Wyclef to Foundation Donors: Your Money's Gone 'til November...or Forever

This week, the New York Post released a report that claims singer, hip hop artist and composer, Wyclef Jean, used chunks of money from his charity, Yele Haiti, for his own benefit.  Specifically, the Post says that while Wyclef's organization received some $16 million in donations shortly after a hurricane struck Haiti in January 2010, only $5.1 million was actually spent on relief efforts, while millions were given to contractors with ties to Wyclef or businesses that never actually existed.

Wyclef is a very talented hip hop artist and composer.  He has revolutionized creativity in hip hop.  He has managed his career with an eye on longevity, undertaking thoughtful projects and collaborations on his albums.

However, clearly his charity, even by his own admission, has been mismanaged since its inception in 2005.  The charity has a track record of loosing money, failing to file proper financial reports and statements, and keeping the transparency charities and foundations doing the work Wyclef's claims to be doing should have.

I also acknowledge that it was in very poor taste for Wyclef to show up immediately after the hurricane, in a tailored suit and limousine while the citizen wallowed in squalor. 

However, with all of that said, Wyclef's charity isn't the first charity that is poorly run.  A vast majority of charities only direct a third (which is what Wyclef's charity spent on direct relief efforts) of the funds they raise on direct relief.  In fact, a charity that directs about 60 percent of its funds to direct relief, a well-run charity organization.

Which means that the problem is systemic.  Charities, even well-intentioned ones, are not directing all of their funds to direct relief for one reason or another.

So, why is Wyclef's charity under, what I consider an unusual amount of scrutiny for its mismanagement?  I understand that it's noteworthy, but why is Wyclef's organization the subject of an exclusive New York Post report and article, when there are so many other poorly managed charities that should be scrutinized?

Beauty is Only In Deep...

I enjoy the work of children’s author Dr. Seuss. While I have been reading his books since I was young, I have gained an even deeper appreciation and respect for them as I read them to my children. In fact, there was a period of time when my children were much younger, that due to the demands of my schedule, that’s all I was able to read.


When I would read Dr. Seuss books with my children, I noticed that they do a few things about the books. They are revolutionary. First, they revolutionized children’s books and how they handled grammar and language. Until Dr. Seuss, children’s books were unimaginative: Dick, Spot and Jane. Go spot go. See Spot run. Run Spot run. Dr. Seuss, who wrote his books in the 1960s and 1970s, changed all that and made reading very fun and imaginative for kids. Where would our culture be without Green eggs and ham? How could we live without Ziffer-Zoffs, Foona Lagonas, Honking Hinkle Horns? And would we be as happy and joyful as a society, if we didn’t know either Thing 1 or Thing 2?

The other thing I noticed was how weighted or heavy the topics of the book were. Seuss revolutionized the subject matter of children books. Before they were about baseball, and mom going grocery shopping, or dad coming home from work. Seuss took on topics like globalization, pollution, the economy, tyranny, marginalization, all through children’s books.

One book, The Sneetches, even tackles racism, materialism, and prejudices. For those who have never read the book, Sneetches are a fictional race of beings in a fictional land. There are two kinds or races of Sneetches—those with stars on their bellies, and those without.

In this fictional world, the reader learns that there is little difference between the two groups. However, that doesn’t stop the Sneetches from distinguishing themselves. The reader is supposed to know that the Sneetches with stars on their bellies were considered generally superior to their non-star-bellied counterparts.

So the Sneetches without stars were on the outside of the society looking in. They longed and longed for stars on their bellies to be on the inside. And not too long after their wishes, along comes a guy named, Slyvester McMonkey McBean who has created a machine to capitalize on their misery. The machine puts stars on Sneetches without stars on their bellies. So the Sneetches without got stars. And they were happy and went to go show off their stars to the ones with stars originally had them. And the ones with stars on their bellies originally, were besides themselves, and so they wished to have no stars to distinguish themselves from the other Sneetches. And so along comes McMonkey McBean and he has a machine to take advantage of those Sneetches too. He sends those Sneetches through that machine as well to take off their stars.

So, as you can imagine, they keep going through the various machines until they all are broke except McBean. But, in this exercise,  they realize that they are all the same, and all it cost them was all their money.

