Real Talk

Marvel-ous: Bishop

2008-05-05T00:19:00.001-07:00

Peace and blessings,

In this piece, I wanted to share a few thoughts on

one of the few African American superheroes in the Marvel Comics universe. Throughout the X-Men storyline and his appearances in the cartoons, Bishop is known as a time-traveler who, after witnessing future outcomes of past decisions, goes back in time to preserve the outcomes that are in the best interest of superheroes, and prevent the outcomes that are not. Within the X-Men storyline, Bishop stands asa constant reminder that the choices made in the present impacts how we live our lives in the future. Oh yeah, and his powers are "off the chain" as well. Below is an excerpt about his superhuman abilities from

Wikipedia:

"Bishop's mutant ability enables him to absorb all forms of radiant or conductive energy that are directed towards him and to release that energy from his hands. This power is passive, allowing Bishop to absorb energy at all times.

When he releases the energy, he can release it as many different types of forms, usually in concussive blasts or in the same form as he had absorbed the energy although he can emit microwaves as well. He can also store energy in his personal reserves for increasing his strength, endurance, and (to an extent) his healing. He also has enhanced durability, resistance to poison and injury and is a skilled marksman and hand-to-hand fighter.

His powers make it difficult to harm him with energy-based attacks; however, he can become overloaded from absorbing too much energy, though his upper limits are unknown, even to himself. He is however vulnerable to non-energy weapon attacks. If he were to be shot by a projectile weapon or hit with a crowbar, it could harm him. He carries guns that fire laser beams and plasma charges through which he can channel his personal energies."

While my thoughts are only speculative, I think that there are some interesting parallels between Bishop's superhuman abilities and the experience of people of African Descent in the United States. For one, the fact that he can rechannel energy that is projected at him and use it for his benefit reminds me of how despite all of the hate, violence, and denigration my ancestors and previous generations of Affrican Americans have faced in this country, we have been able to thrive (and will continue t strive) in ways unimaginable. We have rechanneled many of the things that were originally used to keep us down in ways that enable us to stand taller. It is important to note that I am not including the use of the "N" word in this discussion, because I think that the word should be done with completely.

On a less positive note, I think that the fact that Bishop channels his personal energies through his guns has implications for the prevalence of black-on-black violence that exists amongst black males. This male-on-male violence is by no means specific to blacks (American culture in itself is a violent culture), but I am focusing on black make youth in this piece because I think it is this demographic that Bishop's abilities most closely speaks to. It seems Bishop's use of his stored energy through his guns draws similarities to how some young black males engage in violent behaviors as a way to deal with many of the built-up anger, frustrations, and issues they face in a country where they are often devalued.

Overall, it seems like Bishop's abilities have implications for the complex nature of the past and present experiences of people of African descent in the United States. One possible way for us to deal with the obstacles we may face as a marginalized people in the U.S. is to rechannel the negativity energies within these obstacles into positive energies that motivate us to succeed beyond measure. Now I'm not saying that we must be passive and "accept" things that happen to us; what I'm saying is that we should look at all situations, especially the negative ones, as opportunities to grow, better ourselves, and better our situation. Another possible, yet destructive way to
deal these negative obstacles is to let them consume us to where we respond in ways that are detrimental to ourselves and to others. Unlike Bishop, we don't have the luxury of looking into the future to see how certain choices will play out, so it's important that we choose wisely.

Marvel-ous: Civil War (2006)

2008-05-04T21:20:00.001-07:00

Peace and blessings,

Given my interests in superheroes and comic books, it seems only natural that I share some thoughts on some of the comic book series' that I think are worth checking out, regardless if you're a comic book fan or not. Many of the issues addressed in these comic books that I will highlight address a host of issues that are central to our lived experience. The comic book I am highlighting in this post is Marvel Comics'

Civil War.

I'm not going to go into much detail about the storyline, but I will discuss the general plot and what I believe to be it's over-arching themes.

Although the human/superhero beef (similar to the human-mutant beef in the X-Men comics) has existed for a while, the Civil War begins with a culmination of this beef that is marked by a tragic event. During a fight between superheroes, hundreds of children are killed during an explosion, which took place near a school. As a result, the government proposes that this is the last straw, and that humans with superhuman abilities (e.g., via genetics or technological assistance) must register with the government under the Superhero Registration Act. What makes this series interesting is that the superhero community are split between whether or not those with superhero abilities should have to register.

The over-arching themes throughout the comic relate to issues of identity, rights, civil liberties, and freedom. While some, like Garrett (2008) suggest that the comic symbolizes the country's sentiment post 9-11, I would take it a step further and argue that it also relates to the national debate on immigration policy. Actually, when I first read it about a year ago, Immediately thought of the immigration debate, not post 9-11. Below are a few sources where you can learn more about the comic book:

Article on the Civil War

Review on the Political symbolism in the Civil War

Review discussing some positives and negatives of the Civil War

If you've read it, what are your thoughts on it? If not, would you consider it? Why or why not? Do you think comics have a place for addressing "real-world" issues? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...

* Garrett, G. (2008) Holy Superheroes!: Exploring the sacred in comics, graphic novels, and film (revised and expanded edition). KY: Westminister John Knox

Media With a Meaning (Throwback): X-Men Animated Series (1992-1997)

2008-05-04T16:30:00.001-07:00

Peace and blessings,

I've talked about movies and TV shows, but now it's time to pay respect to cartoons. Although Voltron is my all-time favorite cartoon, the runner-up is definitely the X-Men animated series that aired from 1992-1997. I remember as I child I used to have satellite cable so I could watch certain X-men episodes before they aired nationally. I'll never forget how shocked I was to find out that Morph wasn't dead, and that Mr. Sinister had manipulated him into seeking revenge on the X-Men! I also remember the only time I "man-handled" my older brother, which was when he turned the TV channel while I was watching X-Men, and it was the episode when Wolverine fights Sabertooth! Sorry about the flashbacks, but I couldn't help it. Anyhow, below are couple of Animated Music Videos folks have made that contains a compilation of clips from certain episodes. In terms of dealing with issues of prejudice, discrimination, belonging, fear, diversity/difference, and tolerance, I don't know of any other animated series that has "held it down" like the X-Men.

What do you think? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

Media With A Meaning: Heroes

2008-05-04T15:55:00.000-07:00

Peace and blessings,

This piece is in regards to an idea I had about 6 months ago, but for various reasons I'm just now writing it. One obvious reason for the delay is because I've been pretty busy these past six months with wedding planning, school, and life, and thus haven't had the time to put update the site like I want to you. Another reason may have to do with the strike that took place with TV show writers, and the resulting cease in the production and airing of new episodes of major television shows. Anyhow, I'm finally sharing a few thoughts on the television show

Heroes,

which in my opinion is one the best television shows in terms of concept and overall quality in years. Although I am a huge fan of the show, this piece is not about the details of the show thus far, but about two "debates" that I think are highlighted within the show and plays out amongst the characters.

