Jesse Jackson: Enough to Light My Fire to Blog Again

Well, it's been awhile since I've had the chance to blog, but Jesse Jackson has brought me out once again!

If you watch any TV at all, you're probably aware that Jesse Jackson is now the third Chicago pastor to pose a serious problem for Barack Obama's bid for the presidency. There's the Jeremiah Wright (who is a slippery snake) scandel, there's Pastor Michael Felger who used a sermon to attack Hillary Clinton, and now, not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson has appeared on the scene.

However, Jesse Jackson's derogatory comments shouldn't be surprising. Jackson has always been about one thing, and one thing only: Jesse Jackson. He wants to be president, so of course, in his angry bitter soul he's going to attack the one man who's arrived at the place where he's always wanted to be but could never obtain: the democratic nominee for president.

In addition to the immaturity of his comments, which were lewd enough to be banned from my blog, what's really sad about this is that it was in reaction to Obama's speeches addressing the need of black fathers to commit to their families. If Jackson actually spent any amount of time working with inner city children, he'd stick his foot directly in his mouth right now. Maybe Jackson would like to explain to a group of black children who have never had the benefit of an involved father that Obama was coming down too hard on black people?

Honestly, this incident reveals his character. If he wasn't a self-absorbed con artist, then he wouldn't have to watch his mouth when he thinks that camera's not there. How in the world someone who is as anti-family, anti-life, and anti-decency could even attempt to pretend to be a pastor is beyond me.

Of course, it happens on the right as well, as all these political "pastors" really need to get their heads rescrewed on. Using the pulpit to gain political power is straight from the pit of hell, and about as far away from a mustard seed revolution as anyone can get. They are aren't just missing the boat, they're at the wrong port.

Grand Theft Jesus -- Thoughts from the Opposite of the Religious Right

I usually read about three books at a time. That way, I can read a book until I'm tired of it, and then switch to a different book until I'm tired of it, and so on and so forth. Right now I'm reading How Much Is Enough? Hungering for God In an Affluent Culture by Arthur Simon, Lust For Life by an author I can't remember, and the book Grand Theft Jesus; The Hijacking of Religion in America by Robert S. McElvaine.

Written in what is supposed to be a humorous voice, Grand Theft Jesus comes off as flippant, immature and incredibly mean-spirited. The jokes, whether tongue-in-cheek or not are simply not funny. There is really no humor in this book, although many a reader has probably inwardly groaned at a horrible attempt at humor. The only real humor in the book is unintentional. His point in writing the book is how unchristlike the religious right really is. Of course, he's just as unchristlike in his attacks and judgements. His real agenda comes through loud and clear towards the beginning of the book when he says that many Christians voted against Jesus when they voted for George Bush.

Am I the only one who gets to incredibly sick and tired of people on both sides of the political spectrum using Jesus to tell me who to vote for?

He shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scripture by the 6th chapter, when he attacks the inerrancy of scripture -- claiming that all the many contradictions in the Bible prove that it's not the infallible Word of God. While there are debatable points to scripture, one of the amazing aspects of it is that a book can be written by so many authors over such a long period of time and NOT contradict itself. He provides two examples for his purpose, showing a real lack of content that is prevalent through out the book. He starts in Genesis.

Yes, there are two different orders to the creation story in Genesis, and no that doesn't mean it's a contradiction. Perhaps the point isn't the order -- perhaps the point is just that, in fact -- the order of the creation is not what the story is about. Certainly, though, this only proves a contradiction for those who take the Bible completely literally. It appears he hasn't done the necessary research to really go beyond the tip of the ice berg with this criticism.

Then he goes on.

"For now, it should be sufficient to note that Jesus disagreed with the notion that there was no "mixture of error" in scripture. In the Sermon on the Mount, he unambiguously revised some of the early regulations of the Hebrew Bible ("You have heard that it was said to the men of old....But I say to you...").

Wow. That shows a total misunderstanding of the old covenant and the new covenant. Jesus consistently pointed out that things were different once He came, not that things were wrong in the old testament scriptures! Honestly, it leads me to believe that McElvaine has never really studied scripture and has no context for any opinions or thoughts that he shares. This only serves to prove the point that this book is not about Jesus, but truly about convincing people to vote democrat.

When he also points out, in Chapter 6, that God is bigger than "one holy book" (or holey book as he quips -- I told you the jokes were terrible), and bigger than one religion, he points out his own contradictions. Though he's trying to pass himself off as someone who follows Christ, apparently perfectly since he's comfortable judging anyone who isn't a member of the democratic party, he finds no problem in blowing off Jesus' statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me."

