HELLO! People Are Hurting

Just recently, I went to YouTube for the ultimate bi-monthly-curiosity-walk I often do. This walk involves looking at trending videos; news, fun videos, art videos, movie trailers, kawaida videos and music videos to see which videos are receiving most views and why, from, at least, the past few weeks. 

I do this as a leader for one sole reason: in order to familiarize myself with popular culture - this very thing that shapes and affects how the young people around me think, act and perceive the world around them.

While strolling around gathering information on popular videos, I stumbled upon a music video by one artist by the name of Adele. Most of us - the aptly no-nonsense spiritual kind - may not know her. (Anyway, you don't have to know her. You'll get all the information you may need to know about her here today – and then you can judge me later J.) The music video to her song  "HELLO" from (I decided to get more info on this song anyway) her 2015 album "25" had 1.7 billion views in 9 months! Yes, lemme say that once again: Adele’s “HELLO” has 1.7 billion views in less than a year!
I first watched the video then paused with a gasp. Man, this reality hit me hard: either people are really hurting in relationships or Adele is such a goooood singer with such greaaaaat music that everyone wants to listen to it.

Okay, as it is always a rule with me, after finding a popular name in any industry, I normally head over to Wikipedia (which is free to access on any network in Kenya by the way) to get basic information on the said person. Uncle Wiki, as knowledgeable as he is, told me the following about Adele;

She is British and was born on 5th May 1988 in Tottenham, London as Adele Laurie Blue Adkins. Her father abandoned her at the age of two thus she seems to only have been solely raised by her mother. She spent most of her time singing rather than reading thus began singing at the age of four and asserts that she became obsessed with voices (maybe that's why her voice captures many, eh?). Time magazine named her one of the most influential people in the world in 2012 and 2016. With sales of more than 100 million records, she is one of the best-selling recording artists in the world.

About her music career: her first album, “19”, of a soul genre, had lyrics describing heartbreak and relationships. It was a break-up record. Her second studio album "21" was inspired by the break-up with her former partner and it came with many more personal regrets from bad life choices. She refers to this period in her life as her "early life crisis". Hurt and pain in relationships seem to be things she understands. However, she describes "25" (her third album) as a make-up record: making up for lost time, making up for everything she ever did and never did. She says it took long to make "25" because "life happened." "25", a 2015 album, became last year's best-selling album and broke first week sales records in the UK and US. The lead single, "Hello" (which somehow forms the basis of this post), became the first song in the US to sell over one million digital copies within a week of its release. She's now married and with one child.

That’s enough info about her, I think (before you judge me too much and end up in hell, haha).

Now, let’s go back to what we were talking about…

"HELLO" is a very emotional song about a person (it may be a dude or a lady) who is trying to reminisce a failed past relationship and the mistakes he/she made that caused it to fail. She misses it. She misses the times she spent with her lover, the moments they had and shared, the things they used to do together... Yes, she misses a whole lot of things. But again, within its hooky theme, she seems to pretend that she is letting go of that past. She's trying to get over it in her own way. She's recollecting herself.

Pause.

Now, imagine that such a song has 1.7 billion views on the most popular video hosting channel/website in the world and let the reality of failing relationships, broken hearts and lives that fail to move on due to hurt sink in. Let it sink in little more. Let this reality also sink in: that, probably, above 60% of the young people (that is six in every ten youth) in your youth ministry – in our churches – have the song downloaded and/or shared with them and they listen to it at least 3 times in a week. They identify with it. They know the depth of every word Adele is singing. They are hurting. And as you stand up trying to preach or teach them about Jesus, they're replaying this song in their heads while whispering this back to you in the secrecy of their emotions: "HELLO, Morris, we are hurting. Please talk about our hurt. It’s killing us. What can we do about it? Please stop that "Jesus talk" and just talk to us about when you get hurt and you can't seem to get over it!"

Now, in response to your HELLO is this post. I'm listening. And therefore I'm asking, why are people - including "good" Christians - hurting each other in relationships? Really, why?

*******
Most of us have read this blog written a few weeks ago by my girlfriend on breakups and scars that unfold. She helped open our eyes to the reality of wounds in relationships and how to overcome them. Today, I'm seeking to show us that Jesus cannot be silent if we ask Him for help in the midst of hurting (even when we feel that whatever people are yapping about when we go to church or Bible study meetings or intercessory meetings is useless.)

