(hmm…yeah, a rather common source of befuddlement for those of us in Christian churches, especially with the proliferation of public displays of “Spirit speaking.”  now certainly there are many other questions to be answered, i only seek to deal with the aforementioned phenomena in public worship, as i gather that Paul does in the text.  for in private, many of my Pentecostal friends have described the great utility of their “prayer language” for personal empowerment and solace.  so…)

the text (new century version): 

 22 so the gift of speaking in different kinds of languages is a sign for those who do not believe, not for those who do believe.  and prophecy is for people who believe, not for those who do not believe.  23 suppose the whole church meets together and everyone speaks in different languages.  if some people come in who do not understand or do not believe, they will say you are crazy.  24 but suppose everyone is prophesying and some people come in who do not believe or do not understand.  if everyone is prophesying, their sin will be shown to them, and they will be judged by all that they hear.  25 the secret things in their hearts will be made known.  so they will bow down and worship god saying, “truly, god is with you.”  (1 corinthians 14:22-25)

 the question:

so, i am reading 1 cor. 14:22-25 and i am thoroughly confused.  it says speaking in tongues is meant for the unbeliever and not for the believer.  i got that part.  then it said that prophecy is not for the unbeliever but for the believer.  i got that part too.  but then it says if an unbeliever walks in while you are speaking in tongues he will think you are crazy.  but if you prophesy he will come to confess his sins.  which unless i am reading it wrong goes against what was stated in the first part of the scripture.  so i am confused.  which is supposed to benefit the unbeliever and which is supposed to benefit the believer?  i copied the scripture below for easier access.  thanks for the help!

 my response:

well, two things: first, yeah, Paul does seem to contradict himself here and does make the text in question rather complex without scrupulous attention to what one can discern to be his aim….

second, though, and most importantly, understanding the issue he seeks to address in the chapter helps in interpreting the passage in question…

reading the chapter in its entirety, one sees that Paul is esteeming prophecy over tongues (in public worship settings, that is) because of its transformative abilities.  in other words, the crux of the argumentation says that tongues would just be like a sign for the unbeliever in these contexts (really, he’s referring to the fulfillment of prophetic literature which evinces how god confounds the understanding of the stubborn [v.21])…

prophesy though is for reproof, edification and “turning,” so to speak…thus, it’s much better for the unbeliever to hear prophecy instead…otherwise there is no repentance only further ostracizing by their knowledge of “never hearing” (again refer to verse 21)…

so when Paul says that prophecy is for believers, he’s saying then that the hearing of prophecy enables these to believe, hence salvation (an ongoing work, in my view) is possible…

but if they (unbelievers) only hear tongues they are forever condemned as “not listening to me [god]” (again, c.f. v.21)

in short, Paul often uses these dualities (believers, unbelievers — tongues, prophecy) to press his point, permitting me to paraphrase in my vernacular here: 

“come on people, i know u got gifts—good…spk in ur tongues if u wish…but true edification comes through prophesy (mostly forthtelling in modern times).  So prophecy is what’s best, esteem her…”

and maybe he’s saying: “and stop bragging and thinkin u da stuff cause u spk in a tongue…more, don’t let others make u feel less spiritual if u can’t…”

“the way is Love, but prophecy is better than the tongue, if u wanna compare gifts (or the execution of them in service to others (god)…”

“cause tongues ain’t never turn nobody around…only pushed people who ain’t been raised in the church away…cause they say, “what the ….?”

so again (so i’m somewhat clear here):  tongues are a sign for unbelievers, yes – in that it is a “sign” that unbelievers stand condemned, according to the Hebrew Scriptures (v. 21)….  prophecy is for believers, yes—meaning that  even if the unbeliever hears prophecy, then maybe, inferring from Paul’s argument, the unbeliever is to become a believer in our god…

hope this helps some…if not i’ll clarify more if needed…

best,

me

yesterday, i had the privilege of preaching to a dear congregation in new jersey on mother’s day, that grand day in our calendar year which we reserve to, more prominently, accent the estimable ministry of motherhood…in fact, one of my chief claims in yesterday’s message was that, indeed, motherhood is a ministry—a service to our god, i believe, and worthy of veneration because of the nature of its “calling”…

