There are testimonies and stories out there, that we have all heard, of those Christians that came to profess faith in Christ at an early age. They understood the importance of holiness almost immediately. They remained virgins until meeting and marrying their wives or husbands at a rather early age and then lived a life that was glorifying to God.
Though these testimonies are great and I thank and praise God for them whenever I hear them, I also realize that they are sadly not the norm.
I will use myself as the example here. I didn't grow up in a Christian household and holiness was an abstract concept to me that I only heard of in passing. I didn't hear of Christ at anything close to an early age. In fact, I was 19 when I first heard even a watered down version of the gospel and well into my twenties when I finally came to understand it (at least from an intellectual standpoint). I had gotten married and divorced, both without knowing Christ at all. Afterward I became promiscuous and, though not as wild as some, lived a life of relative debauchery.
Then came a turning point. I met someone that invited me to church. At this church I was first confronted with why sin truly was and was prompted to "give my life to Christ". Now this is where I started living pure and studying the deep mysteries of the bible, becoming a modern day Luther or Calvin, right? Nope! Not even close. That same person that invited me to the church was my girlfriend at the time and we had anything but a pure relationship. After we broke up, the sinning still continued though now it was accompanied by at least a small knowledge about God. I even began studying some theology! I could talk about doctrine with the best of them and would even shock myself at times with how profound I sounded. I presented a great image of a young, honorable Christian man outwardly. But inside I was full of dead men's bones. A mere whitewashed tomb that contained nothing but death. Though I did in fact continue to study theology and even read some of the classics by the most influential church fathers, I had yet to make the connection between what I was reading and studying and how I was living.
Then one day it dawned on me...I was a nominal Christian. Sure, if someone asked me what I was I'd say "Christian" or if I took a survey I would check the box marked, you guessed it, "Christian". But my thoughts, words and even actions always betrayed the truth and said "hypocrite"!
You see, I commented regularly on Christian websites and posts on social media. I had people contact me and ask me to comment on Christian themes or topics or just ask my advice. Why? Because they perceived me as being a "well versed Christian man". But as deep and as thought provoking as my responses and essays were, they weren't deep enough, in my life! I was a Christian with a shallow faith.
But now I was aware of it. So, what happened next, right?
Well, I attempted to rectify the errors. After years of studying and conversing and explaining it to others, it final hit home that God didn't require mere head knowledge or an intellectual assent to His revealed truth. No, he required obedience! He required sanctification! He required holiness!
But was it too late?!? Now that I finally came to the point of desiring God more than my sins. Now that I, at last, desired to live a life glorifying to God. Now, after all these years...would God even bother to hear me or, for that matter, believe me? And how would those people that have known me for some time react? I mean, those closest to me. Those that didn't fall for the persona I exhibited to the outside world. Those that knew the truth. All of these were questions and concerns that came up in the process of my figuring out what to do next.
The enemy was a busy little schemer too! I can't begin to tell you how often he would whisper in my ear, "you tried this before Barry...just give it up already" or "you don't even believe yourself, and you think God will?". "No one is going to believe you, and you'll be right back to your old ways" was what he constantly threw in my face. And though that voice was persistent and nagging, God's voice was louder still and His words more profound. From the scriptures His promises rang out. He spoke to me from Ephesians and from Romans and allowed me to realize that it was He that accomplished my salvation and it was for His own glory that He carried that out. That it didnt matter if my faith waivers, His word remains solid and true! And that, ultimately, as long as I had breath in my lungs and life in my body, it was NEVER too late to submit to Christ as not only my savior but as my Lord! That it was NEVER too late to be holy!
The ironic thing is that for about ten years I have always worn a ring bearing the inscription "HE DIED 4 ME, I LIVE 4 HIM". And now I can finally look at that ring and know that it isn't an empty slogan or saying. That it isn't mere jewelry. I can finally "LIVE 4 HIM"!
So, if you've been living a life that you know isn't a true representation of what God has done for you through Christ. If you've been wondering if your faith is even real or if it's simply too late to try to live right. If that small voice keeps telling you that your chance at holiness has expired or that you'll fall back into your ways. Then I encourage you to allow God to speak! His words are louder and truer and he's the one that gives you the ability to live a holy life. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" may be out of context on the football field, but it most certainly rings true in this case and when our own strength finds itself wavering in light of our own shortcomings. And remember, you will NEVER be able to live a life that's worthy of what Christ has done on the cross and is continuing to do today...but you should NEVER stop trying to do just that...
Seeking to present open and honest discussion about the culture and times as well as the Christian faith and how it can be practically and logically lived out within that context. Also hoping to answer some of the questions unbelievers may have about what we believe, why we believe it and why it affects our lives. candid: adjective- a : marked by honest sincere expression "a candid discussion" b : indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception
Friday, April 3, 2015
Monday, March 10, 2014
SON OF GOD?...IS HE REALLY?
Ok, so I'll admit that I was not one of the alleged 100+ million people that watched the History Channel's "The Bible" series when it aired in 2013, don't judge me. I suppose I didn't have any interest in it due to the fact that anything else bible related that has aired on or was backed by the History Channel, was far from biblically accurate. My assumptions were justified by other Christians that pointed out the inaccuracies.
But given how many believers as well as unbelievers seemed to be enthralled by the series, I felt it would be pertinent for me to pay attention to the newest project by it's creators entitled "Son of God". Now, unless you live under a rock, you surely have heard of this movie or have seen the trailer for yourself. My comments here, however, are not solely for those that have not seen it but also for those that have already been to their theater to view it. (imagine my surprise when I did some research and found that most of the scenes in the movie were from the series itself)
I have to preface what I say next by giving some credit where it may be due. There have been countless movies created in the past about the bible and in particular about the person of Jesus. Most of these have been far from perfect portrayals of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. However, in my opinion at least, there have been some good things that came from some of these. Most notably would be Mel Gibson's account, "The Passion of the Christ". The "good things" I speak of can really only be seen as such when we take into account our cultures love of and celebration of violence. Our youth, as well as us, are inundated with it. From the video games where the most violence seems to win the day to the internet videos of fights and even deaths that are shared and gawked at non-stop, they are unconsciously numbed to the true nature of what they watch so freely. So, in light of that, I believe it may have been beneficial to some to see the excruciating pain and torture that Christ actually endured before being murdered by sinful men. I'm not saying that we could ever properly portray the horror of what he endured that day (both physically and spiritually), but I do think that it opened the eyes of those that simply saw the crucifixion as some Sunday school story devoid of any real pain or blood. So, solely for his no holds barred portrayal of those final moments of Christ's life, Mel Gibson gets kudos from me.
But now we get into the real issue with movies such as this but, in particular with "Son of God".
When we do not allow our theology, as well as our recounting of the stories, to be informed by the bible, we will always be prone to make great errors in the gospel narrative. And in this regard, "Son of God" does not fall short at all.
Where do we start? I suppose it would be wise to point out that, of the most popular movies about Jesus, none of them seemed to be able to get the physical part right. Let's see what scripture has to say, shall we? No one would claim that Isaiah 53 was about anyone other than Jesus himself, so let's read verse 2:
"For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him."
Now, we can perhaps argue about the details of his physical appearance, but we shouldn't be confused that he was nowhere near what the world would deem handsome or attractive.