But before I do that, let us become conversant with some basic truths about hurt and pain in relationships;

1. Not all Christians or any kind of people in relationships act the same. Also, not all people in relationships think the same way about those relationships. We are all different. Some are mature, others are immature. Some are wise, while others are stupid. Some are committed in relationships while others are not. Some hurt others knowingly (they are psychopathic), while others are oblivious of what they are doing. Also, people love differently. Some are serious about it, while others are not. Some know what love is, while others are still learning to love. Some are interested in knowing how to love back while others don't care. Therefore, we hurt and get hurt differently depending with the character of the person we are/were with in the relationship.
2. Hurt is inevitable, but the degree of hurt varies from one relationship to another. At one point or another in your relationship, you'll either get hurt or you'll hurt someone. That's the reality of life, the wickedness of the flesh and relationships. So, whether Christian or not, whether Spirit-filled or not, you’ll hurt someone, and you too will get hurt at some point.
3. People react differently to pain and hurt, whether Christian or not. This is because hurting or pain is a reality to everyone. Both the Christian and the non-Christian get hurt, no? But our closeness to Jesus will determine whether He'll help us through the hurt or we'll be left to struggle through it alone. That’s where the difference is.
4. In order to get hurt, one will need to take responsibility - they'll need to accept to get hurt. You can't get hurt if you don't want to. Once you accept to get hurt, you surely will get hurt. This means, when you say, "Let it pass", it sure will pass. We have power over what another person's actions do to our lives.  
5. And finally, we may experience hurt in two ways: hurt from a relationship that failed or hurt in a relationship that is failing.

Now, in answer to the question of hurt, and to help us stop singing Adele-style like she does in her reprise, "Hello on the other side?" as we daydream about how it was or how it would/could have been, let me show us how there is no person who identifies with hurt and pain more than Jesus. (Christians around you may not identify with your hurt and pain, but Jesus does.)

First, here is what came out of His mouth concerning guys who see it difficult to hold it together and move on or deal with pain:
"Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30 (NIV))

Then, later on, one great teacher of the Word says this about Jesus:
"Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (Hebrews 2:18 (NIV))

The two verses above familiarize us with another reality above the reality of hurt and pain: that no matter how hurt we may be, Jesus knows a thing or two about it. In the first verse, He insists that if you are burdened (or are hurt or are feeling betrayed), He’s got your back and that He will be gentle with you and won’t hurt you like the other person did. He will give you rest from ALL your hurts. In the second verse, the writer makes evident one truth about Jesus: that Jesus sure knows and understands what it means and feels like to be hurt and get over it: He was born out of wedlock and had to live with that stigma for all His life (come on, who in Israel was to believe that some Holy Spirit made Mary pregnant? Who?); then He was betrayed and got hurt a number of times and by people closest to Him (Peter, Judas and all the disciples…) So, yes, Jesus knows a number of things about getting hurt and surviving it.

The question now is, after we are hurt and we know that Jesus can get us out and pull us up onto solid ground, what are we doing to ensure that we receive the REST He is talking about as far as hurting is concerned? Here are some questions which if well answered will determine if we are ready for Jesus’ help or we are simply dillydallying with the truth:

1. Do you believe, deep in your heart, that Jesus can help you when hurt?
2. If you believe He can help, are you confessing or are you ready to confess to Jesus that, "Lord, I am hurting, and I need Your help"? Do you believe that He is the only one that can offer solid, lasting help?
3. Are you praying to Him as His child that you stop blaming yourself and/or the other person for everything that happened?
4. And lastly, are you taking the necessary steps as mentioned in this post towards healing?

After you have answered the above questions, healing won’t be that far.

To echo my message well, please listen to Group 1 Crew's song "NOT THE END OF ME" from their 2012 album FEARLESS.

PS:
I went out for more web-walk and spotted Jamie Grace at an Adele concert this week on Wednesday. Funny, eh? Read about it here.

Bonface Morris.

Musings And Observations - Part 1

No one can deny that the world we live in today is a very weird world. (Or you may want to, anyway. It is none of our business, right?) In such a world, there is no denying (again) that it is, to a certain extend of things, very weird that some things happen the way they DO happen or that some people behave the way they do.
This world, therefore, because it is weird, will always fascinate us. (And fascination in this case will be Jedi-ic). Mostly, this eventually becomes our "wonder-zone" - which each one of us is in possession of - a place in one's mind where they tend to stagger between wonder and disgust, or both. To some it may be positive, while to others it may be negative, but we all have one. This is because we are all able to see the world in our own different ways and are able to cook our own mind-meals and feed on them...
With the basics on mind-works above - which are actually mere blubbery - I want to share a few things that my mind has been brooding over in the past few days of my idleness. (Yeah guys, we were chased away from school, and what do old men life myself do when they're deliberately chased from school? They study. And they write. They do this affectionately. But they also hang around and study people - thanks to my introverted-extrovert temperament.)
So while I have been seated on some podium and wittily gazing and analysing the trends in the world below, and as my mind has been excusing me to do whatever I want with whatever passes through it, I present to you the first part of its collection of moments (mostly with a group of young people in an age bracket of 16 and 35 involved). This is what I have come to conclude;

1. People, especially young Christians, are extremists that mostly take life for granted
I have realized the following during my interaction with young people my age:
We joke more than we should, talk more than we should (me included), dump more junk into our minds and bodies than we are allowed to (by any law in Heaven or on earth), hate more than we are allowed to, judge and condemn more than we are supposed to, pray less, worship less, read less of God's Word (but more of useless things), skip church more, skip all stuff to do with God and give more excuses than are necessary, fall in love deeper than we should, chat more than we should, listen to, read and watch funny stuff more than we are allowed to...
We are mere extremists that never take life seriously, and more-so, the things that involve God. We take most things for granted including our jobs and education) and expect rewards for our pettiness. It doesn't work that way.
How will anyone believe that we have any chance of changing this world, leave alone our own lives/selves if this is the approach we have to life?

