suburbs on the planet are determined to emulate the lives of small-time drug dealers and petty thieves, Tony Lewis, Jr. is shelving the kingpin nature he was born with in an effort to save a city. His father, Tony, Sr., and Rayful Edmond III were the guys in Washington D.C. that by many accounts are responsible for funneling tons of cocaine into the District during the 1980s. This brought Junior into the world in the lap of luxury, but it gave his hometown the murderous and cold reputation that has stuck with D.C. ever since then. Tony, Jr. would soon come to discover the truth behind the perception; as immediately after his father received a life without parole sentence in 1989 he and his mother were thrust into poverty and prey. However, unlike so many that have experienced this transition, he didn't simply assimilate into his environment. With assistance and determination, Lewis walked the path of humility and service and now is deeply engaged in community activism. That's pretty impressive for someone who was submerged into smugglers' culture at birth; and it's another example of a person's beginnings are only as important as that person makes them out to be.

We often hear of and covet strong starts...heavily emphasizing having all of our ducks in a row before venturing out. And in that there is wisdom. But how critical is it to put your best foot forward? What if your best foot is just as bad as your worst? What if you're not certain what direction you should step? Does all of this mean a move shouldn't be made? Should we hold back and wait for the stars to align, open doors, and perfect conditions? An argument can be made to support a yes here, but then this question arises: how does a person know exactly when the time is absolutely right, especially if this is the first attempt at something? If situations are frequently different and included a variety of factors, how can one be sure an open door is even the right door? I would affirm that it can't be done.

Knowledge, wisdom, resources are all great and valuable. But without passion, none of those traits are maximized. Passion is the single reason why anything globally significant in history ever happened. It is how oppression is removed, cures are discovered, and companies are created. It is how higher education is achieved. It is how vocational success is achieved without higher education. It is how faith and belief become active. It is how we became to be eternally free through Jesus Christ.

Many people recognize issues and ills, but few people address them in any way. Mostly, it's just fodder for Facebook threads. But it's the passionate who actually start the non-profits, collect the signatures, and plead the cases that create the opportunities for change. Even in marriages, when Ephesians 5:25 tells husbands to "love your wives as Christ love the Church", I believe the passage is really suggesting that we protect, support, lead, and love our wives with the same passion Christ had towards all mankind.

Does your passion towards success outweigh your current shortcomings and challenges? Are you toiling with whether or not you're educated enough, skilled enough, blessed enough...and meanwhile that business that someone needs to happen to make their lives more productive sits on your desk? Or even worse, in your head? God has already confirmed in you the need and the need for you to address it, but maybe you haven't kindled the passion that will move the needle...possibly because of fear. However, I encourage you today refuse the hurt from meager beginnings, unfortunate occurrences, and lack; and instead recognize that burning you have to make it happen will largely allow you to...make it happen.

Don't let the fire burn out...

Peace