Take Diogo Morgado, on the other hand, and what you have is the New Testament version of a Calvin Klein model. The number of women he would have caused to lust in his time on earth, had he actually looked like this guy, would be unimaginable. Christ did not need what we define as physical beauty to draw men to himself. In fact, coupled with not being attractive, he was very ordinary in appearance. When Judas told the crowd of soldiers with him "The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.", it was for a reason. Because, despite his 3 1/2 years of ministry, some still could not tell him apart from his own disciples. And his hair wasn't flowing as if it could be featured in a Vidal Sassoon commercial either, but we'll leave that alone for now.
Next, we address some of what Christ's character said and did in this movie. While I understand the complexities of creating a script for a book that contains mostly narrative, and the need to fill some of those silent moments with exciting words or actions, I believe that the bible is not just any book and warrants more scrutiny in that process. We could perhaps talk about how none of the synoptic gospels portrays the meeting of Jesus and Peter the way the movie plays it out, but let's skip to what Christ tells Peter when he does encounter him:
"But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him." - Luke 5:8-11
Even in the gospel according to Luke, who is notorious for offering the most detail about the incidents in the life of Christ, we don't read the climactic words that he utters in the movie:
Jesus: "Peter, come with me. Give up catching fish and I will make you a fisher of men."
Peter: "What are we gonna do?"
Jesus: "Change the world!!!" (camera pans around the two of them on the boat as an orchestra plays captivating music)
No sir and ma'am, Christ did not say that and he surely did not come to implement some sort of social change in the world. In fact, we could argue that "changing the world" was nowhere on God's agenda when he voluntarily decided to offer his son as the sacrifice for our sins. The ultimate change to this world will come when Christ returns in triumph and God melts it away in a fervent heat. Does Christianity change the world? To a degree, yes. God does use us to implement change in some areas of life, but the world in general remains enslaved to sin. Most importantly, as well as accurately, Christ changes US.
And finally, though there are countless other errors to point out, the most glaring mistake made in this movie. If the creators of it truly had any intention of perhaps leading unbelievers to Christ, then would it not be safe to assume that they would want to introduce them to the true Christ? You know, the one that was simultaneously meek and powerful. The one that was compassionate, but uncompromising. The one that never failed to make the truth known, no matter how controversial it may have seemed.
In the scene that, without question, offered them a chance to introduce this very Christ, they dropped the ball big time. It is a quiet scene when we hear Christ say "I am the Way...the Truth...and...the Life..." (bear with me, I'm trying to type it the way he said it, ok). But the last three dots are the issue, because immediately after "the Life" comes.....the next scene!!! You read that right, I was left with my mouth wide open. How do you flounder on the words Christ used to set himself apart from any other false belief system in this world? In case you aren't aware of the entire quote, here it is:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
It is those nine words that come after "life" that are crucial. Universalism teaches that all men will get to heaven. Oprah teaches that it doesn't matter what you call God, that everyone's path may be different but their destination the same. In fact she said "There couldn't possibly be just one way...". If you introduce a Christ to the people and they can leave there believing that he is simply one of many "paths to god" or "just an alternative option", then you have not only failed at introducing the true Jesus, but are guilty of doing that person more harm than good!
Bottom line, we don't have the option or the right to water down the word of God and especially not the gospel! A theology that fails to acknowledge the holiness of God, the utter sinfulness of man, and the sheer dependence we must have in Christ alone as our savior, is a theology that we should never propagate or share with anyone! We are tasked with going into the nations and teaching them all that we have been taught. In shore, the properly interpreted word of God.
I started this blog by pointing out that even the most inaccurate portrayal of the life of Christ could have some benefit. In this case, I pray that it starts the conversation about who Christ really is...
Seriously...read the book, it's better!
But given how many believers as well as unbelievers seemed to be enthralled by the series, I felt it would be pertinent for me to pay attention to the newest project by it's creators entitled "Son of God". Now, unless you live under a rock, you surely have heard of this movie or have seen the trailer for yourself. My comments here, however, are not solely for those that have not seen it but also for those that have already been to their theater to view it. (imagine my surprise when I did some research and found that most of the scenes in the movie were from the series itself)
I have to preface what I say next by giving some credit where it may be due. There have been countless movies created in the past about the bible and in particular about the person of Jesus. Most of these have been far from perfect portrayals of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. However, in my opinion at least, there have been some good things that came from some of these. Most notably would be Mel Gibson's account, "The Passion of the Christ". The "good things" I speak of can really only be seen as such when we take into account our cultures love of and celebration of violence. Our youth, as well as us, are inundated with it. From the video games where the most violence seems to win the day to the internet videos of fights and even deaths that are shared and gawked at non-stop, they are unconsciously numbed to the true nature of what they watch so freely. So, in light of that, I believe it may have been beneficial to some to see the excruciating pain and torture that Christ actually endured before being murdered by sinful men. I'm not saying that we could ever properly portray the horror of what he endured that day (both physically and spiritually), but I do think that it opened the eyes of those that simply saw the crucifixion as some Sunday school story devoid of any real pain or blood. So, solely for his no holds barred portrayal of those final moments of Christ's life, Mel Gibson gets kudos from me.
But now we get into the real issue with movies such as this but, in particular with "Son of God".
When we do not allow our theology, as well as our recounting of the stories, to be informed by the bible, we will always be prone to make great errors in the gospel narrative. And in this regard, "Son of God" does not fall short at all.
Where do we start? I suppose it would be wise to point out that, of the most popular movies about Jesus, none of them seemed to be able to get the physical part right. Let's see what scripture has to say, shall we? No one would claim that Isaiah 53 was about anyone other than Jesus himself, so let's read verse 2:
"For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him."
Now, we can perhaps argue about the details of his physical appearance, but we shouldn't be confused that he was nowhere near what the world would deem handsome or attractive.
Take Diogo Morgado, on the other hand, and what you have is the New Testament version of a Calvin Klein model. The number of women he would have caused to lust in his time on earth, had he actually looked like this guy, would be unimaginable. Christ did not need what we define as physical beauty to draw men to himself. In fact, coupled with not being attractive, he was very ordinary in appearance. When Judas told the crowd of soldiers with him "The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.", it was for a reason. Because, despite his 3 1/2 years of ministry, some still could not tell him apart from his own disciples. And his hair wasn't flowing as if it could be featured in a Vidal Sassoon commercial either, but we'll leave that alone for now.
Next, we address some of what Christ's character said and did in this movie. While I understand the complexities of creating a script for a book that contains mostly narrative, and the need to fill some of those silent moments with exciting words or actions, I believe that the bible is not just any book and warrants more scrutiny in that process. We could perhaps talk about how none of the synoptic gospels portrays the meeting of Jesus and Peter the way the movie plays it out, but let's skip to what Christ tells Peter when he does encounter him:
"But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him." - Luke 5:8-11
Even in the gospel according to Luke, who is notorious for offering the most detail about the incidents in the life of Christ, we don't read the climactic words that he utters in the movie:
Jesus: "Peter, come with me. Give up catching fish and I will make you a fisher of men."
Peter: "What are we gonna do?"