2. Many young Christians feel that secularism today is "normal" and "cool"
In the past few days of my idleness, I have opted to make tiny spontaneous surveys on what people think about certain trends in the present world. They mostly involved young saved people like me. My observations have yielded the following;

(a) Observation: Most young Christians trash almost 80% of all the advice given to them by the elderly concerning matters of service to God, employment, finances, love, commitment, romance and sexuality. Reason? They think they are smart, or rather, "we think we are smarter than they are" and that the secular way of looking at all of the issues mentioned above is "more exciting" than the Christian way taught to us by our leaders and parents/guardians. But, are we really smart? Smart enough to put to dust all the advice they give us?
Possible solution: We need to learn that we are not always right - in fact, it almost always. Older people have seen more than we have and have been in the same places and situations we are facing. Taking into consideration whatever they are telling us is not only wise, but valuable in raising us up as rational young adults and reasonable citizens.

(b) Observation: Most young Christians prefer "to play cool" with matters about broadcasting (or telling others) about what they believe - and worse still, their friends. My research reveals that around 70% of young saved people don't love to share (or don't ever dare to share) their faith with their friends. A whopping 80% never talk about God or religion on social media i.e. Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Google+ for fear of being tagged "cherchy", or it may be because we are entirely ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or that we don't even know who we believe in and why; if not, they may only share such things on Sunday morning and that is all. This is tragic, right? We are more to the cold side of Christianity than we are to the hot side. Tragic indeed.
Possible solution: We need to get ourselves together and observe our inclinations and priorities as far as our spirituality is concerned: If we wannabes be Christians, then let's be Christians all the way; and if we wanna be secular, then let's go secular all the way. There ain't no middle ground yo! Why keep tarnishing the brand and faith that is Christianity with petty behaviour and foolishness? Why not just remain on one side and spare the rest of us the grins and grinds of being lukewarm?

(c) Observation: A good number of young saved people hate controversy, and they therefore prefer to only talk about the "light or less important issues of society" and leave out the more intricate ones. Talk about real issues in society and you are likely to receive no comment(s) at all from such guys. They are average people who'd rather die in agony and suffering than shout out that something is wrong somewhere with our government, systems or management.
Possible solution: For a very long time, Christians have been marked as "mild, stupid, unintelligent, frail and wimpy". Yes, for a very long time. That needs to change. We need to become more aggressive, bolder, more demanding as far as our rights and the rights of others are concerned and more passionate as far as what is right/good is concerned. Christ was neither wimpy nor a sycophant, but He was humble. There is a difference between the two: humility and sycophancy. We need to mark that difference and work on it.

(d) Observation: 60% of young saved people with phones, tablets, laptops, desktops and media-capable gadgets have secular music and pornographic material in/on those gadgets, and they don't feel guilty about it. We have been watered-down by a creepy Gospel that says, "Jesus walked among them and ate with them... so let us do the same..." But did Jesus really indulge in the sins of those around Him in order to win them to Himself? No. So why all this secularism in order to fit in? Huh?
Possible solution: Stop hiding in false interpretations of Scripture on dressing code/style, food (alcohol, drugs and smoking), music, entertainment and general Christian behavior. We should also stop formulating our own laws to justify our sins! Sin is just sin; nothing less, and nothing more.

(e) Observation: 50% of the young people I interviewed (in an underground manner) preferred "fitting in" to "standing out" while tackling various life issues requiring a bold Christian stand. They insisted on following what they are told by friends, parents, guardians, teachers but never laying down their own path that defines who they truly are. They prefer following what people think they are and lose all identity of who they truly are. They rant most about things that go wrong but never offer help or advice. They correct and/or rebuke no-one (everything seems to be okay to/with them), and would rather have their friends fall away than correct them in the fear of losing them.
Possible solution: We change nothing by "fitting in" and "being cool". It only loses us into a charade of what others think we should be and lose the whole identity of who we truly are. We should stand-out and become the definition of our own brands: the people we would love others to point at and say, "Yeah, that is him/her! That is how they do their thang!"

(f) Observation: 40% of the young people I interacted with have never committed themselves to any task nor have they ever been held responsible for any activity right from birth up to the age of 18 (and some beyond). They stated that they've not been believed to be able to handle any small tasks in their homes or schools (either by their parents or friends) and have altogether come to fear commitment and responsibility as far as life and church matters are concerned.
Possible solution: We become lazier and less productive when we only follow others and what they do. We need to rise up and be followed! We need to start asking ourselves, "When will someone follow me? When will people start believing that I am now reliable and can handle certain tasks?" Yes, we should ask ourselves such questions! Paul once said to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:12 (NASB) "Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example to those who believe" and in Titus 2:7 (NASB) "In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us..." Strive to show yourself worthy to be followed!