Debate #1: Evolution "versus" Divine Creation/Ordinance

The major premise of the show is that there are individuals in the world who are genetic anomalies in the sense that they have superhuman abilities. What I found interesting while watching the show (so far I've watched the first season twice, making me a certified, hardcore fan, lol) was not just the type of powers people had, but their beliefs about where these abilities came from. Relatedly, this debate reflects the larger debate regarding the origins of life itself. Some characters believe that these genetic anomalies are definite proof that science (esp. Darwinism) was right in that species are capable of large, qualitative evolutionary leaps. For these characters, superhuman abilities are primarily a product of gene transformation via evolution. Other characters, however, march to a different tune. They believe that their abilities are a gift from God, and therefore they must be used for a purpose. Although this debate may not be an explicit within the show, I would be interested to see if in the next season or upcoming seasons they identify characters who believe their abilities are products of both evolution and divine creation/ordinance.

Debate #2: Freewill "versus" Pre-destination

I think this debate is more evident throughout the show that the previously mentioned debate because in both seasons thus far, there has been the threat of a major disaster, and an intimately complex relationship between the past, present, and the future (e.g., a couple of characters can travel through time and see the consequences of past and present action and inaction). At the same time, however, there seems to bee a bit of ambiguity in that while some things can be changed through making different decisions, other things cannot. For these other things, simply making different decisions justs changes how a particular how an outcome manifests, not what outcome manifests. In this sense, there seems to be "discussion" throughout the show as to whether we as humans have freewill and are able to change life's course, or are we merely playing our parts in bringing about an inevitable outcome. Unlike the first debate, I think that the show does a good job of highlighting both sides, as well the middle ground position (e.g., we have freewill over some things, but not others).

So there you have it. Two reasons that I really like the show (aside from its superhero/X-Men/comic storyline steez) is that in many ways, it addresses some deep questions that we as humans have wrestled with throughout history and continue to wrestle with today:

1) How did life originate?

2) What is the meaning of life? My purpose for being here?

What do you think? Stay blessed, take care, and speekonit...

Season 1 Trailer

Season 2 Trailer

Season 3 Trailer (visual and sound quality is suspect)

Hip-Hop and the "Gospel"

2008-05-04T14:37:00.000-07:00

“Most of your songs/are just as foul as it gets/and as wild as it gets/
People/they follow your steps/and how low is this?/
Talking model chicks and bottles of Crys?/speakin’ out of your lips/
The same lips you try to convince/
That although your music is fowl/God’s behind your success/
But nope!/that’s a misnomer/God hates your music He’s not a schizo/
For real it makes no/difference/how you try to explain/
That your heart ain’t same as the stuff that you’re sayin’/
You see your heart’s the problem and your mouth’s the problem/
You can’t appease the wrath of God with a gospel album/nope!/”

- Da Truth
“Whose Team?”
The Faith

"With young men and women looking up to me, I have to let them know that I’m a man of God.”
- Young Joc

Peace and blessings,

Let me start off by saying that as I am writing this, I am praying that it is received in a way that gives God glory, and if for whatever reason it is interpreted otherwise, then I apologize. As I was reading a recent article about

Hip-Hop Artists Sharing the "Gospel,"

I was very disturbed about at what I was reading. The article (I encourage you to read it for yourself and weigh in) talks about how hip-hop artists like 50 Cent and Young Joc are talking about God during their performances and in other arenas, and how this can potentially have a positive impact on youth who may not be exposed to God otherwise.

Before I get into what disturbed me about this piece, let me preface this discussion by making a few points. First, I am not saying that all Christian hip-hop is of God, nor am I saying that all secular hip-hop is of the devil. Although now I primarily listen to Christian hip-hop, one of the secular artists I still listen to is Joe Buddens. Although I disagree with some of his content and his conceptions of God and Jesus, I think that many of the issues he addresses needs to be heard, and I praying that he truly turns his life over to Christ(I got a feeling that he will in a matter of time, but that's another topic). Second, I am in no way trying to put myself or the Christian artists I listen to as being "above" secular artists in anyway. We all fall short, therefore this response is not about who is "without sin," but a call for us to examine the directionality of our thoughts, words, actions, and intentions. Lastly, although this piece may come off a little "bullish," I am making a clear distinction between being judgmental and taking a stand. I am in no position to engage in the former, yet I also realize that I cannot sit back and forego engaging in the latter. Therefore, this response is also a call for us to take a stand. With that said, let's get into business...

The thing that bothers me the most about this article is that it seems to equate mentioning God with sharing the gospel. While I believe that God is working on them and will continue to work on them, I think we have a place these situations within context. I have no problem with secular rappers mentioning God in their songs if they feel led to do so; what I do have a problem with is the conceptions of God they are potentially expressing when they talk about God. In my opinion, sharing the gospel goes far beyond just mentioning God. It is having God be reflected and glorified through our lives. In other words, we have be transformed into a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17). Again, not to say that we have to be perfect, but the directionality of our thoughts, words, actions, and intentions have to be geared towards God.

Another part of the context that is important to consider is the large amounts of star-power that these artists have. I'm concerned that people who look up to these artists as role models may view them as reflecting the God they are talking about. For instance, having one song that talks about God at the end of an album whose previous 15 tracks were about anything but, may potentially give off the impression that God is "cool" enough to know, but not "cool" enough to compel us to do away with things that are not pleasing to Him. Then again, can you really have the former without the latter? To me, it seems like the hoopla of this article has more to do with WHO was talking about God than WHAT they were actually saying about God. If it really was about the WHAT, then artists such as Cross Movement, 116 Click, Da Truth, Japhia Life, Flame, and countless others who have been talking about God and sharing the gospel for the past decade would have the same platform to reach masses as secular artists tend to have. I liken the situation to high school where the popular students say the same thing that was previously stated by unpopular students, but the other students give the popular students' words more weight than the unpopular students.

In conclusion, I want to say that I am not saying that secular artists who talk about God are not sincere, or that they are "faking it." I'm just urging us to not be so quick to catapult them to the position of being THEE medium for reaching people (esp. youth) who may otherwise not know about God and/or listen to their music. I do think that secular artists can have a positive impact through mentioning God in their music or during their performances, but that doesn't mean they must be the end-all-be-all when it comes to who God is and what He requires of us. Just a few thoughts...

What do you think? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

Best Time of Year (For Basketball Fans)

2008-04-19T14:59:00.000-07:00

Peace and blessings,

I'm currently on a serious grind in terms of my graduate studies and planning for my wedding, which is why I haven't been posting as regularly. For those who consistently check on the page thank you and bare with me.