Jesus: "Change the world!!!" (camera pans around the two of them on the boat as an orchestra plays captivating music)
No sir and ma'am, Christ did not say that and he surely did not come to implement some sort of social change in the world. In fact, we could argue that "changing the world" was nowhere on God's agenda when he voluntarily decided to offer his son as the sacrifice for our sins. The ultimate change to this world will come when Christ returns in triumph and God melts it away in a fervent heat. Does Christianity change the world? To a degree, yes. God does use us to implement change in some areas of life, but the world in general remains enslaved to sin. Most importantly, as well as accurately, Christ changes US.
And finally, though there are countless other errors to point out, the most glaring mistake made in this movie. If the creators of it truly had any intention of perhaps leading unbelievers to Christ, then would it not be safe to assume that they would want to introduce them to the true Christ? You know, the one that was simultaneously meek and powerful. The one that was compassionate, but uncompromising. The one that never failed to make the truth known, no matter how controversial it may have seemed.
In the scene that, without question, offered them a chance to introduce this very Christ, they dropped the ball big time. It is a quiet scene when we hear Christ say "I am the Way...the Truth...and...the Life..." (bear with me, I'm trying to type it the way he said it, ok). But the last three dots are the issue, because immediately after "the Life" comes.....the next scene!!! You read that right, I was left with my mouth wide open. How do you flounder on the words Christ used to set himself apart from any other false belief system in this world? In case you aren't aware of the entire quote, here it is:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
It is those nine words that come after "life" that are crucial. Universalism teaches that all men will get to heaven. Oprah teaches that it doesn't matter what you call God, that everyone's path may be different but their destination the same. In fact she said "There couldn't possibly be just one way...". If you introduce a Christ to the people and they can leave there believing that he is simply one of many "paths to god" or "just an alternative option", then you have not only failed at introducing the true Jesus, but are guilty of doing that person more harm than good!
Bottom line, we don't have the option or the right to water down the word of God and especially not the gospel! A theology that fails to acknowledge the holiness of God, the utter sinfulness of man, and the sheer dependence we must have in Christ alone as our savior, is a theology that we should never propagate or share with anyone! We are tasked with going into the nations and teaching them all that we have been taught. In shore, the properly interpreted word of God.
I started this blog by pointing out that even the most inaccurate portrayal of the life of Christ could have some benefit. In this case, I pray that it starts the conversation about who Christ really is...
Seriously...read the book, it's better!
Monday, February 24, 2014
HOMOPHOBIA...the truth behind the matter
I'm certain that we have all heard this word in the media by now. Be it social media and the conversations that take place there or in what passes for actual media nowadays, the discussion around the homosexual lifestyle seems to always include the idea that those who oppose it must be "homophobic". I won't take up the space to list it here, but will let you look up the official definition for yourself here.
Whether you actually took the time to look it up or not, I'll continue...
Regardless of what side of the debate you stand on, we all have to admit that there has been a huge cultural shift when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle. It's gone from something that was reviled in social circles and "kept in the closet" to being flaunted openly and normalized in mainstream entertainment. This shift has been inevitable in a society that values freedom of expression and one's right to do as they please above all else. In and of itself this shift would not be so controversial. But unfortunately it was also accompanied by the notion that everyone must go along with it and accept it as normal. Those that do not have now been labeled as intolerant and homophobic.
It's those two titles that I would like to examine more in-depth here. You see, in most debates they are almost exclusively aimed at Christians. Now, are there some people that profess to be Christian, yet behave in hateful and vile ways when dealing with homosexuals? Sadly, yes. But that should not be used as the standard of measurement for all Christians, rather as the behavior of some that either have not fully matured in their walk or that have made a false profession themselves. However, there seems to be an expectation that even true Christians (followers of Christ) should simply accept the new secular paradigm as normal and go with the flow. And this is where the problems arise.
The Christian's position on homosexuality is well known and has been the same since the penning of the bible. Where it may be true that some have wavered in their stance and convictions in the past, the bible and what it informs the believer of has always remained the same. Now, there have been attacks on the authenticity of the bible or even the interpretation of the texts in question, but that's a topic for another discussion at some point. In general and historically the stance of the Christian church has remained unchanged.
This being the case, why is it so surprising that we remain opposed to any sort of normalization of what we clearly see and define as sinful? Why have there been attacks on the likes of Kirk Cameron, Chic-Fil-A, Phil Robertson and countless other professing Christians when they voiced their beliefs (after being asked, mind you)? Why was the owner of a bakery sued by a homosexual couple for refusing to create a "wedding cake" for their ceremony? The answer to all of these is one and the same, because they have been labeled intolerant and homophobic!
No matter your stance and how well you've made it known in the past, if you speak your mind and refuse to compromise on your convictions then you stand the chance of being mocked and accused of being on the "wrong side of history". Or if you happen to own a business and run it based on those same uncompromising convictions then you may find yourself being boycotted or sued for some perceived infraction of someone's rights. The signs and chants for "tolerance" will be brighter and louder than anything you are given the opportunity to say. Never mind that you asking for the same "tolerance" in regards to your beliefs and choices.
So are we "afraid of homosexuals" simply because we won't agree with or affirm their choice of sin? Or is it more accurate that the supporters of it and the ones that level these accusations suffer from a severe case of alethephobia (a fear of hearing the truth)? Because if you don't believe in our God - and make no mistake, you can't serve God and blatantly disobey Him - or the bible we so feverishly cling to, then why does it matter if we still call it a sin? Why does it matter if we opt not to indulge you and your vices? Are we actually harming anyone by refusing to do so? So, it seems apparent that it's only a problem if they feel there is some truth to what we claim. Because, not matter how rebellious they try to be, they can't deny the tug they feel in their own consciences when they engage in behavior that God finds offensive. That "tug" is the result of God having written His law inside of us, leaving us without any excuse or alibi for the offenses we commit against Him.
No, we're not afraid OF you...we're afraid FOR you!
This is why we (those of us that don't, that is) refuse to compromise and rather continue to declare the truth. There is more at stake than the temporary satisfactions this life and the sins in it can offer. You may scream YOLO at the top of your lungs while diving headfirst into your vices, but on the other end is eternity. And it is the same God that we offend that has provided the one and only way for us to be sure we will spend that eternity with Him rather than separated from Him.
So, choose your indulgences, or choose life...either way, the fear of God should compel you...
No matter your stance and how well you've made it known in the past, if you speak your mind and refuse to compromise on your convictions then you stand the chance of being mocked and accused of being on the "wrong side of history". Or if you happen to own a business and run it based on those same uncompromising convictions then you may find yourself being boycotted or sued for some perceived infraction of someone's rights. The signs and chants for "tolerance" will be brighter and louder than anything you are given the opportunity to say. Never mind that you asking for the same "tolerance" in regards to your beliefs and choices.
So are we "afraid of homosexuals" simply because we won't agree with or affirm their choice of sin? Or is it more accurate that the supporters of it and the ones that level these accusations suffer from a severe case of alethephobia (a fear of hearing the truth)? Because if you don't believe in our God - and make no mistake, you can't serve God and blatantly disobey Him - or the bible we so feverishly cling to, then why does it matter if we still call it a sin? Why does it matter if we opt not to indulge you and your vices? Are we actually harming anyone by refusing to do so? So, it seems apparent that it's only a problem if they feel there is some truth to what we claim. Because, not matter how rebellious they try to be, they can't deny the tug they feel in their own consciences when they engage in behavior that God finds offensive. That "tug" is the result of God having written His law inside of us, leaving us without any excuse or alibi for the offenses we commit against Him.