(g) Observation: Most of the young people I met are never forgiving when they see their own weaknesses in others, but can judge and step on others on the account of the very wrongs that are very familiar in their own worlds.
Possible solution: No one is perfect. We are not perfect. So stop whining about someone's wrongs as if you don't have your own. Stop thinking that you are God. Stop judging others the only way God can. That is how the secular world behaves: an eye for an eye, a wrong for a wrong and a judgement for a judgement. Scripture says this; Luke 6:42 (ESV) "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye", then John 8:7 (ESV) says, "And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her...'"

3. Mommy's kids and daddy's dolls are the most difficult people to deal with.
I did not only make/do Christian-based research and observations. No. I dug deeper. And after digging deeper, I realized that it requires more and more grace to sit around and deal with daddy's or mommy's kids and tolerate their behaviour.
You know them: spoilt kids with tottering manners, money guzzling tendencies and funny appetites. Woe to you if you get into a relationship, into a deal or happen to get married to one (I am one of them anyway, but not all that spoilt  - or so I think. :-))
There is only one possible way of dealing with us: avoid us or get used to us. (Some of us are not that difficult to handle anyway... :-))

4. Most young saved people (around 80%) lose their faith either in their second semester of joining college/campus or in  the first semester of their sophomore year.
This is mostly influenced by secular trends and a fall into partying, drugs and sexual sin - accelerated by a hip-and-bone closeness to the wrong kind of friends. Deny it or not, campus changes people: for better or for worse. Most lose their values, dignity and virginity during this phase, while others pass through this stage miraculously unharmed.
My research followed through several cases under my leadership and premised that the most affected and most vulnerable are those who once-upon-a-time belonged to single sex High Schools. Campus somehow just derails them (not all of them, but some): all the freedom, the cross-cultural hyperbola brought in by a new environment, the excitement to try out on the "new unknown stuff" campus freely offers, the exposure to contradicting worldviews about God, the idea of wanting to fit in and not "being/becoming the odd one out", the lack of godliness in about 90% of the people they meet on campus - all these cause a weak mind and heart to change ground as far as God is concerned, for say, 2 years, until they regain consciousness in the last part of their third year or the first part of their fourth year in campus.
I am still trying to find answers to this dilemma and may come up with a few possible solutions after getting a reliable conclusion and workable recommendations.

5. People mostly do stuff in order to please others
If I were to ask you, how many times in a day you are self-driven, what answer would you give me? Can you positively enumerate the number of times you wake up because you want to, go to school/work because you feel that it is important, do those assignments or meet datelines because you know that that is the best thing to do? How many times do you do things willingly and without being begged, pulled, pushed or forced? Just a few, right?
Beginning with myself, I realized that I actually hate school: many hear me proclaim at the top of my lungs that I could (anytime) pay someone to attend classes on my behalf, do my assignments and sit my examinations - that is if it was not against the law. I am rarely self-motivated as far as school is concerned. But I always wonder: who am I doing it for? Who is paying my fees? Who am I trying to please by attending classes and doing all those weird practicals? (I always know that I am the weirdest scientist on all the earth. Yes, I am.) The answer is: I do it all by and for myself.
On the other hand, when it comes to ministry and personal stuff, I can sit down working out on a solution or writing things, or singing or drafting things or meeting my own datelines right until three in the morning. It scares me sometimes, but I have gotten used to it. That is just me: working late to meet personal datelines but throwing away books because they bore me...
My observations pointed out that if we only work harder in order to please our leaders, friends and family members, (or even ourselves), then we are not yet motivated enough. If we only work for the money or the fame, or for maintenance of status within society, then we still are not motivated enough. We need to work and strive for something more, something higher. We need to go to school because it is the right thing to do and go to work because we love doing it, because we are passionate about it, because we want to change the world... By doing this, we will forge less sick-sheets and pull out less lies to lecturers as to why we couldn't be in for their practicals. Yeah, you hear me now...

I'll be back with Part 2, and with an altogether new range of musings and observations...

Bonface Morris.

Mere Objectivity

I must first swear that this blog post was overwhelmingly inspired by a book that I am reading, then after swearing, which is objectively different things in different contexts and to different people, I want to try and make you see and believe in things in a certain way (and I'm not saying that I'm the author of such a determined way, but that I just hope that you see them that way.)
Well...
People quarrel. People do quarrel and disagree all the time. I quarrel. I disagree. A lot. Sometimes for the "right" reasons, but mostly for the "wrong" ones (take the quotes to mean that the words carry their own differences in weight in matters of ethics).
Most of us quarrel (or argue) so that to [just] prove a point, not that [that] point is the right one, but just because the [point] being proven is our point.
But truth is that we cannot universally have the same opinion about everything. We should not. At least in certain instances. This is because (I think) the moment we mutually agree about ALL things, is the very moment we disagree in one way or another with another peoples' agreement elsewhere. I think that we always agree to culture a certain degree of disagreement.

