Rosa, Rosa...

Today, we acknowledge the life and bravery of Rosa Parks.  The story of her curage is legendary.  On December 1st, 1955, a tired Rosa Parks sat down in a seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.  As the bus became crowded, the driver of the bus asked Parks to give up her seat for a white passenger.  Naturally she refused, and Parks' refusal to give up her seat spurred what we now know as the Montgomery Bus Boycott and eventually, the Civil Rights era in the United States.

We know that Parks was not the first person in this country or internationally, to engage in civil disobedience, but her actions were forward-thinking, radical and enveloped in and with the notions of humanness and equality.  She made this country think about the manner in which it treats all of its citizens.

And, by the way, she was a faithful memeber of the African Methodist Episcopial church. 

As we celebrate the spirit of Rosa Parks, let us, particularly those in the A.M.E. church, remember her by keeping the same forward-thinking spirit in dealing with issues of salience today.  


 

Mid-Week Meditation: Organized Religion and Interracial Dating

Recently, a church, voted to ban interracial couples from church.  

I meditated on this story and then I asked a friend of mine if she believed in organized religion.  She told me that she wanted to, but she didn't.  I didn't bother to ask any follow up questions like, "Why not?" or "What happened?"  I didn't ask because I knew, sadly what her issue was.

My friend, like many people my age, grew up attending mass regularly because it was the right thing to do and because her parents wanted her to.  But as she got older, I assume that she felt what many of us have observed--a disconnect between church attendance and a connection to the creator, or anything else that would personally benefit her spiritually or otherwise.

The first century church was established for two reasons--as a place for believers to worship God and as a gathering place for believers to to find security.  Naturally, the first century Roman Empire was not a kind place for Christians.  They were literally persecuted and marginalized.  Gathering at church with other souls who were in the same boat, provided comfort and sanctuary.

Today, while we have some difficulties in our lives, we are in a better place than first century Christians...at least theoretically.  We have access to the government, access to the economic structure and Christianity is, in essence, the official religion of this country.  What's more, we can worship and contemplate on the works of the Creator and the creation in our own comfortable homes.  The scriptures do not mandate that a person must attend church regularly or at all to be in good stead with the Creator.

So convening in church for the same reasons first century believers did are not persuasive for the 40 and under crowd.  So they have stayed away from organized religion.

And churches that vote to ban interracial couples from worshipping does little to help attract that demographic either.

 

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.