No, we're not afraid OF you...we're afraid FOR you!
This is why we (those of us that don't, that is) refuse to compromise and rather continue to declare the truth. There is more at stake than the temporary satisfactions this life and the sins in it can offer. You may scream YOLO at the top of your lungs while diving headfirst into your vices, but on the other end is eternity. And it is the same God that we offend that has provided the one and only way for us to be sure we will spend that eternity with Him rather than separated from Him.
So, choose your indulgences, or choose life...either way, the fear of God should compel you...
Monday, August 26, 2013
WHEN TOLERANCE IS A ONE WAY STREET...
I just heard about and read up on a story that hit very close to home for me and thus had to write about it. I was made aware of this through the blog of one of my favorite theologians, Albert Mohler and it is entitled '"It is the Price of Citizenship"?-An Elegy for Religious Liberty in America'. I encourage you to read it (among the many other posts he has on his page, as he is far more eloquent than I could hope to be).
In short, the story is about a couple in the state of New Mexico, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin. This couple is first and foremost Christian. And they happen to own and operate a commercial Photography studio. In 2006 they refused to photograph a same-sex couple's "wedding ceremony" and were in turn sued for this refusal. Just last week the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and stated that the Huguenins had violated the human rights of the same sex couple.
The reason that this hits so close to home for me is because I am also a photographer with my own business and clearly, I am also a professing Christian. That being said, the only difference between myself and the Huguenins is the state we live in. My religious convictions are the same as theirs. I believe - according to the bible - that homosexuality is a sin and by extension same-sex "marriage" as well. When I, like so many other business owners in this country, undertook to make my passion my vocation I did so with the full understanding and belief that it was my God that provided me with not only the abilities but also the means to do this. And this being the case I entered in to it with the mindset that I would honor God in all I do, from the business end to the photography itself. That meant no indecent images and nothing that ran counter to my beliefs or to the word of God. As a photographer, I can say that what I do is not only a passion, but is also deeply personal. The images we capture are an artistic display of what we naturally see in a scene, event or occasion. It is not possible to, at least for me, to separate what I do from who I am. I'm not a photographer that happens to be Christian. I am a Christian that has been blessed with the God given ability to take photographs. And this will continue to echo in my work and business.
But we see many small and large businesses that show their Christian values in their business dealings. Chic-Fil-A, for example, is closed on Sundays in order to allow their employees to attend worship services, a practice clearly stemming from their Christian beliefs. No one complains about this or has sued them in an attempt to force them to open their doors on Sunday. Why not? Because it would be forcing someone to do something or offer their services 1) against their will and 2) against their consciences and convictions. After all, they offer a service and do so at their pleasure and their leisure.
Yet in this case, the state of NM has the audacity to literally force someone to do just that or risk going out of business!
This is not merely an attack on a business or on small business owners. No, this is an attack on the Christian values and God's people as a whole. If this travesty is allowed to stand, then where will the stopping point be? Today it's Photography, tomorrow it's the Florist, the next day it's the Caterer, and next week...the Church!
We cannot afford to continue to turn a blind eye to the denial of religious liberties to our fellow brothers and sisters. We cannot afford to sit idly by while these kind of rulings come about. We can't allow ourselves to be forced to disobey our God for the sake of how a particular group of people chooses to sin/fornicate. This is simply a stepping stone in a much bigger campaign. The goal is not achieve some sort of "equality" as they would have us believe. It is to attempt to pull God from his throne. A God that claims the right and power to judge a people based on their sin and disobedience is a god that no sinner wants to tolerate. Why do I say this? Because it is exactly how I felt when I was reveling in my sins! And for this reason I also urge caution in how we deal with these issues. We are constantly accused of "hating" homosexuals and of "forcing our views down their throats". Though we, for the most part, understand that the very definition of Christianity bars anyone from being forced to practice or profess it, we cannot deny that there have been some that we would call brothers and sisters that have not exactly practiced love in their witnessing. Let's not give the enemy further ammunition against the truth of the gospel. Instead let us determine to take an unwavering stance against sin (no matter what it is) and to refuse to budge from our God given position, but to do so in love. After all, we long to see them repent and be saved from the wrath of their sins just as we have been.
If we are expected to be tolerant of others, in this case homosexuals, and their choice of lifestyle then they should be expected to be so as well. But I think that we fail to realize that the very definition of tolerance means that we disagree, yet we do agree to live peaceably with one another. In essence, agreeing to disagree.
But whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, let us do it all to the glory of God. So if you are a small business owner like the Huguenins, the Cathys or myself and you are a believer, find comfort in the fact that being obedient to God in your business dealings brings glory to him. And in the fact that we, along with countless others, are standing at the ready to pray for and defend you.
If the choice is between being in business and compromising what I believe and remaining obedient but going out of business, I will always choose the latter. And to God be the glory.
In short, the story is about a couple in the state of New Mexico, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin. This couple is first and foremost Christian. And they happen to own and operate a commercial Photography studio. In 2006 they refused to photograph a same-sex couple's "wedding ceremony" and were in turn sued for this refusal. Just last week the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and stated that the Huguenins had violated the human rights of the same sex couple.
The reason that this hits so close to home for me is because I am also a photographer with my own business and clearly, I am also a professing Christian. That being said, the only difference between myself and the Huguenins is the state we live in. My religious convictions are the same as theirs. I believe - according to the bible - that homosexuality is a sin and by extension same-sex "marriage" as well. When I, like so many other business owners in this country, undertook to make my passion my vocation I did so with the full understanding and belief that it was my God that provided me with not only the abilities but also the means to do this. And this being the case I entered in to it with the mindset that I would honor God in all I do, from the business end to the photography itself. That meant no indecent images and nothing that ran counter to my beliefs or to the word of God. As a photographer, I can say that what I do is not only a passion, but is also deeply personal. The images we capture are an artistic display of what we naturally see in a scene, event or occasion. It is not possible to, at least for me, to separate what I do from who I am. I'm not a photographer that happens to be Christian. I am a Christian that has been blessed with the God given ability to take photographs. And this will continue to echo in my work and business.
But we see many small and large businesses that show their Christian values in their business dealings. Chic-Fil-A, for example, is closed on Sundays in order to allow their employees to attend worship services, a practice clearly stemming from their Christian beliefs. No one complains about this or has sued them in an attempt to force them to open their doors on Sunday. Why not? Because it would be forcing someone to do something or offer their services 1) against their will and 2) against their consciences and convictions. After all, they offer a service and do so at their pleasure and their leisure.
Yet in this case, the state of NM has the audacity to literally force someone to do just that or risk going out of business!
This is not merely an attack on a business or on small business owners. No, this is an attack on the Christian values and God's people as a whole. If this travesty is allowed to stand, then where will the stopping point be? Today it's Photography, tomorrow it's the Florist, the next day it's the Caterer, and next week...the Church!