Now, in the Biblical context there are plenty examples of people struggling with the same issues as the Sneetches were struggling with, but none quite as clear as the scripture today.

 In Acts 3, we find such an example.
The passage begins with Peter and John heading into the Temple for prayers. All pious and worthy Jews could enter the Temple to pray at 3pm. They would enter into the Temple by one of several gates—all of them had adjectives for names: everlasting, Righteous, and so on.

As Peter and John are heading into the Temple to pray, they encounter a man who could not walk from birth at the gate begging for money. What we are supposed to know is that Rev. Peter and John are pious as are the people who are heading into the Temple for prayer. We are also supposed to know that the man is not pious as he is not heading in to pray. In fact, in Ancient Jewish tradition, people with handicaps could not be considered clean or pious and were not allowed to pray in the Temple. However, “pious” people were liberal with there money on the way in the Temple. (How some Christians are good when they come to church but lack that giving spirit in other aspects of their lives.)

So the man was there at the Temple gate called Beautiful asking Peter and Paul for money. There is nothing of interpretive value in the gate being called Beautiful except that we note its irony in the story. Here we have a gate called the adjective beautiful and what was going on, a handicapped, man having to ask for money was not the least bit beautiful.

This must have been his thing though. His thing must have been to ask for money, and get it from people going to the temple, going to pray to ease their conscious. And while he would get money there at the gate, make no mistake, the man was marginalized. He was on the outside looking in like the Sneetches.

But instead of McBean, he gets Peter and John. And he asks them for money. And Peter and John look at the man and force him to look at them in the eyes. Peter says, “Look at us” and then he says “silver and gold I have not, but what I have I give to you.” Then Peter took him by the hand and said “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” And the man got up and went into the Temple walking, jumping, shouting and praising God. And the people were astonished at this sight.

Peter took a man who was, from birth, disenfranchised and marginalized from the society of Jews who made his living begging and in one turn, he was healed and able to be in the community. He gave him a star on his belly. Made him beautiful.

Naturally, this has salvation undertones. The man’s healing by Peter clearly symbolizes that God’s salvation is available to all, not just those who can walk or look a certain way.

This story means something to us as well. In our society and culture, there are many people and groups on the outside looking in, hoping to get in, hoping to get a piece of the American Dream. Women, handicapped, and the imprisoned know what that feels like. But, the Creator has made us beautiful.

GOP to OBAMA: "You Don't mention God Enough"

Well, I thought I was finished mentioning Republicans for the week, but this one is worth it.

The president, President Obama, (I have been reading Fox News and they call him everything but that, so if I don't say it, I'll forget he his the president and not some degenerate. libertine anti-Christ) is again the focus of conservative rage.

This time the rage is over President Obama's weekly Internet address.  This week, naturally, the president's remarks focused on Thanksgiving and all of the things for which he was thankful.  As most other people, the president was thankful for, among other things, loved ones, for people who served this country and the community at large, and the ability for Americans to determine their destiny.  At the end of the Internet address, the president asked God to bless the people watching the Internet address.  For good measure, the president explicitly thanked God in remarks earlier in the week.

Well, all of this thanking God by the president isn't enough for conservative talkers.  They have called President Obama a "turkey" because he didn't mention God at all or enough in his remarks this week.

Now, I am all for spirituality in the White House and I know that our leaders need guidance from Spirit to make compassionate, thoughtful decisions, so I can't be mad at people listening to hear our president thank God in a Thanksgiving address. 

But, I don't understand the conservative outrage about the president's remarks.  He did invoke God in his Internet address and earlier in the week thanked God.  How many more times does he need to say God to please his critics?  Yea, these are the same people who still believe he's a Muslim who was born in Africa or the ocean or wherever.

What is more, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum issued Thanksgiving statements from their respective campaigns that omitted any references to God.  And what's even more, our last president thanked God and then told us that Iraq was store housing weapons of mass destruction and then sent thousands of American troops to the country, a good chunk of whom would never return home.

President Obama is not perfect.  He has made a few missteps in his presidency (all of which he has owned up to, incidentally).  However, failing to invoke God's name or thank God this Thanksgiving, isn't one of those missteps. 