i realized something in it all though, dear moma….i really miss you

i miss most your unfaltering love expressed in words—yes—but more, in your belief and encouragement to an ever-insecure young boy trying to find out who he was…

i miss your zest for possibilities that you never realized yet urged me to consider; even despite your many disappointments, you dared not destroy the naïve hopes of your young son-dreamer…

i miss the feelings, rare though they were, of making you a proud parent…

i regret the many times that i was the source of your pain…

i regret that i didn’t have the words to share — that i was too impotent, articulately, rather, to share — with you at times when you cried…

i regret that i didn’t have the moral character or personal maturity to “be there” for you at your most difficult time…

and so let me today, i guess reflectively, wish you a posthumous happy mother’s day and say that i have learned these things about the great office of motherhoood through you: 

1.)   you’re so worthy of honor because your vocation is so valuable: you set me on the path to personal destiny…you were the principal person in shaping who I am: a most formidable chore…

2.)  you’re so worthy of honor because of the many thankless deeds and sacrifices you made because of Love for me…

3.)  you’re so worthy of admiration from many, my moma, because historically even we fail to esteem great “mothers” like you…the nurture and attention that only you could give to someone who would otherwise be overlooked deserves our praises…

happy mother’s day, dear moma…how I wish your person was still “here” so that I could somehow offer my more worldly appreciation…

with love eternal,

your son,

CVT

well…yeah… maybe… and no, not necessarily…

two persons have now asked, so i’ll start trying to put forth my best neophyte answer now… 

the question i think is not so easily answerable.  i mean, on the one extreme, one can adhere to a type of rational dogmatism; and on the other, one can stay in the clouds of utopian idealism.  i think it requires some mitigation though.  too often we find deceit on both ends of the spectrum…

first let’s take the strict rationalism of the intellectuals who see themselves as too “reasoned” to subscribe to any type of religious faith.  a chief modern exponent in this camp, for example, is the everywhere-present Richard Dawkins, who lately seems to serve as the chief cleric for atheism.  he’s careful (like theorists of the past like David Hume, Tylor and Freud) to trace monotheistic belief to the polytheism of the ancients; in essence saying that religious faith is but “intellectual” human concoction, and though it  has progressed a bit (to monotheism, like Christianity and Judaism, in particular) as humans have, in the end it’s still absurd.  to counter-act this then religious thinkers through the times have responded by assigning to themselves careful designations as they grow uncomfortable with the discoveries of the “science of religion,” such as deists (i believe god is, but this god has done his/her work already and doesn’t bother now to interfere in the natural processes of the universe), dy(i)theist (who believe in two equally antagonistic supernatural powers at work [good and evil]), atheists (no gods) and agnostics (which is a convenient halfway, though intellectually honest, position that says since god’s existence is unverifiable, scientifically considering, we choose to say we don’t know).

and so the danger on this side is that many as they acquire knowledge and live a cloistered life, often far apart from the concrete experiences that make religious faith so poignant, they begin to gain an over-confidence in the self-possession and mental ascendancy of a learned few and, further, think it appropriate to then denigrate, reduce our faith to mere “superstition…”….so one sees from anthropological, psychological, social and philosophical perspectives the many humanistic explanations on why peoples and individuals throughout history appeal to invisible forces to explain the unexplainable…

but against these clerics of modernity, many have sought to defend religious belief, for instance, Erasmus (namely, speaking of Christianity now) of old tried to show how god was present, even in the pagan literature of the 16^th century (much to the chagrin of the Reformers).  in addition, there are those few, such as Cornel West, Wallace Best and the like who combat the “principalities in higher places” now, if you will…

problem is most of us in our churches aren’t too conversant with some of the hostilities that exists between these folk…and most of us (especially in our beloved Black Church) suffer from fulminations against intellectualism as the greatest danger to faith by those who fear that all intellectualism is antithetical to faith…but it doesn’t have to be…though we should be careful…you can certainly think and still have a vigorous faith….

i’d just say this (recalling the wisdom of Solomon): that the acquisition of more knowledge about these subjects does bring with it more pains to reconcile it with a faith that should be so simple for us…for instance, the studious one who wants to maintain faith has to grapple with some complex issues as well—particularly as they relate to the nature of God, the nature of sacred texts, human infallibility (a most formidable enemy to the Catholics and the Pope), and the nature of prayer (do we believe it to be so potent because we serve an interventionist God?)