We cannot afford to continue to turn a blind eye to the denial of religious liberties to our fellow brothers and sisters. We cannot afford to sit idly by while these kind of rulings come about. We can't allow ourselves to be forced to disobey our God for the sake of how a particular group of people chooses to sin/fornicate. This is simply a stepping stone in a much bigger campaign. The goal is not achieve some sort of "equality" as they would have us believe. It is to attempt to pull God from his throne. A God that claims the right and power to judge a people based on their sin and disobedience is a god that no sinner wants to tolerate. Why do I say this? Because it is exactly how I felt when I was reveling in my sins! And for this reason I also urge caution in how we deal with these issues. We are constantly accused of "hating" homosexuals and of "forcing our views down their throats". Though we, for the most part, understand that the very definition of Christianity bars anyone from being forced to practice or profess it, we cannot deny that there have been some that we would call brothers and sisters that have not exactly practiced love in their witnessing. Let's not give the enemy further ammunition against the truth of the gospel. Instead let us determine to take an unwavering stance against sin (no matter what it is) and to refuse to budge from our God given position, but to do so in love. After all, we long to see them repent and be saved from the wrath of their sins just as we have been.
If we are expected to be tolerant of others, in this case homosexuals, and their choice of lifestyle then they should be expected to be so as well. But I think that we fail to realize that the very definition of tolerance means that we disagree, yet we do agree to live peaceably with one another. In essence, agreeing to disagree.
But whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, let us do it all to the glory of God. So if you are a small business owner like the Huguenins, the Cathys or myself and you are a believer, find comfort in the fact that being obedient to God in your business dealings brings glory to him. And in the fact that we, along with countless others, are standing at the ready to pray for and defend you.
If the choice is between being in business and compromising what I believe and remaining obedient but going out of business, I will always choose the latter. And to God be the glory.
CHRISTIANS IN THE WORLD: MUSIC
Let me preface this article by saying the following. I have always had a soft spot for the Hip-Hop genre and was a huge fan of some of the original artists. But since God graciously saved me years ago I have struggled with the question of whether or not it is okay to continue to listen to and support this particular genre (and others like it that I myself may not have been a fan of). So my personal apprehension plays a part in my view of this matter.
And my most recent experience has reaffirmed my initial answer to that question once again.
I sucked it up and watched two (yes, just two) clips from the much talked about MTV: Video Music Awards to see what all the hype was about. The feeling and thoughts that I came away with weren't necessarily surprising to me, but what is unbelievable is that so many people - especially professing believers - don't seem to see the same thing. As a point of clarification, the two performances I watched were by Miley Cyrus & Robin Thicke and by Kanye West. Now, I'm not critiquing West's "skill" or "talent" for performance, no not at all. In fact, I'm sure that numerous artists performed last night that have amazing talent in that same area. My thoughts and comments are not on their ability, but rather on something that isn't even subtle anymore about them and the music they produce. After watching those performances I am even more convinced than ever that the Devil (Satan, the Enemy or whatever you choose to call him) is having a field day in the secular music industry.
Now, before someone points out that we shouldn't expect to see Christ in any secular arena and that all of this should be nothing surprising, allow me to say that I get that. My point here is not to say that I'm at all surprised by the secular music industry or those that make their living through it. They are, after all, secular artists and it should not be a shock to the system when they don't honor God in or through their music. The real issue here is how many Christians regularly tune in to, buy and otherwise support these things. Even in light of some of the artist's very own confessions about their thinking. From such artists as Lady GaGa and her unwavering support for the "LGBT community" to the point of rewriting the Star Spangled Banner to Kanye West and his oft confusing view of himself as an equal with Jesus to Beyonce (yes I said it) and her "possession" when she gets on stage, the fact that they stand for and believe the things that we as believers should oppose is undeniable! Yet so many of us are unapologetic about our compromise and still listen to and support them.
Scripture is replete with stories about and warnings against mingling with unbelievers. From God's commands to Israel in the Old Testament to not allow anyone to live among them with pagan beliefs (thank God for his grace in this age) to the command to refrain from being yoked with unbelievers in the New Testament, there is no room for doubt that while we are obviously "in" this world we should no longer be "of" it. I understand that this is not always easy and that we all struggle with not straddling the fence, I often find myself questioning what I should and shouldn't be doing in that regard. But let's be honest, there are some things that so clearly run counter to what it is we believe and teach that there should be no confusion about our doing it or not doing it.
I'll play my own Devil's advocate for a second. What a person believes in their personal lives shouldn't keep us from supporting them, should it? I mean, what about painters, or actors, or photographers? Should we not look at their paintings, or watch their movies or enjoy their photographs simply because they may not believe the same things we do? And how many times do we do these things not knowing what they believe at all?
All of these are valid and reasonable questions. And the answer is yes and no. I'm sure I didn't do anything to alleviate your confusion with that answer, right? Well, let's look at the questions briefly and answer them reasonably. This is really about two main questions. Are we free to mingle with the world? And, should we be mindful of what others think of us in light of what we profess to believe? It is true that in our daily lives we have dealings with people and in some way support many of those same people without knowing what they believe or stand for. You may purchase your food from a vendor and that person may be an atheist without you knowing it. I'm sure we all own some painting or photograph taken by someone that does not believe as we do. And if we start speaking of movies, we could go on for days about the actors, directors, writers, etc., that would fit into this same category. But this is why I say the answer is both yes and no. If, for example, a painting or photograph is of a beautiful landscape or something else entirely then it isn't a problem in purchasing it. If, however, the painting or photograph depicts and glorifies this persons unbelief (or you know that the proceeds will go to something that is un-biblical) then it shouldn't be purchased. The same can be said for movies. I can't count how many movies I've watched that starred actors which have publicly made it known they are atheist, or follow some other belief system. And it could be argued that we shouldn't watch those movies because they are directly benefiting from the money we pay for it. But the movie itself may not have depicted their personal views. And there are countless examples of movies that I could not support or watch because the content or story itself is blasphemous or un-biblical (i.e. Legion, The Knowing, etc..). And this finally leads us back to the music industry. I'm sure that not all artists on my iPod are Christians and I may never learn whether they are or not. But if their music or video speaks of or depicts things I should be opposed to, then compromising simply because they have talent, is not acceptable! By right, I have to delete it and not support it. The rules are the same across the board. I can feel free to eat the meat purchased in the market without constantly questioning who prepared it. But if I am made aware that this meat has been sacrificed to Baal and by consuming it I appear to pay homage to an idol, then I should spit it out and not touch it again!
I can also freely listen to music without constantly questioning whether the artist is a Christian. But if that same music speaks only of things that I should oppose (idolatry, drugs, violence, etc..) then perhaps I should refrain from mentally consuming it.
And my most recent experience has reaffirmed my initial answer to that question once again.
I sucked it up and watched two (yes, just two) clips from the much talked about MTV: Video Music Awards to see what all the hype was about. The feeling and thoughts that I came away with weren't necessarily surprising to me, but what is unbelievable is that so many people - especially professing believers - don't seem to see the same thing. As a point of clarification, the two performances I watched were by Miley Cyrus & Robin Thicke and by Kanye West. Now, I'm not critiquing West's "skill" or "talent" for performance, no not at all. In fact, I'm sure that numerous artists performed last night that have amazing talent in that same area. My thoughts and comments are not on their ability, but rather on something that isn't even subtle anymore about them and the music they produce. After watching those performances I am even more convinced than ever that the Devil (Satan, the Enemy or whatever you choose to call him) is having a field day in the secular music industry.