The focus of this (very brief) post is sports, basketball in particular. Given that we just had March Madness and we are now in the NBA playoffs, I would argue that this is best time of the year for basketball fans. Before I throw out my NBA finals prediction, I want to preface this by saying that I am typing this as I just watch Tim Duncan hit the three to tie the game at 104 to send the game into double overtime. I know a lot of people are talking about a potential Lakers-Celtics final. However, I'm going to mix things up and assuming that these teams remain healthy, I pick a Suns-Pistons finals with the Pistons taking home the crown in 6 games, maybe 7.

How about those pics? Bogus? Legitimate? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

Extreme Measures

2008-03-31T15:23:00.001-07:00

"Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, 'By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.' Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: 'Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.'

'When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.'"

- Luke 11: 14 - 23

Peace and blessings,

Last month I watched an episode of "Wife Swap" that was extremely hilarious and entertaining. I've watched episodes before and for the most part they too have been hilariously entertaining. This one, however, was particularly interesting because both of the families were Christian. Keeping true to the show's tradition, these families differed greatly in terms of some of their views on managing a household and raising children. One family was very liberal with the husband being a seminary graduate and being an at-home dad while his wife worked. They didn't appear to really instill Christian values to their children, but instead encouraged them to be individual thinkers. The other family was more "traditional" in that the husband was the provider and their children had to follow strict behavioral rules.

I don't really need to recap the rest of the show or explain the outcome to illustrate my point, which is that in my opinion, these two households represented (in one form or another) two major types of Christian thought prevalent throughout America. One type is the traditional Christian thought and the other is the more liberal/contemporary Christian thought. Once these types of thought are "hijacked" by the media, they take on an over-exaggerated form of their own. As a result, these ways of thought are put forth as extreme opposites of one another. What this episode of "Wife Swap" and the above scripture has showed me is that we must be careful to not be so quick to a) become so polarized in our own views that we neglect some of the essentials of the gospel (Matthew 28:18-19) and b) be so "open" with everything that we dilute some of the essentials of the gospel.

The question is not how do we choose between the traditional and the liberal, but how do we use elements of both to maximize the effectiveness and relevance of the gospel to a constantly changing, yet remarkably stable world. For instance, we are constantly evolving with regards to medical, technological, and scientific developments, and with regards to our understanding of how and why humans think, feel, and acts in the ways we do. At the same time, however, sins and vices such as murder, lust, greed, envy, jealousy, betrayal, pride and so forth has been around since the beginning of time, and is just as prevalent today. We must seek God for discernment regarding which aspects of our Christian faith and thought that could potentially be rethought and which aspects cannot. Reflecting on my personal experiences, I have been blessed to have great pastors who have given me tools to discern some of these differences. The deity and tri-unity of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is an accepted fact of the Christian faith and cannot be changed. How Christians should interact with others is something that has and continues to be revisited and changed when appropriate (e.g. slavery, anti-semitism, racial/gender discrimination, homophobia, economic exploitation). However, I would argue that anyone who practiced or practice hate with regards to any of these groups and claim to be doing so in the name of Christianity is not really following Christ in the first place.

What do you think? Do you think that certain areas of Christian thought or too polarized? God bless, take care and speekonit...

Holding it Down: Samuel Rodriguez and the NHCLC

2008-03-21T11:18:00.000-07:00

"The Latino, African- American, Anglo and other ethnic segments of the church must go beyond the myspace.com mindset. Pastor Nick Garza, an Assemblies of God Pastor in Sacramento, Ca. sees the functional structure of this web site as the anti-thesis to successful biblical outreach. "MySpace.com is a world wide internet phenomenon because it enables the subscriber to determine who has access to his/her profile, pictures, stories and information. In other words, unless you have been given access, you can't come in. Only my friends, who share my interests are granted access. All granted of course if you initially become a Friend of Tom (Tom being one of the co-founders of this virtual social networking site). Accordingly, the Church has operated under a Myspace.com model. As long as Christ is our default friend, we are somehow allowed to build our own space with limited access to include only those who we know or permit."

-Samuel Rodgiguez, "Latino Friends"

Peace and blessings,

I came across an interview with Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC) a while back, and was really feeling what he had to say. He talked a lot about the social justice aspect of Christianity as well as the political trends of Hispanics throughout the country. Check out the links below to learn more about Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the NHCLC and their position regarding immigration reform, which according to him is just as much (if not more so) a spiritual issue as it is an economic and political one.

Share your thoughts and let me know what you think. Stay blessed and encouraged, and speekonit...

1)

Mission of the NHCLC

NHCLC's stance on immigration reform

A Very Thought-Provoking Movie

2008-02-28T23:25:00.000-08:00

Peace and blessings,

Given the recent post on Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial," I am really looking forward to the movie

Expelled,

Which talks about some of the same issues that Johnson raised. Namely, the movie talks about how scientists and others in general are "bullied" by those who are "riders" for Darwinism. The movie raises the question of why those who disagree with Darwinism are not given the same respect and platform to present their thinking as those who agree with Darwinism. Check out the extended trailer and let me know what you think. Have a blessed weekend and speekonit...

A Few Thoughtz: Darwin on Trial, pt. 2

2008-02-14T14:23:00.001-08:00

Peace and blessings,

I just wanted to briefly clarify my position on Darwin's theory of evolution (as well as the idea of evolution in general), because I realize that it was not clear in the previous post. As someone who is training to be a social scientist, I have the upmost respect and appreciation for science, theories of evolution included. After all, our ability to hypothesize about the world and search out to test those hypotheses is one of the characteristics that make us human.

Before proceeding, I must preface this discussion by acknowledging the fact that my take on this issue is heavily influenced by my Christian beliefs. The issue I have with some scientific theories, however, is that some theories try to replace God's ever-important role in the creation of the earth and in humanity. I feel that because we as humans could never possible understand the complete nature of God's creations, then the best that we can do as thinkers and scientists is to identity and analyze to the best of our ability, observable phenomena. In doing so, we must realize two things:

1) we will never get it "fully" right because there is way too much variation in human actions and observable phenomena for our human (limited) faculties to catch everything, let alone accurate describe it.

2) regardless of how accurate we get at identifying and analyzing the things we are able to observe and grasp, we cannot deny the fact that there are many things that we will simply never be able to observe, but yet are nevertheless "real" in every sense of the word.

By realizing these two things, I feel that it is perfectly normal for the "things of God" and science and intellectual inquiry to co-exist, insofar as it is understood that the former always precedes and takes priority over the latter. Therefore, I do not deny that evolution does not occur in certain instances, such that for example, over time dogs who live in regions where they have to constantly run from predators will probably develop stronger legs than dogs who live in regions where they are not threatened by predators (I know that wasn't the best example but bear with me, lol). What I do deny is the claim that evolution is so encompassing that it can explain the origin of life itself, and that it can account for all types (or at least most types) of purpose-driven developments, structures, and behaviors.