Another thing that I find incredibly annoying with this book is the lack of content. Even worse, McElvaine tries, unsuccessfully, to cover up the lack of content by being extremely repetitive. In that way he's like the leftist version of John Elderidge. If I could edit out every sentence where he says something about how "ChristianityLite" is taking over the country, I'd be reading a 140 page book rather than a 280.

However, all that said, as much as I am disgusted by the attitude and beliefs of the messenger, I agree with a good portion of the message. So, for the next few blog entries, I'm planning on sifting through his junk and studying the nuggets of truth he happens to have stumbled upon.

Spiritual Realities Revealed

Lately, I've been reading "Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises and a Revolution of Hope" by Brian D. McLaren. And, he is not kidding with the title. He is really challenging the way I've thought about every aspect of life and the story of the world. The perspective of the book is so different that I'm sure I'll have to re-read it when I'm finished in order to glean and retain everything he's saying.

He states in the first chapter of the book why he has put so much energy into researching the biggest problems that the world faces.

"More personally, I'm a rather ordinary person. I care about my young adult kids and the kids they may someday have. I care about my friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens and our common future on this beautiful, imperiled planet. I care about the billions of people I've never met and never will meet, including people who might be called my nation's enemies. I also care about our fellow creatures -- brown trout and blue herons, raccoons and gopher tortoises, red dragonflies and royal palms, barrel cactus and woodland ferns. I care about all of these for a lot of reasons, especially because I am a committed follower of Christ, and people with this commitment, it seems to me, can't help but care about all these things. " (Italics mine)

It has always seemed to me that it should be a natural overflow of our love for God to love all his people, and yet, it's so easy to love the lovable and simply by-pass loving those who are our enemies and those we don't ever know or see. However, if love is an action, then my life should be lived in such a way that I am considering all those people. Loves comes alive in my own willingness to be a loving and responsible steward of my time and resources.

And yet, as McLaren reveals in the book, these thoughts of practical nature are rarely taught in the church. In fact, a trip to Africa revealed to him a shocking truth. At a meeting, a leader in the church there opened his eyes.

"Friends, most of you know me. You know that I am the son of a preacher, and as a result, I grew up going to church all the time, maybe five times a week. What may surprise you though is to learn that in all of my childhood, in all the church services I attended, I only heard one sermon... That sermon went like this: 'You are a sinner and you are going to hell. You need to repent and believe in Jesus. Jesus might come back today, and if he does and you are not ready, you will burn forever in hell.' "

And, while I would have to say that that is not the sermon I'm hearing every week, it is the general thrust of what I've heard over my lifetime. I'm thankful that the sermons I'm hearing every week are very practical, life and community changing, and Jesus focused. But what is disturbing is that if I look at all the books, sermons, magazine articles I've read in the past 15 years, the teachings are not just about afterlife. They're about me.

Even our worship is self centered. Many times, during a worship service, I can't even get myself to sing the words to a song because the focus is on me. Take, for instance, how singing this is worshiping God:

Running through the forest
Dive into the lake
Barefoot on beaches white
Standing in the canyon
Painted hills around
And the wind against my skin

The song then goes on to sing about how I will not be silent anymore -- focusing on me, rather than the eternal attributes of God as a creator that we should be worshipping Another one is "Our Love is Loud" , again focusing on us and how great and exciting our love is. These songs are fine (if you're into that kind of stuff) but are they worship? I don't think so, unless you're talking about using worship time to think about how great we are at adoring God. I've always understood worship to be a time when you express to God just how amazing and wonderful He is, and yet it's just hardly ever about that anymore.

I don't think mis-focused worship music is the problem, though. I think it's a symptom. All the books on self-help, counseling, emotional healing, prosperity, books such as "Your Best Life Now" have all made Christianity about the individual.

This is totally missing the mark! God blesses us when we take our eyes off of ourselves and put them onto Him and others. God heals us when we risk to love in His name. It's like our minds are riddled with some kind of illness that distorts our thinking. It's the same illness that causes people to tell me how I'm just "so special" for adopting handicapped children, or how I've been given a "gift of compassion" or how someone could "never do what I do". It wasn't compassion, it isn't a gift, and anyone can do it! I traveled to difficult nations to rescue children because I love Jesus and Jesus loves them. If you radically love someone, then you care about what they care about. Their passions become your passions. Will your love always take that form? No, but it will take some sort of sacrificial and active form, as that is the very nature of love.

Acting on your love for Christ is the very visible expression of spirituality, and yet, as a nation, we're looking to feel rather than do -- with a significant chunk of our leaders telling us that that's okay. I don't see how anyone can read the book of James without coming to that conclusion.

So, to start off. I do agree with McLaren -- everything must change. How we think about our life, our time and our resources. We can't just think about ourselves anymore.