Now, before someone points out that we shouldn't expect to see Christ in any secular arena and that all of this should be nothing surprising, allow me to say that I get that. My point here is not to say that I'm at all surprised by the secular music industry or those that make their living through it. They are, after all, secular artists and it should not be a shock to the system when they don't honor God in or through their music. The real issue here is how many Christians regularly tune in to, buy and otherwise support these things. Even in light of some of the artist's very own confessions about their thinking. From such artists as Lady GaGa and her unwavering support for the "LGBT community" to the point of rewriting the Star Spangled Banner to Kanye West and his oft confusing view of himself as an equal with Jesus to Beyonce (yes I said it) and her "possession" when she gets on stage, the fact that they stand for and believe the things that we as believers should oppose is undeniable! Yet so many of us are unapologetic about our compromise and still listen to and support them.
Scripture is replete with stories about and warnings against mingling with unbelievers. From God's commands to Israel in the Old Testament to not allow anyone to live among them with pagan beliefs (thank God for his grace in this age) to the command to refrain from being yoked with unbelievers in the New Testament, there is no room for doubt that while we are obviously "in" this world we should no longer be "of" it. I understand that this is not always easy and that we all struggle with not straddling the fence, I often find myself questioning what I should and shouldn't be doing in that regard. But let's be honest, there are some things that so clearly run counter to what it is we believe and teach that there should be no confusion about our doing it or not doing it.
I'll play my own Devil's advocate for a second. What a person believes in their personal lives shouldn't keep us from supporting them, should it? I mean, what about painters, or actors, or photographers? Should we not look at their paintings, or watch their movies or enjoy their photographs simply because they may not believe the same things we do? And how many times do we do these things not knowing what they believe at all?
All of these are valid and reasonable questions. And the answer is yes and no. I'm sure I didn't do anything to alleviate your confusion with that answer, right? Well, let's look at the questions briefly and answer them reasonably. This is really about two main questions. Are we free to mingle with the world? And, should we be mindful of what others think of us in light of what we profess to believe? It is true that in our daily lives we have dealings with people and in some way support many of those same people without knowing what they believe or stand for. You may purchase your food from a vendor and that person may be an atheist without you knowing it. I'm sure we all own some painting or photograph taken by someone that does not believe as we do. And if we start speaking of movies, we could go on for days about the actors, directors, writers, etc., that would fit into this same category. But this is why I say the answer is both yes and no. If, for example, a painting or photograph is of a beautiful landscape or something else entirely then it isn't a problem in purchasing it. If, however, the painting or photograph depicts and glorifies this persons unbelief (or you know that the proceeds will go to something that is un-biblical) then it shouldn't be purchased. The same can be said for movies. I can't count how many movies I've watched that starred actors which have publicly made it known they are atheist, or follow some other belief system. And it could be argued that we shouldn't watch those movies because they are directly benefiting from the money we pay for it. But the movie itself may not have depicted their personal views. And there are countless examples of movies that I could not support or watch because the content or story itself is blasphemous or un-biblical (i.e. Legion, The Knowing, etc..). And this finally leads us back to the music industry. I'm sure that not all artists on my iPod are Christians and I may never learn whether they are or not. But if their music or video speaks of or depicts things I should be opposed to, then compromising simply because they have talent, is not acceptable! By right, I have to delete it and not support it. The rules are the same across the board. I can feel free to eat the meat purchased in the market without constantly questioning who prepared it. But if I am made aware that this meat has been sacrificed to Baal and by consuming it I appear to pay homage to an idol, then I should spit it out and not touch it again!
I can also freely listen to music without constantly questioning whether the artist is a Christian. But if that same music speaks only of things that I should oppose (idolatry, drugs, violence, etc..) then perhaps I should refrain from mentally consuming it.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
SHOULD WE REALLY SUFFER?
"Hardship often prepares an ordinary person for an extraordinary destiny." ~ C.S. LewisIn this quote, C.S. Lewis points out one of the potential reasons for the hardships in a person's life. He is surely not saying that this is always the case, hence the word "often". But would it be a far stretch to say that most of our hardships should have a positive impact on our lives? Or that they are something every believer may very well have to endure?
If we listen to the teachings of the Word of Faith movement or from the Prosperity gospel, we would have to conclude that those two questions are indeed a far stretch. You see, they both teach that we, as God's children, should not suffer in this life. Whether that suffering be financial, physical, emotional or mental, they would quickly say that a believer should be immune to them. We are somehow promised health, wealth and prosperity, all because we are Christian. According to their theology, the moment God saves us He is obligated to provide the best of all things for us. The best job. The best house. The best car. Our best life...now. Any sign of the opposite is quickly attributed to a lack of faith in the individual that is affected. And these claims seem to be backed up by scripture after scripture.
Mainly found in the Old Testament/Covenant, even those seemingly supportive verses are either taken out of context or misinterpreted, or both. But when taken and read in their out of place order, they would convince anyone that believers are to be among the most wealthy people on this planet! But they don't stop there. Some even attempt to solidify their argument by attributing this wealth to the one example we have been given on how to live in this world...Christ himself! They teach that Jesus Christ was dressed in the finest garments of his time, which even a cursory knowledge of the culture would prove to be false. They claim that Christ's very own testimony about the son of God not having a place to rest his head, was only about "that city", as opposed to what it should be clearly read to mean. They say that he rode on an ass that no one had ever ridden, and that this was comparable to driving a brand new luxury car today. And the scripture twisting goes on and on and on. But the point is that even our namesake and Lord was wealthy in this world. You couple that with the other verses and passages that are taken out of context and the picture you see painted is that God's children should have nothing but the best on this side of heaven. Money problems, health problems, mental problems, even a seemingly early death itself must be the fault of the person and a result of weak faith or sin.
But what, then, are we to do with those other verses we see in God's word that appear to teach us something totally different?
"More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." ~Romans 5:3-5In this passage, Paul seems to make the case that it is not uncommon for us - believers - to endure suffering or hardship. He doesn't attempt to soothe the hearers by telling the, that they will only have the best. Instead he reminds them of the hope that our sufferings produce by pointing them to Christ. The one and only Christ that died for us at the right time, while we were yet sinners!
We are comforted by the knowledge that God never forsakes us and is always with us, showing His infinite strength in our abundant weakness.
Those that would attempt to convince us that we can have our best lives now or that we deserve nothing but the best, seem to make the same fatal error in their thinking. They seem to believe that, upon our being saved, we are somehow made perfect and worthy of some sort of admiration. They seem to forget that it took God Himself, coming down from heaven and becoming a man like us, living a perfectly sinless life, being murdered at the hands of sinful men (us) and doing all of this willingly in order to save and redeem us. That fact does not go away after salvation. We have Christ's righteousness imputed to us, but make no mistake that we have no righteousness of our own to boast in. This is why the Apostle Paul boasted only in The Lord. Our goodness is like filthy rags, something to be shunned and discarded, lest it makes the one who touches it unclean.