What do you think? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

Random "Why" Question of the Moment

2008-02-13T01:13:00.000-08:00

Peace and blessings,

Here is a question that dawned on me today while picking up a prescription:

Why is it that doctors' handwriting is often illegible?

A Few Thoughtz: Darwin on Trial, pt. 1

2008-02-10T21:21:00.000-08:00

"I do not think that many scientists would be comfortable accepting Darwinism solely as a philosophical principle, without seeking to find at least some empirical evidence that is true. But there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate. We have already seen that distinguished scientists have accepted uncritically the questionable analogy between natural and artificial(e. g. intentionally breeding species to increase chances of survival) selection, and that they have often been undisturbed by the fallacies of the "tautology" and "deductive logic" formulations (e. g. the fittest of species are those who survive/evolve, and the reason why they survive/evolve is because they are the fittest). Such illogic survived and reproduced itself for the same reason that an apparently incompetent species sometimes avoids distinction; there was no effective competition in its ecological niche."

- Johnson, p. 28-29 (words in parentheses are mine)

Peace and blessings,

One of my professors often emphasizes the importance of scientists (social, physical, electrical) to having a default orientation towards theories and ideas (including their own) that is skeptical. In other words, he says that the purpose of our research is not to seek to confirm our theories and ideas; but to dis-confirm them. One of my favorite TV shows is "CSI" (Las Vegas), one of the reasons being due to the importance they give to evidence and its ability to reveal "truth." Although there are exceptions and there are times when even the evidence may be misleading in certain situations, for the most part, the path to truth lies in following the evidence. As a Christian, there are all kinds of evidence that I witness (first and second hand) that reveal the truth of the presence and sovereignty of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. while the evidence sought on CSI requires the use of our physical eyes and for Christians the evidence of God is seen both through our physical and spiritual eyes (e. g. our ability to see things in the spiritual realm and the things we are assure of through faith), the idea is the same: one of the best ways to seek truth is to follow the evidence.

In Phillip E. Johnson's book, "Darwin on Trial" (1991), he applies this relationship between evidence and truth within the context of Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. As with any issue that is controversial and/or involves academic/intellectual inquiry, it is important for those involved to acknowledge potential personal biases and to do their best to check them. Johnson does this from the jump:

"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead. I am not a defender of creation-science, and in fact I am not concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence....My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence. I assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their pre-commitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will have little to say about their position. The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based upon a fair assessment of
the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism." (p. 14)

As a law professor, Johnson approaches Darwin's theory not from a scientific perspective, but from a legal one. Therefore, the book is sort of organized like a quasi-court case, where Darwin's theoretical formulations and concepts are each outlined and examined in terms of its related evidence, and the conclusions Darwin made and his proponents made and continue to make, based on this and other evidence. In addition, he discusses Darwin's theory on a more ideological level, and poses the question of whether or not the popularity of the theory as well as the potential "power" it could yield if it were actually true, work to shape/create dominant interpretations of the evidence so that anything that could potentially be evidence is treated as valid and anything else treated as not valid.

Of the many aspects of Darwin's theory addressed in the book, I will only mention a couple of them here. The first is Darwin's notion of natural selection, which is pretty much the meat and potatoes of Darwin's theory. This notion has two related parts. The first part holds that new species exist as modifications of old species , and that this trend can be evidenced throughout life's history. The second part holds that such evolution with modification can account for pretty much of life on earth, because all life originated from common ancestors. One of the points Johnson (1991) raises is that a necessary piece of evidence needed to strongly support this notion are transitional fossils, which are for the most part absent from scientific findings. A very simplified example of a transitional fossil is the following: If it is true that humans evolved from fish, then there should exist fossil evidence of a fish-man. To elaborate on this point, he asserts,

"The question is not whether natural selection occurs. Of course it does, and it has an effect in maintaining the genetic fitness of a population. Infants with severe birth defects do not survive to maturity without expensive medical care, and creatures which do not survive to reproduce do not leave descendants. These effects are unquestioned, but Darwinism asserts a great deal more than merely that species avoid genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Darwinists claim that this same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants over billions of years to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans. How do we know that all this is possible?" (p. 16)

The other issue I wanted to briefly touch on was the fossil problem. Johnson (1991) notes how that the famous "Piltdown Man," which was believed to be a pre-human fossil and thus groundbreaking evidence for Darwinian thought, was a hoax (it turned out to be nothing more than a modern human head placed on the body of an orangutan). Further, he notes that the "Nebraska Man," which was was claimed to have included a pre-human fossil tooth turned out to be a misfire, as the tooth actually belonged to a kind of pig. Darwin's theory claimed that (pretty much) all life could be traced to common ancestors and classified according to those ancestors. However, the Burgess Shale fossils contain 15-20 fossils that cannot be related to any known group, and should be classified as separate phyla (i. e. a level of species classification). Lastly, he mentions two characteristics of most fossils that appear to not support Darwin's theory. The first is "stasis," or the fact that most species exhibit no directional change while on earth, therefore their fossil record shows very little change if any. The second is "sudden appearance," which is the fact that in any local area, species appear all at once and fully formed, therefore not exhibiting any evidence of transformation (evolution) from earlier ancestors.

Overall, Johnson (1991) concludes that to be so widely supported in many scientific circles, Darwin's theory has not appeared to be subjected to the same rigorous scientific testing as other theories are normally (and should) undergo. Why the easy pass and wide acceptance without conclusive evidence? Johnson suggests that Darwin's theory represents not just a theory, but an ideology. Further, it is the only "contender" against the belief in divine creation. In this sense, hardcore supporters of his theory without conclusive evidence and/or despite evidence to the contrary is no less a demonstration of fundamentalism and close-mindedness than the religious fundamentalists the theory contends with.

What do you think? Any thoughts on Darwin's theory? Divine Creation? Similarities/differences between the two? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

Holding It Down: Maria W. Stewart

2008-02-05T13:57:00.001-08:00

"It is not the color of the skin that makes the man, but it is the principles formed within the soul."

- Maria W. Stewart, p. 29

"Alas, O God! Forgive me if I speak amiss; the minds of our tender babes are tainted as soon as they are born; they go astray, as it were, from the womb. Where is the maiden who will blush at vulgarity? And where is the youth who has written upon his manly brow a thirst for knowledge; whose ambitious mind soars above trifles, and longs for the time to come, when he shall redress the wrongs of his father and plead the cause of his brethren?"