We should quarrel (methinks) because we have the right to objectivity - especially the kind of objectivity that peripherys our "rights" and "beliefs." But this is not a [good] reason to why we should incline ourselves towards thinking that we ARE to win ALL arguments all the time. It is not.
Consider this example »
Two men are arguing over whether a given dog should be fed at noon or in the evening. Of course the argument is not about whether the dog should be fed or not - because they both, to a good extend, agree that this dog should be fed - but about whether one's time of feeding, with regard to another's (or to the dog), is the most appropriate, and probably most effective (although such a probability only creeps in later).
Thus such an argument (the one between these two men feeding that dog) is likely to remain unproductive as far as what time of feeding the dog is the most appropriate; but may be useful because it tendons itself somewhere between two views that are mutually beneficial to a hungry dog... but none of the two should want to win because, after all, the dog is being fed.
And so in a related way, when it comes to religious and philosophical contexts, consider the following arguments and possibilities with regard to fulfilling a certain angst in the human population about understanding and worshipping God, but which unlike in the case of the dog, remain hanging on a fence - neither satisfying the origin nor the course »

1. The atheist freely argues that there is no God. He defends it. In fact he arbitrarily feeds on his defense (so to say) and thinks that this is the best way humanity should figure out life (and God). He thinks that he is feeding the dog well, but is he? Well, he is not.
2. The pantheist says that all roads that are belief systems on this earth lead to one unspecified "God" or deity. He too claims to be feeding the same dog, right? But with useless food.

3. The scientologist and other numerous (and actually useless) New Age religions (and belief systems) elevate man above God. They think that man has soared above the galaxies of belief in one deity and have therefore made him the king of deities. Their dog is overfed, isn't it? Yes, but with trash.

4. The gnostic thinks that it is impossible for there to have existed, amongst mortal beings, a touchable and visible God. Yes, and objectively so, he denies the preference for belief in a once-fully-mortal-and-fully-immortal-God. Mmmhuh? I don't think I want to say much about their dog, these ones, because he's gonna end up crippled.

5. The idealist, realist, naturalist, existentialist and secular humanist
are all drunk with belief that the singular plurality of supernatural influence on this earth does not exist, and parallel themselves against God in a rather "queer" manner. Their dog is in trouble because it eats the same food all day long - deficient and facing malnutrition.

6. The traditional man is the clueless but most concerning type. As far as Africa is concerned, because he either is mostly (and falsely) obeying a deity he calls "God" or he is obeying some misconstrued rules within his culture that battle to put him somewhere near a certain [known] God, he makes tough cuisines for his dog, but I guess it is still craving for more - it is never fully satisfied.

7. The Muslim and most Eastern cultures and beliefs run on slippery ground while trying to feed this dog - one path which I prefer not to tread upon today - which has influenced a great percentage of the "Theo-seeking" group of mankind. His dog is the sleepy and sickly one.

The Christian, being the one on the most extreme end - his own end - somehow being puppeted, and somehow puppeting belief (whatever that means), believes in a God who basically gives a book (the Bible) with instructions pointing towards a Savior for all mankind; a Savior who loudly and unreservedly SAYS or rather, PROCLAIMS for all to hear, that He and only He is the way to the only true God, the truth and the life.
The Judeo-Christian view seems to win for me - and I objectively, and also willingly, follow in its footsteps. And not entirely in the Judeo-Christian worldview (that is if it is a worldview at all), but in the Christian belief system, where our dog is well fed, healthy, happy and hopeful...

With the escalating views on religion and pseudo-beliefs, free-thinking has become a modern way of expression, and each one of us wants to have an opinion to put across. What we believe in has become what we live for. We have become so overopinionated that we (most of the time) don't even understand and/or know what we serially defend.

If all the above belief systems argue and quarrel about being objectively right, I might as well call it madness - maybe because quarrels clutter and breed it (madness).

But within such an argument over beliefs, how do we tell who is right and who is wrong? And where do we base our judgement of right and/or wrong? What is the determining factor? Christ? Christianity? The Bible? Not all of us agree.
If all that matters is that the dog should be fed, are we really on the right path? Should we objectively say that this dog (read, desire to serve a purpose and a given deity) will be okay no matter WHO feeds it, HOW it is fed and WHY it is fed? Should we say that we are all objectively right?

Well, philosophy teaches one law that is important to note: truth cannot exist relatively. It is either absolute or it is not truth. So no matter how "objectively right" we may seem to be in our arguments, only one of us is right. And if we have to apply the laws of logic in such a case, we find that there is no excluded middle in both cases - of feeding a hungry dog and in needing to be subject to a given deity. And no matter how objective we may want our beliefs to be perceived, they all can't be true at the same time. That will be contradictory. We are either feeding the dog with BAD FOOD or we are feeding it with HEALTHY FOOD. Period. No middle ground. It is either one of us is feeding the dog right and the rest are just a useless lot or nothing else.

Our belief systems point us in a certain direction and we defend what we believe because we have come to believe that it is true, regardless of whether we are right or not. Yeah, we have the freedom for argument and quarrel through debate, reason and the so-called dialectics, but truth cannot be changed by mere objectivity. It cannot be changed by "how we, on our own, view the world around us" but rather, by understanding and accepting it as it really is.

Truth is a substance of infallibility, and whether our "philosophies" accept it or not, we should consider once again understanding why Christ Jesus said, "I am the way, THE TRUTH and the life..." (John 14:6), and maybe jump over from "mere objectivity" to "What He said is the TRUTH."