Now, this doesn't mean that God won't provide for or protect His children. We are comforted by the fact that he that is in us is greater than he that is in the world. God himself tells us not to be anxious for the things we need. He is a comforter, protector, provider, healer, our peace and the list goes on. But the fact is that we live our lives in a fallen and sinful world and unfortunately we suffer the consequences of this just as those that have yet to believe. Those consequences can come in many forms; poverty, cancer and other diseases of the body, mental illnesses, violence at the hands of others, war, and even death. This does not mean that God loves us any less, or that we are lacking faith, or even that we are being punished for a personal sin! It simply means we are saved by God's grace to be beacons of light and hope in a sinful and fallen world and at times we become casualties of the spiritual war we are all embroiled in. But no matter the outcome, we give God the glory through our suffering as well as through our healing, whichever He deems it should be!
Friday, July 19, 2013
I AM...
Recently I was asked a question by a close friend that felt it would make a good topic to address here but also made me pause for several reasons. One of those reasons is that I had asked myself the same question before. The next reason was that, despite having wondered this in my own mind, I couldn't answer it! And the last was that I knew to some I would be least qualified to speak on it. But am I really?
You wonder what the question was, right? Well here it is:
Before I attempt to answer that question I feel it may be necessary to preface what I'm about to say with a very quick bio about myself as I believe this will help you to better understand my point of view. Though my light complexion may initially throw some off, I am the product of inter-racial parents and have identified myself as black for as long as I can remember. Yes my mother is German and my father Black and there are things on both sides that I am proud of as well as that I am ashamed of. But I mention all of that to say that my view will be slightly different than most yours and vastly different than some of yours. However that may be, I will attempt to not only answer this question but also put forth why I believe it's the wrong mentality to have.
In case you didn't catch it, there are actually two questions that were asked. I'll answer the latter first, because it is easiest. No, you are not seeing this wrong! It is actually quite apparent that there are some that do want the benefit of being able to say they are "black first" while at the same time telling others to not see them as "black first".
Now the former question can only honestly be answered properly if we divide it into two sections. Let's first talk about why we lament over being seen by the color of our skin. I will, hopefully accurately, assume that anyone reading this is familiar with our countries history of slavery and racism so I won't delve too deep into the past here. But suffice it to say that this history was very ugly and is still to this day a scar on this nations psyche, and rightfully so. There is no way to tell the story of America without covering not only the shameful era of slavery but also the equally shameful time of oppression after slavery was finally outlawed and stomped out. But it is this time after that, also known as the Civil Rights era, that factors in greatly as to why we do not want to be seen by the color of our skin. Though slavery was done away with, Blacks were still treated as sub-human for a long time after. In fact we were considered 3/5 of a human. Our ancestors were reminded of this on a daily basis. A simple days outing would bring them past water fountains that they weren't allowed to touch and restrooms that they weren't allowed to use, as well as restaurants that they could only eat from by knocking on the kitchen door in the back of the building. All of this division was not easily missed either. There literally were "black" parts of town. They lived separately, often worked separately, and even worshipped separately. There were countless lynchings! Blatant murders that were displayed for all to see but were never investigated. People disappeared all of the time and it was known that they had likely fallen prey to the Klan. A group of White men whose sole purpose was to remind all Black people that they were not worthy of being equal with them. Even after lynchings were officially made illegal this group continued to harass, threaten and even kill people for no other reason than the color of their skin.
As you can imagine, a history of being degraded and belittled simply because you have more melanin in your skin than others can leave an indelible mark in a peoples collective memory. So it is understandable why none of us wants to be seen or treated differently based on the color of our skin. We naturally expect any differential treatment to be negative, hateful or even dangerous. Dr. King and others marched, fought and died for us to be seen as equal with everyone else. He declared that he had a dream in which his "four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."!
And this is what we desire from everyone. We don't want to feel that we are being judged for being black before our character is even known. So this is why we lament over that.
That being said, the answer to the second part of the question is actually found in the same narrative. You see Blacks have undergone more than a couple of official "name changes" since slavery was abolished and even before. Early slaves called themselves African but their owners called the Negroes, the Portuguese word for black. The slightly altered "Negro" and Colored are just two of the terms that also were used. Black was later used as well although it was met with sever criticism. But in 1988-89, Jesse Jackson sought to make yet another official change that he felt would give our people a greater sense of pride when describing ourselves and this name was "African-American". I could argue the merits of this term and it's self-segregating mentality, but that's a topic for another discussion. But for the purposes of answering the question posed this is the term that we will look at most closely. When this change was first presented there were people on both sides of the fence about it. Some felt that it was not the term they wanted to be described by opting to simply be "Americans". But those that accepted the term bought into it fully. It became a way in which they felt they could identify with the land of their origin and this of course led to a renewed sense of pride about being black. Dr. Walter Allen (a professor of Sociology at the University of Michigan, at the time) said, "This is a significant psychological and cultural turning point. This makes explicit what was implicit. First we had to convince everyone to come into the fold as black. Now we are clarifying what that means.".
It is this pride that is an answer to the question. We seek to make it known that we are unique and we revel in our "ethnic" pride. I can't answer for all that do push to be known as black (African-American) first, but I feel it's the general consensus that it is ingrained in our identity. We want to ensure that we aren't seen merely as a color but that this same color is due to our land of origin, and that is far more exotic. So in a sense it is simply a matter of racial or ethnic pride that leads some to push their being "black" to the forefront of their identity. Groups such as the New Black Panther party find their identity in being black and seemingly flying in the face of what Dr. King dreamed or and espoused in that famous speech. They, and others, have no problem whatsoever identifying themselves by their color first and foremost. But don't let someone of another race do the same...that's taboo! I must admit that it is difficult for me to understand that double standard. But, nonetheless, it exists.
I hope I did a half-way decent job of answering the two-part question. And if not I pray that differing opinions will be expressed with respect.
Now, I promised that I would also put forth why I believe this is the wrong mentality to have. The first reason is that it is a double standard, not to mention very confusing, to get upset when we are profiled or treated a certain way based on the color of our skin and then turn around and push that same color in the faces of others. We do need to make up our minds.
As all things that we cover here, we look at this from a biblical worldview or a Christian understanding. Though I see nothing wrong with being proud of one's heritage, I do believe that we can't make that heritage our "identity". As I stated in the beginning, I'm both German and Black. I celebrate both sides and display both equally in my home and my personal life. The foods I eat are reflective of both sides as are the music, movies, books, etc.. It's safe to say that I am proud of where I come from. However, once I begin to make those things my identity, I run the risk of not only looking down on others but, without a doubt, alienating them. It could go too far in either direction. I could celebrate my German heritage so much so that anyone not of the same background would feel uncomfortable being around me and I could do the same for my Black side, ultimately pushing people away. You ask why I think this is wrong? Because the only thing I am free to identify myself as "first" is being a Christian! Upon being saved our lives are no longer our own. Christ died for us and in turn we live for Him. That being said, we also have a duty to carry out as believers and that is to carry the gospel to all four corners of this earth. Obviously if we push away or alienate anyone then we hinder ourselves in the fulfillment of that duty.
Having been saved we also die to ourselves, so what should be most important to us is being obedient to God's word and seeing as many souls saved as possible. Anything, not just our heritage but anything, that gets in the way of that is wrong.