- Maria W. Stewart, p. 31

"When I consider how little improvement has been made the last eight years; the apparent cold and indifferent state of the children of God; how few have been hopefully brought to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus; that our young men and maidens are fainting and drooping, as it were, by the way-side, for the want of knowledge; when I see how few care to distinguish themselves either in religious or moral improvement, and when I see the greater part of our community following the vain bubbles of life with so much eagerness, which will only prove to them like the serpent's sting upon the bed of death, I really think we are in as wretched and miserable a state as was the house of Israel in the days of Jeremiah."

- Maria W. Stewart, p. 32

" I am of a strong opinion that the day on which we unite, heart and soul, and turn our attention to knowledge and improvement, that day the hissing and reproach among the nations of the earth against us will cease. And even those who now point at us with the finger of scorn, will aid and befriend us. It is of no use for us to sit with our hands folded, hanging our heads like bulrushes, lamenting our wretched condition; but let us make a mighty effort, and arise; and if no one will promote or respect us, let us promote and respect ourselves."

- Maria W. Stewart, p. 37

Peace and blessings,

I know I have mentioned this phenomenal woman before, but last summer I had the opportunity to read "Maria W. Stewart: America's First Black Woman Political Writer" (1987), which is a compilation of her essays and speeches. Instead of outlining the man things she did throughout her life, and the significance those actions had back then and to this day (because doing so could take hours), I will keep with my usual pseudo book-review format and just touch on a few highlights, with the hope that you engage in further inquiry yourselves.

In the introduction, the editor of the book, Marilyn Richardson, describes her best as,

"...the first American woman to lecture in public on political themes and leave extant copies of her texts, was a woman of profound religious faith, a pioneer black abolitionist, and a defiant champion of women's rights. Her message was unsparing and controversial, intended as a goad to her people to organize against the tyranny of slavery in the South and to resist and defy the restrictions of bigotry in the North." (p. xiii)

Her first "political" lecture took place in Boston, Massachusetts in 1832 in the midst of a black and white crowd. Her focus during the lecture was on speaking out against the colonial movement, which sought to send Black Americans to West Africa for subjugation and oppression. In a nutshell, her lectures and writings (many of which were composed during her time as a writer for the abolitionist journal, "The Liberator") focused on two distinct, yet in her eyes related themes. The first theme was more pertinent to the social, political, and historical context of the times, and dealt with the abolition of slavery and the freedom of Blacks (domestically and abroad) from their white oppressors. If a woman running for president represents a huge step forward in the U.S. today, you could imagine the extent to which women (especially black women) were denied access to prominent, public-figure type leadership roles during the early and mid 19th century. It was also huge for her exert her ideas during a time when the "big names" in the abolitionist movement with regards to orators centered around a Black male, Fredrick Douglas. Both were intelligent and morally motivated (I think Fredrick Douglas was a Christian as well), and both were doing there thing. Unfortunately, however, she was not as "popular " amongst the public as Fredrick Douglas or other abolitionists for that matter. Potential reasons for her unpopularity will be discussed shortly.

The second, and I would argue more controversial theme, that Stewart focused on was self-improvement through moral conduct and intellectual pursuit. One of her major textual references used in her speeches and writings was the bible. One of the books she to which she gave considerable attention was the Book of Jeremiah, as she likened the condition of the Israelites during that time to the state of Americans during her time. In essence, she believed that while Blacks had to demand and thus deserved their human rights from their white professors, they could not afford to do so passively. Namely, they could not sit back and wait for social change to happen. Instead, they had to continually work to change them selves, morally by living a life pleasing to God and intellectually and embracing education and the expansion of the mind. By doing these things on an individual level, she believed, social change must follow suit. As with anyone who touches on topics which make audience members feel convicted in one way or another, she had difficulty garnering support and was often criticized and ostracized by those she was advocating for. Come to think of it, this may be why she like book of Jeremiah, as he was undoubtedly ostracized and criticized as well. This is not to say that he had no followers or made no "real" impact. Her lectures and writings have inspired many different people, and her work as a teacher in New York once she left Boston most assuredly impacted her students' lives in a positive way.

I'm always fascinated in people who do documentaries on the life of a figure who, although may not have had the mainstream success of more well-known leaders, nevertheless made a commitment and sacrifice to encourage us as humans to better reflections of who God intended us to be. I have finally found that person for me: Maria W. Stewart. If I did decide to do one of those documentaries, it would definitely be about her life. What do you think? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

A fun, educational way to make a difference

2008-02-05T09:42:00.001-08:00

Peace and blessings,

I came across a website a while back called

Freerice.com

, which is a sister site to

Poverty.com.

The goal the site is to increase people's English vocabulary while helping alleviate world hunger. The website basically consists of a ongoing vocabulary "test," and for every correct answer, 20 grains of rice is donated towards alleviating someone's hunger. You can play as long and as many times you want, and I guarantee you that it will get addictive, lol. Plus, you can track your "vocab score" as you go along to track your progress.

Once you try it, share your thoughts on it and let me know what you think. Take care, stay blessed, and speekonit...

Random "Why" Question of the Moment

2008-02-03T19:42:00.000-08:00

Peace and blessings,

Here is the most recent "Why" question I have been pondering lately:

Why did I ask an employee at a Christian book store what times they were open on Sunday?

A Few Thoughtz: In Search of Common Ground

2008-01-29T12:49:00.001-08:00

"So to understand why some of the victims of the ruling class might identify with the ruling circle, we must look at their material (i. e. based on concrete things, objects) lives; and if we do, we will realize that the same people who identify with the ruling circle are also very unhappy. Their feelings can be compared to those of a child: a child desires to mature so that he can control himself, but he believes he needs the protection of his father to do so. He has conflicting drives. Psychologists would call this conflict neurotic if the child were unable to resolve it....In a sense, then, that is what we (the Black Panther Party) are all about. First, people have to be conscious of the ways they are controlled, then we have to understand the scientific laws involved, and once that is accomplished, we can begin to do what we want-to manipulate phenomena."

- Huey Newton, p. 36

"We believe that black Americans are the first real internationalists; not just the Black Panther Party, but black people who live in America. We are internationalists because we have been internationally dispersed by slavery, and we can easily identify with other people in other cultures. Because of slavery, we never really felt attached to the nation in the same way that the peasant was attached to the soil in Russia. We are always a long way from home."

- Huey Newton, p. 38

"Huey Newton's main deed, however, and one powerful reason for the appeal of the Panthers' stance both here and abroad, is the turning of a negative identity into a positive one, in the sense in which a cornered animal turns on the attacker. This is what the Black Panther imagery stands for, after all. All of this, in part, is a black-and-urban version of a psychic transformation used by the rebellious youth of other colonialized or oppressed people."