well, in many ways critically appropriating protects against credulousness—being an over-enthusiastic “amen” person to whatever a person says in the name of god…and on the other, one can become this incurable skeptic—tying every misfortune or unrealized hope on the non-existence of a benevolent Deity…

to sum, for now, lemme jus’ say that yes, it could undermine one who is too amenable to being “carried away” by every good-sounding or even reasoned argument one way or the other

…the key to the faith-life is revelatory experiences, meaning how I have come to know my god through experiences that are congruent with how I discern it to be god in contexts, and recordings about the interior lives of others.

the answer is no, if being firmly rooted, meaning that the Christ has laid hold of me such that no matter what i encounter my belief says that genuine faith can’t be expunged by any theory or doctrine, then learning more may be beneficial even if it requires more mental exertion than what was required erstwhile…

the answer is maybe…for fear of being carried away motivates some “authorities” to become tyrannical with faith and non-tolerant of any views that may challenge one’s weakness to articulate such strong spiritual resoluteness in the first place (which in my opinion promotes spiritual stagnation)…

well, i’ll have to revisit this later, i’m typing too fast and realize that, because of that, i may be complicating the dicussion all the more… i’ll bring this to a simpler close later when I can think…right now it’s too tortuous…

but lemme now as simply as possible pray my god for wisdom for the “saints” on Sunday… (smiles).  besides, i need to leave this place and go home…

peace

me

well, from the jus’ ‘cause.  i mean, bourgeois and highbrow speculation alone shall never suffice, especially for the folk who’ll almost never encounter such philosophy anyway…but who am i to say, right?  maybe more authoritative for you, and certainly more elegant, is James who asserts it this way:

 “the thinker starts from some experience of the practical world, and asks its meaning.  he, then, launches himself upon the speculative sea, and makes a voyage long or short.  he ascends into the empyrean, even, communing with the eternal essences.  but whatever his achievements and discoveries be while gone, the utmost result  they can issue in is some new practical maxim or resolve, or the denial of some old one, with which inevitably he is sooner or later washed ashore on the terra firma of concrete life again.”  — WILLIAM JAMES (“Reflex Action and Theism,” 1881)

yeah…that says enough, I think

me

with permission i post the following note by Mr. Jay Gardner, a fellow cleric and introspective brother who offers this rather pungent commentary on race as accented by the recent obama campaign efforts.  this note follows our personal discussion on the current campaign after having critical discussion about why we are reluctant to support “whoever.”  warning: i had to read it twice before realizing his sarcasm  (i thought he’d lost his mind initially)…but seeing his aim he offers some great fodder for discussion on your politics of race.  whatcha think?  on anything.  wright? obama? racism? opportunism? sexism? do you think we make too much of it…

hum, i’ll comment later i’m sure….

_____________

so maybe i’m wrong about this race thing, maybe its just in my mind; it seems to be so passé and clearly of a distant generation, and why do “old heads” like me keep holding on to something that really has no meaning or merit today.  i mean our society is colorblind and racism isn’t really a valid point anymore for we are all considered on the basis of merit, right? 

moreover, as sen. obama said when asked again about rev. wright’s speech, people keep asking over and over about the 5 dumbest things that someone has said!  yep, rev. wright said dumb things.  like systemic racism and oppression, poverty is a matter of choice, white people are poor too and nobody helps them rise to economic security and success, right?  and terrorism, the u.s.a. has been a helping and benevolent nation and our foreign policy is to aid in the spread of freedom and democracy, right?  i can’t understand why anyone in other countries would not love america, they love jay-z, and they love roc-a-wear, so those “foreigners” are just hypocrites. 

and as for aids in blacks, again poor choices.  i mean blacks should not be so promiscuous and should use condoms—that’s why we have so many black babies without 2 parents or orphaned.  yep, the racial divide is not really a racial divide it’s only a matter of a “victimized” mentality perpetuated by old head religious and political leaders who need to just get over it.