Bonface Morris.

There Is a Difference

I am sitting here again, and as usual, I'm trying to figure out life. (This chair somehow has a right to blame me, hate me or complain about so many things. I think if it had some Kenyan insticts implanted into it - blame my E. coli knowledge for this - it would give in to my weight just about now so that "it would teach me a lesson or two.")

Well, I never get to "getting it" (life), because as far as I know, this is how it rolls: "getting" life is like figuring out the universe while seated down here, right where I am - with my two big eyes and an over-curious mind. It never works. It never does. Why? The earth is out there rotating on its axis, oblivious of my existence (oh, I don't really know about that), carrying me with it, and unless I board a spaceship (some different kind of spaceship), to see it from an outer "world", "getting it" will still remain to be like some sort of video game that reprograms itself every after a few levels...

Something getting into my mind though is this: it is possible (if you frequently visit this blog) that you have read this blog post I did sometime back: "Christianity and Stoicism".
I'm on the offensive in that blog post, right? I won't defend myself. I think I did well on that one. I hit the nail on the hinge. And that's absolutely the purpose for which it was intended. I can't apologize for that.

I want to add a point to the one above though: the difference between this and that (I may not even be knowing what I am differentiating... but you'll get it along the way anyway.) :-P
You see, Christianity in the 21st Century is complicated. Okay, I bet you already know that, so let me pull it back. What if I say that Christianity today is just mud, muddy pools, flying, gardens, fields and rocks? That works, right?

Well, let's move on...

Christianity today is covered in shades of black and white: taints, pains and rains; then, reigns, gains and wins. We often taste life on both sides of the divide. Maybe that's what complicates everything. Perhaps, it's our own doing. Ask King Jesus. Ask Him. He will tell you that Christianity was never meant to be this adversarial. Never. He'll tell you that we are riding on high waters - a place where maintenance costs are froggy. We are literally running on exhumation fees, digging up and paying for what we should have left to be.

For instance, what really happens when you meet a person who is always judgmental and condemning every other person he/she meets? What of the other one who thinks that his/her denomination is "some piece of heaven"? Or yet the other one who grumbles about everything you (a saved lady/guy) do, the way you do it or the reason for which you do it? How do you deal with such a person? What do you normally think of them? An adamant reprobate? Yes?

*Flips page*

What of this other one who says that everything is right so long as it is done with thanksgiving and for the glory of God? (1 Timothy 4:4 [NKJV]: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving" and 1 Corinthians 10:31 [NKJV] "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.") Or his friend who thinks that he/she should not judge another's servant? (Romans 14:4 [NKJV] "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand" and "Romans 14:10 [NKJV] "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.") What do you think of this second one? A conventional freelance Christian? No?

There's a big difference between these two people, no matter what titles we may give them. Just consider the following;

• A Christian who understands that salvation is by grace and not works (Ephesians 3:8-9 [NKJV] "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast") does not judge or condemn the other one who seems to be overtaken (or overwhelmed) by their weaknesses. (And I'm not saying that we should not condemn sin, but that LOVE and WISDOM are key when addressing another person's shortcomings (Galatians 6:1 [NKJV] "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.").) We should all understand that we too were (or have been) in the same place these people are in, and we therefore should stop name-tagging them, but offer them acceptance just as we often need it from God.
• A discussion about holiness should never be centred upon what I am doing that you ain't doing, but what we should do (or should be doing) to achieve the kind of lifestyle that God wants us to live. The former leads to strife and self-righteousness, while the latter makes us work together as a body that seeks to please its Master.

There is a difference between judging a person on the basis of what you do that they don't, and what you both know is right but they don't do.
There is a difference between making the sinner find Christ in we church-going-saved-people, and making them think that the Church is made up of a bunch of confused perfectionists who always take a 'no' for an answer to the sinner seeking deliverance.

We should stop being petty. We should grow up. We should become like Jesus Himself. Christ accepted the sinner as he/she was (good examples are Zaccheus and the Samaritan woman.) We should listen to what the hymn writer says too:
1. Just as I am, without one plea,
But that thy blood was shed for me,
and that thou bidst me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
2. Just as I am, and waiting not
to rid my soul of one dark blot,
to thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come...

The question now is: what are we doing in order to make the difference? How are we dealing with those people in our church congregations that are struggling with sin? How are we correcting the sinner, and edifying the saint? How are we bringing the lost to Christ? Are we completely losing them to sin, or bringing them to the light of Jesus Christ?

Think about it.

The way we do this makes a big difference. So, yes, there is a difference!!


 Bonface Morris.