Lastly, do we not realize that the biggest racial barrier ever was torn down the day Christ died? When the gospel was decreed to be given to both Jews and Gentiles, God tore down that barrier that existed since the creation of Israel. Jews looked down on and despised Gentiles (that's us, in case you didn't know), yet through the gospel the two were reconciled and made one. So who are we to cause division based on something as trivial as skin tone???
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." ~ Galatians 3:28
I am neither Jew nor Greek, I am neither black nor white....I am Christian!
You wonder what the question was, right? Well here it is:
Why is it that I've heard black people lament over being seen by the color of their skin, but those same people will declare passionately that they are "black first"? Seems like they are wanting it both ways. Am I seeing this wrong?
Before I attempt to answer that question I feel it may be necessary to preface what I'm about to say with a very quick bio about myself as I believe this will help you to better understand my point of view. Though my light complexion may initially throw some off, I am the product of inter-racial parents and have identified myself as black for as long as I can remember. Yes my mother is German and my father Black and there are things on both sides that I am proud of as well as that I am ashamed of. But I mention all of that to say that my view will be slightly different than most yours and vastly different than some of yours. However that may be, I will attempt to not only answer this question but also put forth why I believe it's the wrong mentality to have.
In case you didn't catch it, there are actually two questions that were asked. I'll answer the latter first, because it is easiest. No, you are not seeing this wrong! It is actually quite apparent that there are some that do want the benefit of being able to say they are "black first" while at the same time telling others to not see them as "black first".
Now the former question can only honestly be answered properly if we divide it into two sections. Let's first talk about why we lament over being seen by the color of our skin. I will, hopefully accurately, assume that anyone reading this is familiar with our countries history of slavery and racism so I won't delve too deep into the past here. But suffice it to say that this history was very ugly and is still to this day a scar on this nations psyche, and rightfully so. There is no way to tell the story of America without covering not only the shameful era of slavery but also the equally shameful time of oppression after slavery was finally outlawed and stomped out. But it is this time after that, also known as the Civil Rights era, that factors in greatly as to why we do not want to be seen by the color of our skin. Though slavery was done away with, Blacks were still treated as sub-human for a long time after. In fact we were considered 3/5 of a human. Our ancestors were reminded of this on a daily basis. A simple days outing would bring them past water fountains that they weren't allowed to touch and restrooms that they weren't allowed to use, as well as restaurants that they could only eat from by knocking on the kitchen door in the back of the building. All of this division was not easily missed either. There literally were "black" parts of town. They lived separately, often worked separately, and even worshipped separately. There were countless lynchings! Blatant murders that were displayed for all to see but were never investigated. People disappeared all of the time and it was known that they had likely fallen prey to the Klan. A group of White men whose sole purpose was to remind all Black people that they were not worthy of being equal with them. Even after lynchings were officially made illegal this group continued to harass, threaten and even kill people for no other reason than the color of their skin.
As you can imagine, a history of being degraded and belittled simply because you have more melanin in your skin than others can leave an indelible mark in a peoples collective memory. So it is understandable why none of us wants to be seen or treated differently based on the color of our skin. We naturally expect any differential treatment to be negative, hateful or even dangerous. Dr. King and others marched, fought and died for us to be seen as equal with everyone else. He declared that he had a dream in which his "four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."!
And this is what we desire from everyone. We don't want to feel that we are being judged for being black before our character is even known. So this is why we lament over that.
That being said, the answer to the second part of the question is actually found in the same narrative. You see Blacks have undergone more than a couple of official "name changes" since slavery was abolished and even before. Early slaves called themselves African but their owners called the Negroes, the Portuguese word for black. The slightly altered "Negro" and Colored are just two of the terms that also were used. Black was later used as well although it was met with sever criticism. But in 1988-89, Jesse Jackson sought to make yet another official change that he felt would give our people a greater sense of pride when describing ourselves and this name was "African-American". I could argue the merits of this term and it's self-segregating mentality, but that's a topic for another discussion. But for the purposes of answering the question posed this is the term that we will look at most closely. When this change was first presented there were people on both sides of the fence about it. Some felt that it was not the term they wanted to be described by opting to simply be "Americans". But those that accepted the term bought into it fully. It became a way in which they felt they could identify with the land of their origin and this of course led to a renewed sense of pride about being black. Dr. Walter Allen (a professor of Sociology at the University of Michigan, at the time) said, "This is a significant psychological and cultural turning point. This makes explicit what was implicit. First we had to convince everyone to come into the fold as black. Now we are clarifying what that means.".
It is this pride that is an answer to the question. We seek to make it known that we are unique and we revel in our "ethnic" pride. I can't answer for all that do push to be known as black (African-American) first, but I feel it's the general consensus that it is ingrained in our identity. We want to ensure that we aren't seen merely as a color but that this same color is due to our land of origin, and that is far more exotic. So in a sense it is simply a matter of racial or ethnic pride that leads some to push their being "black" to the forefront of their identity. Groups such as the New Black Panther party find their identity in being black and seemingly flying in the face of what Dr. King dreamed or and espoused in that famous speech. They, and others, have no problem whatsoever identifying themselves by their color first and foremost. But don't let someone of another race do the same...that's taboo! I must admit that it is difficult for me to understand that double standard. But, nonetheless, it exists.
I hope I did a half-way decent job of answering the two-part question. And if not I pray that differing opinions will be expressed with respect.
Now, I promised that I would also put forth why I believe this is the wrong mentality to have. The first reason is that it is a double standard, not to mention very confusing, to get upset when we are profiled or treated a certain way based on the color of our skin and then turn around and push that same color in the faces of others. We do need to make up our minds.
As all things that we cover here, we look at this from a biblical worldview or a Christian understanding. Though I see nothing wrong with being proud of one's heritage, I do believe that we can't make that heritage our "identity". As I stated in the beginning, I'm both German and Black. I celebrate both sides and display both equally in my home and my personal life. The foods I eat are reflective of both sides as are the music, movies, books, etc.. It's safe to say that I am proud of where I come from. However, once I begin to make those things my identity, I run the risk of not only looking down on others but, without a doubt, alienating them. It could go too far in either direction. I could celebrate my German heritage so much so that anyone not of the same background would feel uncomfortable being around me and I could do the same for my Black side, ultimately pushing people away. You ask why I think this is wrong? Because the only thing I am free to identify myself as "first" is being a Christian! Upon being saved our lives are no longer our own. Christ died for us and in turn we live for Him. That being said, we also have a duty to carry out as believers and that is to carry the gospel to all four corners of this earth. Obviously if we push away or alienate anyone then we hinder ourselves in the fulfillment of that duty.
Having been saved we also die to ourselves, so what should be most important to us is being obedient to God's word and seeing as many souls saved as possible. Anything, not just our heritage but anything, that gets in the way of that is wrong.
Lastly, do we not realize that the biggest racial barrier ever was torn down the day Christ died? When the gospel was decreed to be given to both Jews and Gentiles, God tore down that barrier that existed since the creation of Israel. Jews looked down on and despised Gentiles (that's us, in case you didn't know), yet through the gospel the two were reconciled and made one. So who are we to cause division based on something as trivial as skin tone???
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." ~ Galatians 3:28
I am neither Jew nor Greek, I am neither black nor white....I am Christian!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)