oh, by the way, you might want to check out the jan. 2007, vol 97, no.1 pg 125 of the american journal of public health.  it says something about racial disparity among blacks and whites with the incidence of std & hiv infection.  those with the same level of risk behaviors blacks have greater than 2x the incidence of infection than whites.  thus blacks are more susceptible to hiv infection than whites are.  i don’t know, some ignorant person might extrapolate from such evidence either that blacks are an inferior species or that white people invented hiv to infect black people (which is ludicrous).

oh, and its interesting that i observed a white male student and a black female student presenting their theses for their doctoral work and why was there the comment by one of the professors that he didn’t think that she had the mental capacity to succeed in the work.  (i’m sorry, it was agreed that her presentation was better than his was, but that’s not important.)  he was told that he should do well with a little extra effort.  (this is 2007 at a prestigious ivy institution).  however, that’s not racism, just an isolated incident and one persons view.

and let’s not talk about cointelpro or about redlining or dwb in new jersey or jasper, texas or about sudan or croatia/serbia or afanistan or vietnam or korea.  these are simply conspiracy theories about the cia’s covert actions to support dictators who are interested in american economic expansion and the fbi’s efforts to secure our economy at home.

but i digress, obama is right; rev. wright said some really dumb things, the dumbest things.  but he’s an old man and subject to speaking things like old people do.  but we still love’m.

but it’s terrific to be an american in america, and god bless america, the city that sits on the hill, the light of the world.  it is our manifest destiny to spread freedom around the world.  that is us, america the beautiful.  dr. martin luther king, jr., was right, here we are judged by the content of our character and here freedom rings from sea to shining sea.  and people need to recognize that the only thing that separates us from each other is us.  it just makes me want to sing and dance just thinking about it!!!!

oh well, reader, maybe you don’t remember (and if you do, you may be distinctly peculiar [weird like me])…so on to the subject at hand:

i received the following sincere question from a friend in my inbox, and just decided to post my response.  i chuckle ‘cause i remember having the same types of struggles with literalism and allegory in text interpretation during my nascent christianity…given: i’m still convinced that at certain times texts can have a range of meanings/applications for individuals depending on the need as spiritually discerned; however, there are certain devices and rules of interpretation that are more static and thus have significant utility for the serious biblical student…anyway here’s my hasty response:

the text: luke 6.29-35

29 if anyone strikes you on the cheek offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.  30 give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.  35 but love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.  your reward will be great, and you will be children of the most high; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

the heartfelt prayer and question by a friend:

“father, upon reading this, it went against all my natural instincts, and still does.  when you tell me to turn the other cheek, do you mean that literally, figuratively or both?  so, if someone decides to attack me i should give them no resistance…i should just let them assault me or my family?! and if, under any circumstances, someone takes my coat, then i am to give them my shirt also? if someone steals or takes from me, i shouldn’t ask for it back? can i not even exercise that which man’s laws would allow and take them to court? father, if i give to everyone who asks then what will i have left and how much am i to give to them, some, all? are you telling me to give to every person on the street w/ a sign and then trust you to provide for me?! lord, if i give to everyone who asks then what will i have left to give? won’t i then become the one asking, begging? no father, i am not doubting your ability to provide and or replenish. i am simply trying to understand your word so that i might be obedient in teaching it and applying it. because, at least at first glance, it appears that you are telling me that if a known drug addict asks me for money and then my best friend and my enemy asks me for money, i am to lend to them all and never ask for it back! would that then make me a good steward or a bad one? your word also teaches us to save and invest, but if i am giving it all away, how can i do that?”

my unedited response:

hey, brother, do forgive me for taking this long to respond.  the only real excuse i have is that i didn’t read it completely; hence, i didn’t realize the pressing query here…

it’s understandable, your question, that is…

at first readings, one could easily take this literal approach in trying to apply it to his/her life, but this is not implying that this is a figurative teaching either….

in short, this teaching is about magnanimity and generosity.  but not to be mistaken with foolhardiness…we christian folk often fall into this trap…so let me here just offer some thoughts:

1.)  this passage, taken in context with the whole of biblical revelation, should not mean that u allow yourself to be taken advantage of, or you not defend urself

for instance, the turning the other cheek metaphor that jesus uses is his hyperbole…think of it, when we say it we don’t mean, “hey, come punch me, then i’m gonna give you my other cheek to punch me too” hell no…  i mean one should at least put their hands up to protect themselves…but of course, i’m not a pacifist anyway, so this would be hard for a brotha like me to naively accept anyway…

so, i’d rather propose that this is jesus’ hyperbole for restraint, you know the wisdom literature says it this way: “great is the man who has control over his temper/spirit”; thus the teaching in its essence is that you should be slow to respond in anger, but quick to overlook the offense when possible…much more than physical blows, maybe in other affronts as well, be they non-physical (which is the case more often of being assaulted, right?)…

now jesus exemplifies this by his non-retaliation during his “passion”…in other words, be a person of peace and not quick-tempered is what he says and later embodies, i think…

2.)  now giving to everyone who asks, or more literally “begs” is not to mean to do so without discretion…i mean the text here suggests that there may be a discernible need that you might be able to meet…and where it’s sincere, and you have the means…then you should meet it…  and to protect against any animosity, never give (even to one who says they are borrowing) expecting them to return payment…always give doing just that: giving it away…

so in short, taking all of these verses together it says, look don’t be vindictive towards enemies, even just show the way of love…..forgiving, giving and forbearance…

is it wise for you to give more wine to a drunkard?  …of course, not…is it wise to give your resources (time, energies or knowledge for that matter) to someone known for being profligate, wasteful and maybe unappreciative…no…

also, if you are known as a person of peace, it’s not likely that many will attack you (verbally or physically)…and if many attack you (physically i mean) ur throwing punches back ain’t gon help much anyway…lol…

so our god certainly calls us to be wise and thinking…the lesson of the passage is then, again, long-suffering, generosity (reasoned), and noble-mindedness when dealing with hateful others…

the rewards of living in these essences are greater than the alternative, jesus suggests…

hope this helps some bro.,  let me know what u’d like to interrogate further, though….

i send this hastily cause i’ve taken so long, and was moved to respond after sitting here to read it finally…sigh…

blessings, bro

me (not CVT)…

me: yo, CVT, it’s been almost a year now, are you still “tired now”?  lol…has lady Content finally visited, has that inscrutable, intangible “Peace” come as the result of your spiritual strivings, or is that Closeness you seek still grasping; have you found Fidelity?  do you still believe in Love and Service, and what now is your apologia for “me”?

CVT: well, i’m not sure whence this dialogue comes, whether i should take umbrage at the sardonic inferences or think more closely ‘bout that prayer?

me: well, in a sense, i am your own interrogation, right?  i’m your own creation; you’ve dichotomized your “self” to highlight your contradiction, so now listen to yourself, “me,” in the gap, if you will, let’s talk from the threshold of redemption, or regression…

CVT: yeah, but it’s not that i’ve changed much really, i’m CVT—the same liar, cheat, scoundrel, and ne’er-do-well with the messed-up mores of my youth…and so while you represent the best of what CVT can be, a sort of skeptical realism (or acceptance that the growing knowledge of myself makes you more distant and quixotic) has set in based on the year’s experiences and disappointments…

…since saying, “i’m tired now” i’ve had reason, spiritually speaking, even, to be more ti’ed…i’m ti’ed of still bein’ “here” stagnant, and I’m ti’ed cause maybe I been climbing a ladder leaning ‘gainst the wrong wall, you know…are your “supports” really your supports, and who do you think you are that one should be faithful to you?…who have you been faithful to?

me: hmmm…okay, well, i’ll come halfway to meet then.  i won’t text-proof to ya, i know you disdain that now; however, i will still use the symbols that have at least made you “me.”  question: are you not still in pursuit of your “promised land”?

CVT: yeah, whatever that is…but now i just call it a preferable place, realizing that it’s not guaranteed that i get there, though Resilience won’t let me stop pursuing it… i guess the wisdom literatures, the prophets and the gospels are singularly powerful for me because of how they are so insightful as to the base human attitudes and experiences that make us ask the deeper questions…i marvel at them (the Scriptures), because what makes them sacred is that i believe that our god was at work in their transmission despite the many errors and foibles of us…

yet lately, i ain’t been interested in talking bout 1^st century folk, only as their experience gives meaning to my life in the 21^st one…cause for god to be potent to me then that same spirit must be active now in our communications about us…

me: well, that’s why they’ve been recorded right, according to St. Paul, for the sustenance of your hope (rom. 15.4).  and you know I still proffer to you the strength of wisdom that comes from these holy narratives as our god gives them power.  so you know, it’s trite but true: “obedience brings blessing,” “delayed doesn’t mean denied,” and your god can turn the “evil into good” (cf. Genesis 39; the Israelites in Exodus; and Rom 8).