- Erik Erikson, p. 47

"Nothing could divide the respective identities of different people more than the sense of free choice and the sense of being without it; and yet, by the mere dialectics of living here for generations, does not the American black 'belong' here more than anywhere else?"

- Erikson, p. 59

Peace and blessings,

As someone who is in academia but also want to make serious change in people's lives (not to suggest that these two things are mutually exclusive), I was surprised to hear that conversations took place between Huey Newton and Erik Erikson, and were published in a book entitled, "In Search of Common Ground: Conversations with Erik H. Erikson and Huey P. Newton" (1973). Although I do not fully endorse the ideas and theories of either Newton or Erikson, I do think that both have contributed in a positive way to our understanding of individual and societal behavior. And quite frankly, I think that some of their ideas and theories are pretty accurate. For instance, I think that Erikson's notions of the human need and capacity to form identities and the Black Panther's beliefs in empowerment through knowledge of self, self-respect, and accountability are on point.

The first conversation was more formal and took place at Yale University in February 1971. The second conversation was informal took place around April 1971 in Huey Newton's apartment in Oakland, CA. The first conversation, which included a question and answer period from students, was less of a dialogue between the two and more of an introduction into their backgrounds, ideas, and theories. The second conversation dealt primarily with the misconceptions each initially had about the other, as well as the "disappointment" the students probably felt at the first meeting, due to the fact that Newton and Erikson did not "battle" each other, but instead respectfully exchanged ideas.

The common thread through both conversations was that each demonstrated how two people from very different experiences (Erikson the product of voluntary immigrants, Newton the product of involuntary slaves), can be honest and respect one another. Now I don't want to romanticize the conversations because there probably was some level of conflict or tension. The point is that regardless of this conflict or tension, they were able to critique and build on each other's ideas, while offering their perspectives on the plight of American society in general, and of black and other oppressed peoples more specifically.

What do you think? Any other collaborations you heard of or witness that surprised you? Any you would like to see? Stay blessed, take care, and speekonit...

News Updates: Mother Theresa's Inner Struggles; A Call For More Churches To Move Beyond Thier Walls; A Protest Against An R. Kelly Performance

2008-01-28T12:24:00.001-08:00

A book on Mother Theresa's private thoughts and fears

A book that calls the church to focus more on making an impact outside of the church walls as a way of both advancing the gospel and strengthening our hunger for God

3)I'm not sure if he actually ended up performing, but a month or so ago

an Islam-based group protested against R. Kelly performing in the same venue that is used by a Southern California church

News Updates: Witnessing To Muslims; Strengthening Your Relationship With God

2008-01-23T10:33:00.001-08:00

Some thoughts on how we as Christians can witness to Muslims

How Arab Christians are providing a great model for witnessing to Muslims

Some advice on attaining spiritual refreshment through intimate prayer

In The Zone

2008-01-21T23:51:00.000-08:00

"When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there. Seeing Jesus, he fell at his feet and pleaded earnestly with him, 'My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.'So Jesus went with him."

"A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.' Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering."

"At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, 'Who touched my clothes?'"

"'You see the people crowding against you,' his disciples answered, 'and yet you can ask, 'Who touched me?'"

"But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.'"

"While Jesus was still speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. 'Your daughter is dead,' they said. 'Why bother the teacher any more?'"

"Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, 'Don't be afraid; just believe.'"

"He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue ruler, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. He went in and said to them, 'Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.' 40But they laughed at him."

"After he put them all out, he took the child's father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, 'Talitha koum!' (which means, 'Little girl, I say to you, get up!' ).

"Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat."

-Mark 5: 21-43 (NIV)

Peace and blessings,

As someone who is studying to be a developmentalist by trade, I've had considerable exposure to different developmental theorists. Of the many theorists that I have come across (Piaget, Kohlberg), the theorist that is the focus of this post is Lev Vygotsky. While reading a scholar's analysis of his theory and its application to education, I was struck by Vygotsky's notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD, Miller, 2002), which is the difference between what one can learn or achieve on their own and what they can learn or achieve with the help of others who are (slightly) more advanced. I was well familiar with the notion before reading this analysis, but this I read with sort of a different lens (who knows, I may just be "coming up" with things just to say I posted something on my blog, lol). This around around, viewing youth in terms of ZPD sounded to me a lot like how Jesus viewed those he interacted with, and how he currently views us. Further, it was a sermon today I heard at an event at a friend's church (Harmony Missionary Baptist Church in Oakland, CA) that clarified what I was originally thinking when this topic came to mind months ago.

The speaker spoke from the above passage and focused on Jairus' interactions with Jesus. In a nutshell, Jairus approaches JC, worships him, and asks for Him to heal his daughter who is near death. As JC was going to his house, a woman who had been bleeding for seven years had touched JC's clothes and through her faith, was healed. Noticing that someone touched Him ("power had gone out from Him"), he turned around and asked who touched Him. By the time JC makes it to the house, Jairus' daughter dies. JC tells those at the house not to fear, but to have faith, and then He brings the girl back to life.

What stuck out to me when I heard the message is that I could have only imagined what was going on in Jairus' mind during this whole ordeal. What I found interesting is that Jairus sought JC out and worshiped Him before he asked Him to heal his daughter. This tells me that Jairus' faith in and knowledge of JC was such that he knew that Jesus had the power to heal his daughter. When describing the events immediately following his daughter's death, however, I didn't sense the same kind of certainty on Jairus' part. Not to say that I blame him, because after all, his daughter just died. I know in my life there are times when even small feats that have caused me to doubt Jesus' power (thank God for grace, lol).

I think Jairus' experiences are important to our understanding of Christ's love for us because Jesus' love for Jairus is an example of how, like Vygotsky's notion of ZPD, I think that we all have a zone for proximal spiritual development. Just as Vygotsky believed that children could learn and achieve more with the assistance of more advanced others, we can learn and achieve more with the assistance of JC and the Holy Spirit than we can on our own. Similar to this notion is James Gee's (2003) argument that to be a good educator is to educate students in a way where the demands (e. g. assignments, activities, tests) are on the edge of their students' "regime of competence," which is the students' level of knowledge. This way, the tasks students' face are difficult (i. e. on the edge of their regime of competence), but not too difficult that they cannot complete them successfully (i. e. it is still within their regime of competence). I think that Jesus understood both of these notions, which is why 1) He was and is so patient with His disciples and followers 2) He stresses practicing humility and relying on God and the Holy Spirit and 3) He tells us that through prayer, fasting, and communing with God, we can resist temptation, overcome the devil, and "shake some things up" in this world for the building up of God's kingdom.