Surely, the president's critics can gain more steam by focusing on one of those issues...can't they?

The Newt Immigration Plan

It's been a good few weeks for Newt Gingrich.  With the political and personal stumbles of the resilient Herman Cain, and social conservative activists secretly huddling to thwart Mitt Romney's presidential hopes, Gingrich has surged in recent polls.  He is, by most accounts now considered the republican frontrunner.

In this past Tuesday's Republican presidential debate,  the new Republican front runner, took some of his time in the spotlight to articulate his position on immigration reform.  Calling for a more humane position on immigration by the Republican Party and the country, Gingrich said, "I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter of a century. And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, 'let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families." 

Gingrich then articulated several factors that would make a person eligible for his immigration amnesty of sorts.  He said that if a person has been in the country for a quarter century, works and pays taxes, and is active in a local church, they deserve immigration leniency.

I am extremely happy to hear this bold stance taken by a front runner in the Republican presidential race.  It is in fact humane and quite daring and courageous of Gingrich to say this just ahead of the Iowa caucuses where his conservative credentials will be scrutinized.  I applaud Gingrich for his statements and hope they help create the kind of real immigration reform the country needs.

However, and I hate to nitpick, but I couldn't help notice that in Gingrich's articulation of the factors a person must have to receive leniency under his immigration plan, the person must be active in a local church.  What about those who are active in a mosque or temple or synagogue?  Where do they stand under Gingrich's immigration plan?  Would they be allowed to stay here, or is his plan only for Christians?

Thank you God...For Nothing

It is Thanksgiving.  Naturally, there will be many tweets, emails, blogs, articles and Facebook updates about all the things that we are thankful for.  There will be prayers at the dinner table and quiet reflection about all of the wonderful things that God has done for people this year.

There will be speeches and interviews of politicians and statesmen who will say, earnestly even, that they are thankful for one thing or another.  And religious and community leaders will show that they are thankful to God for the things that God has done for them, by serving dinner to the marginalized today.

Thanksgiving is a beautiful holiday in that respect--it reminds thoughtful people to be thankful to the Creator for the Creator's blessings. 

While we should be thankful for all of the good things the Creator has done for us,  Matthew 5:45 reminds us that the Creator provides the same blessings--sunshine, rain, wealth, plenty--for the just, as well as the unjust.

So even when we reflect on this year and can't point to anything great that happened (or the down times that we are thankful or because the creator uses those to prepare us for greater work), we should still be thankful.  We should be thankful simply because we have a relationship with the creator and that while we are intelligent beings, some of the things that happen in this universe will always pass our understanding.  And that's just fine with me.

This Thanksgiving, if I am called on to say what I'm thankful for, I could pull a Mary J. Blige and thank everyone from God and Jesus, to my mix tape guy.  But I won't do that.  What I am thankful for, what I am really thankful for is that Spirit saw fit to not give me everything I ever wanted, even when I begged and pleaded and prayed for those things.  Even when I wanted them desperately.  I am thankful that Spirit was kind enough to withhold those things from me, because they probably would have caused endless pain.

In other words, I thank God for nothing.

Mid-Week Meditation: What if God was One of Us...

I was on a run yesterday morning when I heard the Joan Osborne's song, "One of Us," a rhetorical pondering of God's identity.  "What if God was one of us," Osborne chants, "Just a slob like one of us.  Just a stranger on the bus trying to make his way home."

Osborne is a meaty, heavy (I mean substantive.  Geez.  How in the world did these terms become bad ones?)  soul singer.  She has real staying power in the music industry, but perhaps without "One of Us," the popular culture and the hipsters alike would have nothing to do with her.  So, I accept the song for what it is--a carefully packaged appeal to the spiritual questions of the masses, without being too preachy or religious.

I appreciate what the song does and I assume that when she asks the question about God being one of us, she means it in the Matthew 25:31-46 manner:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

I assume she means her question in this context because, we know that God was one of us in the form of Jesus.  And we also know that, as Osborne's song laments, He was not treated favorably by many.  I believe that not much has changed.  If Christ came to one of our churches, we would still treat Him unfavorably because He didn't have on a suit, or the right shoes, or didn't have the right shave and haircut and couldn't prove His prominence within the community.