CVT: exactly, and that’s what keeps me in the struggle for personal maturity, i guess, keeps me esteeming Magnanimity, running back to Fidelity and seeking your Prudence…cause i believe you…

me: but what person I guess are all these virtuous symbols pointing to; who the hell you think is your “Resilience”?  these are not just ideals out there but we both know they’re personified in your “him”…  (john 1.1-10).

CVT: well, that goes without saying right?  i’m just acknowledging the impossibility of his ideals for me…

me: reverend!

CVT: you ain’t talkin’ to reverend, I’m CVT…

me: who’s CVT…

CVT: me…

me: “me”!  but wait!  who’s me…the transmuted self, right?  the consciousness that has come from without, the source, or ground of all that’s good about you…

CVT: yeah…but i’ll always be CVT

me: yeah….but you were created to be me…

CVT: (sigh)…

the black proletariat of the city know it, most famously, for its railroad tracks which separate the haves from the have-nots.  tree canopies hang like teardrops over shotgun houses, and crumpled concrete sidewalks are littered with drug dealers and all sorts of “unsavory types” in the neighborhoods we called “home.”

so our escape was usually via television, mostly: yea, we wanted to “be like mike,” but he was too distant to be any kind of realizable dream for us.  however, as a freshman at Gulfport High, i remember how palpable the excitement was for our own MJ, both a local legend and national “star.”  his hope was more proximate than michael jordan’s; he was someone we knew as a kid athletic prodigy, the great hope for young black youths in a city where hope was scarce.  those who saw him develop from a youth basketball standout and into a high school star marveled at his abilities.  he’d score 30, 40, 50 points a night, set all sorts of records, lead his team to championships, and he became the best high school basketball player in mississippi—arguably the best in the state’s history.

later, he would leave Gulport High and go on to LSU, becoming the highest scoring freshman of all-time in the NCAA (963 points) before turning pro with a seeming bright future ahead…we all followed his career; he was our pride and joy…he still is, in many ways…the only person who depicted for us that “escape” was possible…who is he?  well, we knew him as Chris Jackson, then.  His name now, though, is Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf….who is he?  well, he’s the muslim-convert-greatest-basketball-player that you’ll probably never know…

can anything good come from Gulfport?  i can’t answer that with certitude, but you certainly helped us to believe that something could, Mahmoud…and though i now reside on the east coast, i recall quite vividly your inspiration…

doubtless, though, there will be one who will read this and say “yeah, of course, CVT, you’d think he was that good; you’re biased.”  well, when you get a moment, look for yourself at some footage from his college and erratic NBA career.

at LSU:

pardon the cryptic digression, but this more philosophical “thinking out loud” happens from time to time when i go to the deeper recesses of self…when i’m forced to grapple with stuff i can’t talk about (do to the present lack of material freedom necessary to pay for psycho-analysis, lol).  so forgive me, friends, if anything herein seems apostate…i ain’t tryin to offend, i’m just speaking…uhm…more humanly right now.

…reason: it’s cloudy today (literally and figuratively) and the forecast is austere, at best, and unremarkable for tomorrow.  so in order for CVT not to succumb to the dolor of the days, i need to “encourage myself,” you know, engage in the god-self talk necessary for us sober-minded religious folk to maintain fidelities… 

in fact, one can see why we christians esteem doctrines of personalism in our god-talk; it’s crucial to our spiritual sustenance.  in other words, i just need to know that during the “night-times” there is a god sympathetic to my feelings too; yeah, i need a god who can “feel” me in my mess…