Jairus shows us how our knowledge of and faith in Jesus is a progressive thing, such that insofar as we are connected with and following God, we will learn more about Him, and increase our relationship with and faith in Him. While initially Jairus knew Jesus as (and believed Him to be) one who prolongs life (healer), it appeared that he did not know Jesus as (or believed Him to be) a one who restores life once it is seemingly "lost" (life-giver). Once JC restored his daughter's life, this increased his knowledge and faith in JC so that it not only includes healing, but also restoring life. It was as if JC knew of Jairus' regime of competence regarding his knowledge of Him, and knew that just with some assistance ('Don't be afraid, just believe'), that Jairus could expand his regime of competence. I think for many of us, our spiritual development may follow a similar trajectory. If I have learned anything since seriously deciding to walk with JC, it is that my knowledge of and faith in Him was not "complete" once I made the decision. However, I have to continually learn about Him (through reading the word, fellowshipping with other believers, and looking at His track-record as evidenced in my life) and work on increasing my faith in Him. After all, this walk is a marathon, not a sprint. As a developmentalist-in-training, I really like the idea of constant growth and progression, and there is no better way to grow and progress than in knowledge of and faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

What do you think? Until next time, stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy: NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Miller, P. H. (2002). Vygotsky and the sociocultural approach. In Theories of developmental psychology (pp. 367-419). NY: Worth Publishers.

A Few Thoughtz: Speaking of Jesus

2008-01-20T10:22:00.001-08:00

Peace and blessings,

"God wants us available to people, not shouting instructions at them. He wants us to get into others' lives. He may not ask us to steal a boat, but he may ask us to cross some conventional boundaries. If we are willing to risk our comfort to get into other people' worlds with the truth we bear, we'll be a more powerful witness than all the instruction manuals in the world."

- p. 37

This past summer I had the opportunity to read "Speaking of Jesus" by J. Mack Stiles (1995), a book that deals with ways in which we as Christians can be more effective in spreading the gospel and building up God's kingdom. Through personal stories as well through an analysis of Jesus' and Paul's ministries in the New Testament, Stiles does a good job of putting some of the usually considered difficult aspects of sharing our faith with others into perspective. He shows us by doing so, we come to realize that many of our self-perceived obstacles to sharing our faith or merely "in our head."

Overall, I would say that the message of "Speaking of Jesus" is that just as Jesus engaged the world (he listened to people's cares and concerns, and learned about their lifestyle), so should we. For Stiles, being one who shares their faith through engaging the world is one who is motivated (wants to share their faith), available (open to divine appointments and talking with others about their faith) and equipped (knows enough about the bible and the tenets of their faith in order to share with others and answer as many questions that arise as possible). Stiles argues that in order for us as Christians to effectively share our faith with those outside the church walls, we must take initiative to learn about people's lives outside the church walls. This by no means suggest that we become nosy or become so concerned with leaning about people's lives that we 1) water down the gospel or 2) put ourselves in situations where we will be tempted to sin. What this does suggest, however, is that we as Christians must do our part because as the saying goes, "people want to o=know that you care before they care for what you know."

One of the things Stiles warns us about is about a particular type of positive thinking. The type of positive thinking that can get us into trouble is the type that claims that we have a positive outlook on things because we belief in our own ability to bring our the desired outcome (in this case, effectively share our faith). According to Stiles, this type of positive thinking is problematic because it suggests that we are the ones making things happen, and not God working through us. Stiles urges us instead to have a type of positive thinking that stems from our confidence that God will always make a way, and is the true driving force behind all that we do that is considered of any worth.

Before I conclude, I wanted to briefly mention one of the stories he recalled about an atheist who came to Christ, and how God uses who we wants, when He wants, and how He wants to bring about His will. This powerful example of divine appointment continues to amaze me to this day. One day the atheist was hitch-hiking and was able to flag down a car. Once he got in the car, he was surprised that the driver was a Christian with a hippie steez. During their conversation they both shared their views. Either some days or some weeks later, the atheist was hitch-hiking again, and again succeeds in flagging down a car. To his surprise it was the same Christian hippie! When the driver pulled over, he told the atheist that man, "God must be after you!" Shortly after that encounter, the atheist gave his life to Christ.

Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

News Updates: Lupe's "Cool"; The Matrix And Notions of The Divine; Blacks Ride Against The Media

2008-01-18T23:58:00.001-08:00

Lupe Fiasco talks about the motivation and purpose of his new album, "The Cool"

2) For the Matrix fans, here's

a 2003 article about notions of God and spirituality within the Matrix trilogy

Black people uniting to protest against demeaning images in the media

A Few Thoughtz: Abraham

2008-01-18T23:49:00.000-08:00

Peace and blessings,

The motivation behind my decision to read this book came from a discussion I overheard two years ago between a group of orthodox Muslims and a Christian, all appearing to be males from the African diaspora. The only reason I heard part of their conversation (which dealt with similarities and differences between Christianity and orthodox Islam) was due to a mis-read on my part (I thought the group of brothas were freestyling so I got in the huddle to listen and hopefully spit a little something something myself, lol). After telling a friend of mine about the encounter and how it got me interested in the differences between Christianity and Islam, he (who is also a Christian) told me that it is believed that both religions emerged from Abraham's offspring: Christianity stemming from Isaac and orthodox Islam stemming from Ishmael. This resulted in me copping Bruce Feiler's "Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths" (2002) when I came across it at a book store shortly after.

This "synopsis" of the book (or of any books I have written about or will write about) is in no way meant to be detailed or exhaustive for one of two reasons. Either it has been a while since I read the book so many of the key points I initially wanted to address I forgot about; or because I do not feel like addressing everything about the book I enjoyed or had issues with. Whatever the case, the purpose of these synopses is for you to hopefully read some or all of it for yourselves and form your own opinions, because I think the books are worth reading. With that said, on with the (brief) synopsis...

The basic premise of the book is that three of the world's major religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, stem from Abraham's offspring: Islam from Ishmael, and Christianity and Judaism from Isaac. Further, Feiler (2002) argues that some (or many) of the major similarities and differences between these three religions are reflected in their depictions of Abraham's life. For instance, one of the things I found striking is that whereas the Bible's depiction of Abraham focuses on his "adult" life, the Koran's depiction of Abraham, according to Feiler, contains sufficient information about his life as a child. Another example lies in way in which Feiler suggests that how each religion views Abraham's relationship with God sheds light on how that religion views the role of humans in relation to God. The bible's telling of Abraham's life stresses his enormous faith in God, whereas the Torah and Koran's telling of Abraham's life emphasizes Abraham's submission and obedience to one God.