The Pearl

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it. " Matthew 13:45


Years ago I read the novella "The Pearl" by John Steinbeck. Steinbeck has always been one of my favorite authors, which is probably why I never like any other author's descriptions ("Who do they think they are? Steinbeck?? They should stop this feeble attempt at describing the guy's shirt and move on with the plot!") and why all the obscenities I heard in the halls of various inner city schools never phased me when I taught there.

Anyway, like many Steinbeck stories, "The Pearl" focuses on the greediness of human nature. The story is set in a small native village near the sea. The main character, Kino, is a poor fisherman who lives with his common law wife, Juana, in a hut near the sea. He and Juana have an infant son, Coyotito. The story begins with a scorpion sting to Coyotito that sends Kino and Juana to find medical help, help which is refused them because they have no money to pay the doctor.

They take to searching the sea for pearls in hope to find enough to pay the doctor to save the life of their son. Later that morning, Kino finds what he calls, "The Pearl of the World." The pearl, he is certain, will bring lasting comfort and stability, and he can use the money to heal his son, legally marry his wife and provide for his family.

However, his plans to sell the pearl are ruined as none of the buyers in the local town are willing to pay anywhere near what Kino would expect. Juana wants him to sell it anyway, certain that it will bring bad things to their lives if they keep it. Her insights were not just instinct, as not long after finding the pearl, Kino and Juana bring fellow villagers into their hut to see it. They expect their friends and family to be happy for their find. Instead, it aroused in them a desire to own the pearl as well. Not long after finding it, Kino, Coyotito (who had been healed by the doctor) and Juana are, basically, running for their life.

Eventually, they realize that the pearl is not worth the suffering, but by the time Kino realizes that it's too late. Trackers, wanting to obtain the pearl, have followed them to a cave near the ocean. Kino hides both Juana and Coyotito in the cave, and only he plans to surprise the trackers and kill them (he had already killed another person at this point). While he is stalking the trackers, they shoot toward what they thought was a coyote. Kino does kill the three trackers, but returns to the cave to find out that the trackers had killed Coyotito.

So, he found "The Pearl of the World" but it brought him nothing but grief, and cost him what was actually the most valuable thing in his life. That's why I like Steinbeck. He makes me think. He really understood human nature, but sadly, he didn't understand God or grace...

I was thinking about that in light of the "Pearl of Great Value" (Although that name for it makes it sound like one you might find at Sam's Club.)

The Pearl has a totally different kind of value. It has the kind of value that Coyotito had -- the kind of value that is worth getting rid of all you have in order to obtain it. And yet, it's seems like human nature to sacrifice The Pearl for the Pearl of the World, just like Kino did.

So, then, where is the value in The Pearl? It's finding the kingdom of heaven, and then living a life in the kingdom, despite what other kingdoms might surround you. It makes me think of the times that Jesus said, "the Kingdom of God is at hand." and how I think that means that the Kingdom of God is near us, with us, and it's our job to live like it is. I think that must require a different value system than the other kingdoms around us.

So, I've traded worldly kingdoms, for Christ's Kingdom, and I've traded the Pearl of the World for The Pearl. Or, at least I try to live in that mindset. What does that mean on a practical level? Well, I gave up having a big house, new clothes, lots of working computers (we currently have a multitude of awkwardly working computers that are in various stages of repair), money for hobbies (except blogging -- it's free!), having a "career", spending my days with adults, and being paid for all my great insight and advice. At the times when I've made choices to give things up, it seemed really big. But then, once the sacrifice was made and the reward was given, it wasn't such a big deal after all, because of the things that are of value in Christ's Kingdom.

So far, then, I've gained so much, and I'm not even to the heavenly reward part. This has gotten me to ponder what I would have needed to give up in order to obtain "The Pearl of the World". So, without further ado, here is my list of what I would have never had if I had been pursuing the wrong pearl:

1) I wouldn't have the healthy family relationships I now have
2) The words, "Put your leg on" would not be normal to me
3) I wouldn't have had personal experience with both the Ukrainian Secret Police and the Kazkh mafia (no, I'm not a double agent)
4) I wouldn't have seen the miracle of my oldest daughter's recovery from surgery
5) I wouldn't have seen the real miracle of God healing her heart from years of institutional life and bringing her to love Him
6) I wouldn't know all of my children so well that I can recognize them by their footsteps
7) I wouldn't know my neighbors as I do
8) My friends would not be nearly so eclectic
9) I wouldn't know myself as well as I do (even the things I would rather not know about myself!)
10) I wouldn't have a solid purpose with an ever-changing adventure from knowing Jesus


So, when I look at the value of each pearl, I'm totally aware of which one is better, and thankful that Jesus made it possible for me to obtain The Pearl. I also feel a lot of sadness for people who never stop pursuing "The Pearl of the World." They have no idea what they're missing.