…it’s why, i suppose, king thought deeply of our god’s personality at boston (btw, today we acknowledge 40 years since his “crucifixion” in Memphis), and later became convinced that god, indeed, was with him in the struggle for racial and class justice.  however god has been construed more broadly, and quite tenably, by many, i think.  ghandi said once, for instance, that “god is truth; and the truth is god.”  and here is where i “sow” today…but lemme not take you too far there, some ain’t ready for that yet, so lemme come back home… 

now for us, Truth was embodied, according to the cardinal message, and so our eternal task, believing that jesus is the “way” (or the paragon of how one should think and act in this world) is to discover, hypothesize and expound on how Truth would look like and “be” in our historical space.  and this proves to be a formidable task, given the precedence of text abuse in sacred interpretation hitherto… but the christian cannon reduced simply says, “love the lord, thy god, with all your heart soul and strength” and “love thy neighbor as you love yourself.”  against these things, what law can win over?  what sect, then, can claim a monopoly on little t = truth?  so in our hermenuetics, we should seek to interpret with this love orientation and live out the love we feel that was so exemplified by our “savior.”  of that person–the one living and loving this way– we will say she is “the truth,” to use our vernacular.  

this broadens the discussion, though, and perhaps makes us not so repellent to those who only experience the predominant model of christianity, narrow and dogmatic, which is often promulgated in US popular media…it enables us, again, to speak of god in more palatable terms, too, to those of other religious faiths.  instead of using the esoteric language of the church, we broaden the spirit of Truth’s reach for those who ain’t been raised in our paradigm…

…so whether it’s first principals in kantian philosophy, “karma, baby” on the best man (remember terence howard’s character in the movie), the enlightenment of the buddha, or the voodoo of the haitian, there’s a basis for conversation and conversion.  and by conversion, of course, i mean a mutual recognition of truths, little “t”; for it’s these recognitions that ultimately lead to the altered consciousness which we christians call “salvation.”   

now i do have a crude theology on the religions, but more important here are the essential religious truths that need to be passed on for your thinking and levity: 

1. muslims do not recognize jews as god’s chosen people.

2. jews do not recognize jesus as the messiah.

3. protestants do not recognize the pope as the leader of the christian world.

4. baptists do not recognize each other at hooters.

important note:  being good baptists, you know, a dear friend of mine, odis, and me decided that we would “research” claim #4 (with spousal permission, of course).  and yes it’s ostensibly true, we baptists folk often are forgetful of each other in certain secular spaces, lol… 

something useful resulted, too, from our research for the brothas: if you should happen to a hooters one day, know that they have the damndest wings, which goes quite well with heineken…(uhm…we heard).

me, CVT

well, i’m sick today,  got a bad fever, sore throat and frankly it’s irritating me …i ain’t got time for it…and i was just about to put this kanye stuff up for the year, i’ve heard enough of him… but the next song on the album, graduation, is “glory”…in it brother kanye gives candid commentary on some of his motivations, beyond the humble veneer…he  just says it plainly (regarding some of actions at the grammies and other places),  “hey, i did it for the glory…”

now it was reflection time for me.  i was about to try to get some thoughts out regarding a particular text for the “saints.”  similarly, the text i have in mind relates, you know, to themes of service,  glory,  greatness and the like, and as i thought about kanye’s ingenuousness, i thought about those of us felt summoned to serve others…whether this calling is to serve more publicly or parochially, one would do well, here, to heed the hard saying of Jesus as it relates to “glory,” or greatness: “he who is [or will be] greatest among you, will be your servant…”  (insert mine, of course)…

you see, no where do you see in the Jesus movement one castigated for wanting recognition, it’s innate to all animals, isn’t it (homo sapiens are no different)?…but those who are recognized most famously in service are usually the ones willing to forgo, as the primary motive, the seeking personal adulation, while reveling in the uplift of others.  Fannie Lou Hamer, Gandhi, King, Mother Theresa—all are salient examples of “greatness” in this mode of vocation…

but lemme come through the back door on ya…listen to some “West Wisdom,” as my lil’ god sister put it a while back.  i enjoyed this elucidation of service and success so much i decided to steal from her the idea of publishing it on my blog…i think the message is significant for all service-oriented folk; and, for the Christian, it is tangentially related to the greatest of the commandments…

so listen to this construal of the love and service message…what are your thoughts on how Dr. West puts it?