Christianity and Stoicism

He threatened me the very first time I met him. Fever and all that. Like an apple terrifies a tomato’s peace; or like iOS terrifies something Chinese… He was dumb. I don’t know the right word to use to describe my feeling of his quietness, but he was kind-a like mute. Passive. He tingled my mind to want to understand him. He was a subject of distorted realities. A motionless creature, maybe. I watched him sweep away pain and sensitivity to emotion like the sun peels away the gloom of dark in an amberly way. He threatened the truisms in existence with such ease – counter changeably – like it was a mistake for some things to really make sense, and in his case, any sense at all. I felt like my innermost being really wanted to understand him, it screamed so loud for discernment; yet the other side of me that is always in touch with reality wanted so much to question him… such a creature in mortality that was jumpy in every bit of description. He was beastly and unwitful. Yet at the top of it all, he was Christian…

“But was I less?” I wondered. “Should I have been less? Why should I have been less anyway? Who said I was less? Less Christian than he was, huh?”

Some Christianity lacks emoticons… I should say. I should say that some Christianity lacks emoticons… Some Christianity lacks fun. It lacks motion and fervency. It lacks laughter and easiness. It lacks the life-smile. It lacks joy and passion. It is flat to the ground. It is warped and dead (or dying if I have to be a little ‘fair’), and shriveled, and painful, and weird, and too sharp, and somehow cunning, and brief, and paradoxical and - according to G. K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” - full of orthodoxy, and conventionalism, and blunt (although sharp in some way)… The terms of its existence are like a gas pump without oil…

But we meet it every day. We interact with it. We know it. Maybe sometimes we secretly admire it, and then most times we abhor it. Blunt stoic Christianity. It wants no pleasure, it knows no pain, it cries not, it laughs not, it cares less. Blunt stoic Christianity. It ties itself to spiritual plumpness. It denies pain. It carries with itself lots and lots of heaviness and uneasiness. Blunt stoic Christianity. It is what I have to talk about today.

The Christian life we live today has been overhauled into two extremes: either into a ‘radicalized’ sense of religion with taints of secularism or; into orthodox spirituality which grabs petty laws and converts them into dogmas of religion. In simple terms, you will meet as many Christians as you can’t count who subscribe to the notion that spirituality is being separate from any kind of physical pleasure (say as a result of money or prestige) and the ultimate pretence that pain, sickness and any form or displeasure is intolerable and should neither be existing nor be thought of. It is a life that most of us live - a life lacking the balance between genuine pleasure and materialistic pleasure. We have been taught to abhor pleasure – the whole lot of it – even good pleasure. We are desperate and struggling to live in the “now” that is today. We are struggling so much with the reality that is “now”. We abhor TV – even good TV, we deny the blend of fashion on us – even decent fashion. We don’t watch movies (or soaps). Some of us don’t watch news. We hate the internet and social media because ‘they are impure’. We hate good phones. We hate this and we hate that. We hate those who speak in tongues tagging them as ‘noise makers’ who should just do whatever they are doing in their privacy. We hate people who jump when they praise and worship. We are not friendly, not even to people of the Faith. We don’t even befriend people of the secular world in the name of them making us impure in one way or another (and I am not advocating for ‘befriending pagans’ but that it is important for a Christian to be social and suitable in his/her immediate environment). We are pathetic!

So I always wonder (about such people, like that guy up there and who may include myself) if God at all created pleasure for the secular world or for ‘the heathen’ as most of us love calling them. Were we created to be called to either evade pain or deny it all through our existence? Were we formed in the image of God so that our lives may be full of running away from things or people, even those we love; all in the name of acquiring the highest fonts of spirituality?

I am just wondering.  Am just wondering.

Of course we have been commanded (or instructed) not to engage in any kind of civilian life

(2 Timothy 2:3-4: Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs – he wants to please his commanding officer…) and therefore  should put our obedience in (and to) Christ above our own meager pleasures, remembering mostly where we are headed than where we are. But Christ Himself was in touch with His environment – He knew that he was going to the Father, but still wept when people died, and had compassion on some when they stayed hungry. He was angry and hungry countless times. He made friends - with his disciples and tax collectors, and Pharisees like Nicodemus – many friends, many kinds of friends. Christ was in touch with His immediate environment, although his lack of sin was (and still is) highly impeccable (Hebrews 4:15). This makes me wonder what say, His reaction(s) or behavior would be if he were to meet a guy like me today. I am sure that the Jesus I know would command me, “Don’t be a hypocrite like the Pharisees…!” then He would add some few statements here and there to confirm His allegations (as it would seem to me)… But again I may ask, “What would Jesus do today to remain Holy in such an imperfect and sinful world…?” The answer is simple: He would live a common and normally life without too much religious sophistication, but loving people and smiling at them, and being merciful and compassionate – He is the same Jesus, right? The one who doesn’t change, right? He will still do what He’s gotta do in order to achieve that which the Father sent Him to do – to offer help and redemption to mankind in any (and every) way possible…

Here is the endpoint: you don’t have to feel ‘fake’ or uneasy in the presence of one (or many) who glory in mortal piety and ‘spiritual strictness’, but rather feel inadequate before the One who demands that we obtain from Him immortal righteousness – that which He Himself has made us to become. For we are his righteousness, and not our own righteousness. We don’t have to be hard on ourselves in order to please God. We don’t have to pretend that pain or affection or love or desire does not exist, but learn and know how to channel all of them in a godly way to the rightful place until we achieve that which God has created us to become… his righteousness – and not blunt stoic self-righteous Christians!