In addition to comparing and contrasting depictions of Abraham through each religion's canonical and ancient texts, Feiler also situates this discussion within the contemporary context of the current discourse about each of these religions. Contrary to the media's tendency to heighten differences and downplay similarities, Feiler does the opposite. While he gives considerable attention to the differences between these religions, he also gives much consideration to the similarities, in particular how each religion is at the core about promoting peace and unity, despite the presence and actions of fanatics in each. As a result, after reading the book I developed an increased sense of hope that one day, we will realize that in most if not all cases, there are more similarities than differences between us. I'll conclude with a quote from the book that I think sum's it up best:

"You could not have written a script that would say that today, after thousands of years, with all our technology and sophistication, we would still be fighting a war over this place (Jerusalem), over the legacy of Abraham. But the reason is that this is the place of relationship. This is not only the spot where it is possible to connect with God, it's the spot where you can connect with God only if you understand what it means to connect with one another. The relationship between a person and another human being is what creates and allows for a relationship with God. If you're not capable of living with each other and getting along with each other, then you're not capable of having a relationship with God. So the question is not whether God can bring peace into the world. The question is: Can we?"

-David Willna (p. 12)

Take care, God bless, and speekonit...

Fearful Consumers

2008-01-17T23:45:00.000-08:00

"For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind."

2 Timothy 1: 7 (NKJV)

Peace and blessings,

One of the things I have noticed since being in higher education is the importance of being critical of one's surroundings. That's not to say that one has to be in higher education to be critical, but that it just when it happened for me. Among other things, one of the things that I have been extremely critical of is the American media (e. g. talk shows, news, etc...) and the overt and covert messages they give to us as Americans. It is my belief that many of the messages put forth by various mainstream media outlets (most of which are owned by the same small group of wealthy elites) try to condition us into developing to two distinct yet related "dispositions." On one end, we are constantly being bombarded with news about violence, the threat of violence, and other things that are considered dangerous to our way of life. It has gotten to the point where we are afraid of or suspicious of others wherever we go. Now I know violence and danger are a part of reality, as my heart and prayers will forever go out to anyone who has lost someone to violence. Therefore, I am not saying that the media should sugar-coat things and make them seem better than what they are. However, I just find it strange that news related to violence and the threat of violence over-whemingly outweighs the news about good, positive things that we as individuals and as collectives do all the time. Can we get a little balance here? I believe that the reason why the answer to this question has in the past and is currently "no" is because unlike feeling good or positive, feeling afraid has deep psychological effects. It is this psychological effect that I think certain media giants bank on to help them maintain their profits. When we are afraid, we are often willing to go to great lengths to alleviate that fear. It is this consequence of fear that leads me to the other disposition I think we are often being conditioned to adopt...

What does someone who is afraid of not being popular, someone who is afraid of getting old, and someone who is afraid being vulnerable have in common? Each of them will likely go to great lengths to alleviate their fear. In American society, it appears that one of the best ways to capitalize off of this fear (and I think certain major corporations understand this a great deal) is for us when we are afraid to consume or purchase things we believe will provide us security and comfort. There are times when I have to check myself and ask "do I really need this, or am I just afraid of going without it , or of how others would view me if I did not have it?" Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we are dumb and easily conditioned into doing whatever. There are tons and tons of money that goes into marketing campaigns for various companies, and many times than not the people working on these campaigns are very knowledgeable about human behavior. Whether it's a deep-dish pizza or a 2008 Porsche or a whatever, the goal of many marketing-based commercials is to make us as viewers feel that we need to purchase that product. In others, it's like they want us to be afraid of how our life would be without that particular product. Before I conclude let me clarify something. I am not pointing any fingers at those who work in marketing because I have major respect for the profession. In fact, I considered majoring in it in undergrad and would like to personally learn more about what all goes into marketing. The point I am trying to raise is that as with the news about violence and threats to our lifestyle, there is a such a proliferation of commercials promoting consumption that I rarely expect commercials to be about anything different. Of course there are different types of commercials out there with other messages (e. g. health issues), but again it is about balance. This lack of balance has led me to believe that one of the major goals of mainstream media outlets is to keep us afraid and to keep us consuming. In other words, make us fearful consumers.

What do you think? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...

Words, Worldview, and Works: The Search for Consistency

2008-01-11T12:48:00.000-08:00

"In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

-Luke 10: 30-37 (NIV)

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

- Matthew 23:23 (NIV)

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."

- Matthew 23:25 (NIV)

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

- Matthew 23:27 (NIV)

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

- James 1:22-27 (NIV)

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

- James 2:14-17 (NIV)

Peace and blessings,

Out of the many topics I have been blessed with the opportunity to write on over the past two years (by the grace of God), this one has probably been the most pressing on my heart. I originally thought of the idea for this topic last summer, during a time when God was speaking to me in "unique" ways so to speak.

Throughout the years I have learned (through sermons as well as through personal experience), that a common misconception about the Christian walk is that once we "join the squad" (i. e. give our lives to Christ), then things will generally go smooth from there. Sure there are a few bumps or minor setbacks along the way, but for the most part, life will not really be difficult. Although the bible tells us that as believers that all things will work out for the good (Romans 8: 28), it also tells us that the things we experience in life can help built our spiritual character (Romans 5: 3-5). Taken together, I interpret these scriptures to mean that for Christians, we will inevitably experience hurt and pain, but that all of our experiences (good or bad), insofar as we seek out God in the midst of those experiences, can yield spiritual rewards for our life on earth and for our eternal life in heaven.

In general, I feel like God has been showing me that many of our experiences as Christians are sort of like "check points" to assess the extent to which our lives are consistent in three areas:

our worldview (how we view the world, our place in it, others' place in it)

our words (the things we say,, words we live by, the advice we give to people)

our works (how we act in the world, treat others)

Let me preface this by saying that I am not arguing that we as Christians have to be perfect, because Lord knows we can't be (lol). What I am arguing, however, is that many of our experiences provide a measuring stick for us to assess in what ways our worldview, words, and works line up or do not line up. This level of consistency is a difficult task because there may be certain areas where we are more or less consistent. For instance, in certain contexts it is more easier for me to be consistent in all three areas, others more easier to be consistent in two of the three, and other areas where there is no consistency. The goal in my opinion is two-fold. One goal is for us to continually work on those areas that we have partial or not consistency and build on those areas. As mentioned in

New Beginnings,

one of my prayers this year is for God to help me view things the way He views them, because there are times when I find myself telling others to view setbacks through a spiritual lens yet I myself am viewing my obstacles through a purely human (limited) lens. Second, our goal is to recognize those areas in which we do have consistency, and learn from them so that we are able to live our lives in a way that best pleases God; through our expression of love, faith and humility in how we view the world, the things we say, and how we live.

What do you think? Any areas where you see consistency? Inconsistency? What are some steps you think yourself as well as us as Christians in general can take to achieve and maintain consistency? Take care, God bless, and speekonit...