Several years ago, I asked a few people I knew to stop by my church and sit in the back for service over the span of a few weeks.  Some had criminal records, some were not wealthy and some were not dressed in church gear.  I asked them to stop by, not to test people in the pew, but simply to have the people stop by enjoy the worship service.  I found that without exception, the people that I asked to attend were treated uniformly--they were treated well, but with kid gloves, as if they had done something wrong by simply stopping by for worship service. 

My church is as warm a place to worship as you can find.  But, if Christians are to, as the scriptures call on us to do, treat everyone as if we were entertaining God, then we have a considerable amount of work to do.

Why We All Should Care About the Duggars...

I have fond memories of my grandparents.  When they were alive many years ago when I was a teenager, they would spend winters up north with my family.  My grandparents were from the south, and like many in the rural south, they were agrarian.

My grandparents' lifestyle called on them to have enough children to help them with their farm work.  They had eight.  My grandparents continued to stress to me in my teenage years, that while they loved all their children, they had so many children not out of vanity, or a need for excess, but out of necessity.  I hesitate to speak for my dear grandparents, but I have to believe that if they were raising a family today, they wouldn't have so many children.  It's just unnecessary for many reasons.

Recently, the Duggars, Jim Bob and Michelle, have announced that they are expecting their 20th child.  For the few of you who don't know the Duggars, they are a family of Christian fundamentalists who have a reality TV show on TLC.  For their part, the Duggars appear to be a close family, with solid values, well-mannered children, and a sense of humor.

I cannot do the Duggars' faith full justice in the space that I have, but it is clear that one of the things they believe is that they can become closer to God by having more children.  If this is true, if the Duggars can become closer to God by having more children, then God must live next door to them.  In fact, God should be so close to the Duggar family, they probably need a restraining order against God.

Now, I refuse to belittle the Duggars' faith--it's actually quite admirable that they believe so strongly in something.  But, I also refuse to believe that having 20 children is the pathway to a closer relationship to God.  Mother Teresa, Jesus and the Apostle Paul all seemed to do just fine with the Creator and had no children at all.

Where I'm going with all of this is here:  having 20 children in 2011 is not only not necessary like it was in my grandparents' time and space, it can be seen as an opulent display not afforded to many in this country or many others.  In an age where the earth's population has hit seven billion and many country's have laws governing the amount of the children a family can have, willfully having 20 children against this back drop when its not a necessity, is the equivalent of burning money in a fleet of yachts in front of very poor people.

Having 20 children is perhaps a way to establish a closer relationship with God for the Duggars.  But, the rest of us who know that the earth is overpopulated and has finite resources, should probably stick to the more traditional ways to get closer to the Creator like prayer, meditation and fasting.

What Would 'Jesus' do?

In the mid-1990s, a faction of Christians popularized the saying, "What would Jesus do" which was shortened (to better market on T-shirts and bracelets) to WWJD.  The question, perhaps based on a group of scriptures as well as the sermon series of a 20th century evangelical preacher, is not without its merit.  As a general proposition, we can keep ourselves out of trouble (but perhaps not out of perpetual conflict with authority) if we ask ourselves that question before we act.

I suppose that's a fine question to ask yourself if you're a regular human.  However, what do you do when you are Jesus Christ?   Who do you model your behavior after?  Well, if you are Jesus, whom the government, the criminal justice system and the Washington Post know better as Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, you do a few things. 

First, you make an open casting call scrawling rambling manifestoish video to Oprah, establishing that you are Christ and then begging Oprah to put you on one of her shows (Is this how Gail got put on?).  Then, you  go to hell, better known as the White House in D.C. and then you lazily attempt to kill the devil, also known as President Obama.

You follow that?

Now, in the course of history, many people have claimed to be Christ, which I get--some have been charismatic, others have been brutal, and still more have been downright creepy.  Being Christ makes the words you speak carry a certain authority in some circles. 

But, in a look at all of the people who have claimed to be Christ over the years, Ortega is the only I know of who believes that part of his ministry is to beg to get on one of Oprah's shows.