Morris.

Christianity, Gnostics and the Negative Philosophy

Argument is not that easy. It is even harder when there is a lot of disagreement. Although relativism concludes that absoluteness of fact is not achievable, and there is only a ‘most probable truth’, there is no way conclusions can exist unless we agree to one code of operation. Even absolute terms in a fact (what we love calling ‘the dogma’), has to face argument for it to qualify (at least for those supporting it) to be Truth in its infallibility.
World philosophies have upped their game of dialectics. Philosophy has become the common food of the intellectual person. It has put the entire globe on the edge of intellectual anticipation and value systems that are warping towards it. Malcolm Muggarage (one of my favorites) writes and says, “We have educated ourselves into imbecility”. I think that’s why our parents fear that we should go to school and ‘read too much’; and it may be the reason for such a verse as Ecclesiastes 12:12, NET BIBLE (Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. There is no end to the making of many books, and much study is exhausting to the body).
But men should argue. They should reason. They should argue and reason constructively. Even God reasons… (Isaiah 1:18, NKJV, “...Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD...”). Men and God reason because by reasoning, the mind’s explosive capabilities are either intuitively or exponentially run into… We can say that reason helps in the dialysis of facts. Reason is the best way to abstractly define or defend a belief. It may not be the only way, but by it the values, likes and dislikes of an oral being are thoroughly explored. It helps us define assumptions, state fears, make our inventions understood and… just talk. It may bring strife but that is what communication always breeds – a war or a peace… So, although all men have the freedom of opinion and the right to reasoning, we just have as less freedom to choose the subjects of those opinions (or reasons if to say) as we have on the decisions that are the aftermath of the same – mainly searching through the recipients and gaging their ability to see through each opinion or reason...
I’ll make it simpler for you…
Atheists have their own opinion on the existence of God. They say there is no God. Strong as it may seem, it is their choice. It is their dogma. Their opium of the mind. They believe that in saying so, many can believe in their opinion. They believe that you should believe them and later believe in them because they believe in nothing… And that the nothing they believe IN is the ultimate cause of all belief and thus should be the object of every other belief… including yours and mine…. And there are many more who believe in humanism, naturalism, existentialism, realism... the list of modern philosophies is endless…
Basically (and for the sake of this post) I will slightly address the belief held by Gnostics. Don’t be scared of the many stupid titles here and there… it is philosophy anyway…
The gnostics believe that a person cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God; and that although they acknowledge there being a God, they don’t deny the possibility of His non-existence... To them, God’s existence is not a problem, the problem is them believing that He can become flesh and still be God… They believe that God eternally exists only as a spirit and can never be flesh; and that Jesus was not a man at all but a man-God… bla, bla, bla… It is here where I find a problem with negative philosophy and the Gnostic culture. Ouch! I’ll have to run through the basics of this negative philosophy some other time…
But on the other side of the philosophical-and-spiritual debate, the Apostle John (that great teacher who with strong statements defends the course of his belief in Christ – his Lord, cousin and best friend – says that He saw and TOUCHED HIM [which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – 1 John 1:1] and that [the Word became flesh… John 1:14]) has words to speak about and against Gnostism and all its branches…
The apostle John cooks us through a momentum of mind stirring battles between Truth and a philosophy of his day (which by the way was not called Gnostism then). He openly displays the fallacy that many Gregorian (and together with Jewish) believers had fallen into due to the love of philosophy as opposed to the love of Truth. That’s why you hear him mention truth in both contexts of the scripture quoted above (if you read the whole text)…
And as Christians, we are tempted to improvise Christianity in order to run in line with modernization. We are tempted to topple Christianity into the communization that is globalism. Do you ever wonder where such religions as Mormonism, New Age and Scientology came from? It was out of desire to make Christianity a globally acceptable religion; a desire to conquer over the scam that are the wrangles between Christianity and its immediate environment anywhere…
We find out that maybe through reasoning, we will define to them (the world and the philosophies therein) why we think they should acknowledge the presence of a supernatural power that eternally exists and eternally controls the universe. Gnostics (even from the time of John the Apostle) believe Christ was not fully human, and that He was a spirit being with a body-like form that was not corruptible... and that we mortals are not capable of reaching that perfection in our ‘weakness’... but the basis of reasoning or argument will be as a tool that will enable is to reach a consensus with them. That consensus will not be by compromise but just like John, through exposing Truth. Truth and only Truth will define to them who Christ really is and what He really desires of them… We as independent Christians choose not to accept others’ views on certain matters concerning belief just as we choose to say, ‘Yes’. Having good reason (and good in this case is not relative) is a keystone factor.
C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity talks about The Law of Human Nature. He says that his arguments are not a platform for promoting one denomination within Christianity over another but rather an aid to assist in making rightful choices. And the act of making rightful choices he says, in his introduction, is like a hall where we all enter and ‘reason within ourselves’ as to which door to knock and later open…
Just like we reason over facts with men, let us reason over Truth with God and men… so that as many as there are in world philosophies, so should there be in the Truth of God…

Sincerely,
Morris.