That is apparently what Jesus would do in 2011.

Mid-Week Meditation

In their love letter to all things hippie, "Mrs. Robinson," Simon and Garfunkel ask the question, "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio..."  The song writing pair wrote the song for the movie, "The Graduate" to accent the motifs of the movie--all of which revolved around the notion of the need to question societal norms and conventions...and seducing young men.

The line in the song about Joe DiMaggio was intended to spark nostalgia for the sturdy, dependable hero of the past.  The kind of hero who was consistent and downright and forthright and upright.  The kind of hero who was so reliable you could set your watch by him.

Well, these days, as I watch Joe Paterno, an otherwise sturdy hero fall in the Penn State sex abuse scandal, I'm beginning to think it's too much to ask for sturdy old Joe DiMaggio.  Right now, I'd take a Joe Nucksal, a Joe Montana, or even the last guy who made wearing fur coats cool, Joe Namath.

The outrage about the scandal has been sweeping and justified.  Paterno sheltered, enabled and coddled an accused child rapist, Jerry Sandusky, for about a decade.  Paterno, by almost all accounts was made aware that Sandusky was possibly engaged in very violent criminal behavior with children.  Rather than firing Sandusky, or going to the authorities about his behavior, or just punching him in the nose, Paterno did...nothing. 

Hardly, the actions of a hero.   Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio indeed.

While "Mrs. Robinson" does ask where the sturdy leaders like Joe DiMaggio have gone, the song answers its own question when it says, "Jesus loves you more than you will know..."

Of course.  In an age where all of our leaders without exception have been smothered under the weight of their own humanness, we are reminded that Christ and His spotless character and ability to walk in loving kindness has never been contradicted.  We might say He's the last sturdy hero.




 

The Best Things in Life...

I enjoy driving to church. On Sunday mornings, the roads are quiet, nobody’s rushing and I can drive and think and meditate. It's peaceful. There is no controversy or drama on the way to church, and while the drive takes slightly longer (only slightly) than it takes a woman from Herman Cain's past to jump out of the woodwork to accuse him of misconduct, it is one of the best parts of my week.

Which is why I was tickled recently when my peaceful journey to church was broken up, interrupted even, by blunt ignorance. The other day, the other Sunday, I was driving to church next to a fellow in a weathered, rustic pickup truck. As he passed me, I noticed that he had a bumper sticker in the back window of his truck that said, "Gas, grass or ass...nobody rides for free."

As you can probably imagine, the fellow's passenger seat was empty. I laughed out loud at the fellow, the empty seat and the bumper sticker (it all missed ironic by just a hair). It could have been a singular coincidence--with the exception of that Sunday, the fellow normally has someone in the passenger seat of his car giving liberally of one or all of the items his bumper sticker indicated would suffice as car fare. However, more likely, he was riding alone, as he perhaps often does because the people close to the guy don't want to feel like every interaction with him is a transaction.

All too often, our churches take a position toward its congregants that is similar to the fellow with the bumper sticker. Oh, we may not have bumper stickers that are as brash as the one above, but the message is the same: if you are sitting in the pew for worship, or Bible study, or otherwise using the church's resources, you must provide something of extrinsic worth. If you do not, you are not welcome.

I have seen with my own eyes, pastors of churches tell people who are not tithing to sit down and be still so they wouldn't block God's blessings to people in the church who do tithe. I have witnessed pastors tell individuals who say they do not have a monetary offering for a worship service but would like to donate their time singing or working in the food pantry, that the kind of offering they have is not "Biblical"--that they must bring a monetary offering. I have seen scores of people silenced or sequestered from church leadership, because they have little or no money to give.

This isn't my manifesto against tithing. People should give of their time, talents and whatever money they can comfortably and cheerfully give to build Spirit's kingdom. However, church is the last place that people should feel like they are perpetually a part of a transaction--that they have to give in order to exist, worship and serve in the church.

One of my favorite show tunes has a line that goes something like: "The moon belongs to everyone. The best things in life are free..." Now, you all know that I believe in the infallibility of both the Bible and the Broadway show tune. But, shouldn't we be able to add church and worship as some of the best things in life that are free also?