I’M BACK. . .

For those of you who know me, and for the benefit of those who don't but who would occasionally tune in from time to time, I have struggled mightily with this blog.

I have been torn between what I would like it to be, and what I think God would have it be. Often the two would clash, and rather than do either a disservice, I decided to shut it down.

I am not, by trait, one of those people who comments on how wonderful the day is, or how deep and blue the sky looks, and how wonderful life must be now that we’re all in the Kingdom. I’m not knocking such individuals, God knows when I need a pick me up, I can always count on either calling one of you, or just reading one of your blogs. Like OJ in the morning, it just gets me off to a good start.

But, for me - yes it is all about me isn’t it – I felt and still feel that my biggest contributions lie in calling out the hypocrisy that exists not so much within the world, but within the Kingdom itself. I have never been able to shake this feeling, and believe strongly that it is from God.

But how to proceed? That is the question that plagued me. Clearly some things need to be said, and still do, that are likely to cause waves and ruffle feathers. How does one “call out” such things in a Godly way? How do you cure the disease without killing the patient?

One of the things I have always admired most about Paul was how he was always able to cut right to the chase. If he saw something that needed rebuking he would come right out and say it, regardless of how it might be received. In 2 Corinthians 7:8-13, Paul writes, “Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it, I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while, yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this Godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter. So even though I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong or of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are. By all this we are encouraged.”

Now before you all start blogging in, let me just head you off at the pass and come right out and say it, I am certainly no Paul! The last I checked I was not chained to a dungeon wall, did not have death threats against my life, nor even had anywhere near the obstacles with which he had to overcome. Though, the way my career is going, one could say if I don’t get it together soon, well let’s just say I will have a lot of time on my hands to blog!

But, though I am no Paul, I do have several things in common with him. I know what it is like to persecute people I don’t even know, to prejudge them, to sin against them. Like Paul and, in deed, so many of the main characters in the Bible, I am a chip off the old block. I find it strangely encouraging that God seems to seek out such scoundrels as me to do His bidding. With the exception of Jesus, there isn’t anybody in the whole Bible who was righteous enough to get into heaven; and even Jesus needed to draw on His Heavenly Father for strength.

So with that in mind, now what? What do I do about this blog and how do I proceed?

The topics are easy and, sadly, plentiful. But the real trick will be how to expose the truth in a way that as I mentioned earlier cures the disease without killing the patient. I will have to rely on God to show me the way.

Over the next few weeks some of the topics I will tackle will be as follows:

Dividing and Conquering: How the Conservative Right Squashes Real Debate Within the Evangelical Community, Thus Preventing The True Works Of Jesus To Flourish.

How Green Was My Valley, How Big Is My Church: Christianity As Big Business. This one is going to hit close to home.

All In The Godly Family: The Pluralistic Argument That Won’t Go Away.

Monkey See Monkey Do: What The Unchurched See Going On Within Our Ranks, and Why It Matters.

Genesis and Revelation: The Two Books That Never Seem To Go Away, and Why Certain Pastors Can’t Resist Quoting From Them.

Science and Religion – Oil and Vinegar or Hand and Glove?

The Way We Never Were: How and Why The Right Insists On Rewriting The Past.

One Nation Under God: State-Sponsored Religion and What The Founding Fathers Really Had To Say About It.

Of course I’m sure I’ll come up with other topics in due time. In the meantime, I would appreciate all the prayer any of you might be willing to throw my way. God knows I’ll need it.

Until next time…

REINVENTING THE WHEEL OF RECOVERY: Knowing When To Leave Well Enough Alone.

No doubt most, if not all, of you are familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous. In deed many of you either attend, or know of a friend or family member who attends, that fellowship. Well lately a movement has arisen among Christians to “better define” the term Higher Power that Alcoholics in this program often site. The movement is called Celebrate Recovery, a “Christ-centered” 12-step ministry founded in 1991 by John Baker, an associate pastor of Saddleback Church. To quote Baker, its purpose “is to fellowship and celebrate God's healing power in our lives through the "8 Recovery Principles." This experience allows us to "be changed." By working and applying these Biblical principles, we begin to grow spiritually. We become free from our addictive, compulsive and dysfunctional behaviors. This freedom creates peace, serenity, joy and most importantly, a stronger personal relationship with God and others. As we progress through the program we discover our personal, loving and forgiving Higher Power - Jesus Christ, the one and only true Higher Power.”

The 8 Recovery Principles are as follows:

Principle 1 -
Realize I'm not God; I admit that I am powerless to control my tendency to do the wrong thing and my life is unmanageable.

"Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor"

Principle 2 -
Earnestly believe that God exists, that I matter to him, and that he has the power to help me recover.

"Happy are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted"

Principle 3 -
Consciously choose to commit all my life and will to Christ's care and control.

"Happy are the meek"

Principle 4 -
Openly examine and confess my faults to God, to myself, and to someone I trust.

"Happy are the pure in heart"

Principle 5 -
Voluntarily submit to every change God wants to make in my life and humbly ask Him to remove my character defects.

"Happy are those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires"

Principle 6 -
Evaluate all my relationships; Offer forgiveness to those who have hurt me and make amends for harm I've done to others except when to do so would harm them or others.

"Happy are the merciful" "Happy are the peacemakers"

Principle 7 -
Reserve a daily time with God for self examination, Bible readings and prayer in order to know God and His will for my life and to gain the power to follow His will.

Principle 8 -
Yield myself to God to be used to bring this Good News to others, both by my example and by my words.

"Happy are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires"

In the forward to Celebrate Recovery, Rick Warren, head pastor of Saddleback, writes, “Most people are familiar with the classic 12 step program of A.A. and other groups. While undoubtedly many lives have been helped through the twelve steps, I've always been uncomfortable with that program's vagueness about the nature of God, the saving power of Jesus Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. So I began an intense study of the Scriptures to discover what God had to say about "recovery." To my amazement, I found the principles of recovery, and even their logical order, given by Christ in his most famous message, the Sermon on the Mount.”

Warren is not alone in his belief about the “vagueness” concerning the nature of God in A.A. and other 12-step programs. There is a prevailing and pervading sentiment among certain groups, particularly Christian groups, that the 12-step process is not only vague on God, but that it is not even spiritual. Such sentiments have sadly taken root because of two key factors, neither of which has ever represented A.A. or any other 12-step group: The first is sheer ignorance; the second is misapplication. A look at both is in order.

Most of the critics of A.A. fall into two categories: those who have never been a part of it, and hence have no idea what goes on at an actual meeting; and those who have gone, but who have refused to apply the basic “spiritual” principles of the program. While neither speaks on behalf of the program – in deed A.A. has no official spokesperson – both end up defining for the world what A.A. is. I suppose the rest are too busy staying sober!

I won’t dwell on the latter – those who simply refuse to “work” the program. I’ll leave such souls to the torment of their disease. Instead, I wish to concentrate on the group that seems obsessed with branding A.A. as a non-spiritual (i.e. non-Christian) program. This obsession has its roots in a belief that if only the 12 steps of A.A. simply defined God from a Christian perspective then the power of Christ would be unleashed in the lives of millions of people, thus permanently freeing them from their “addictive, compulsive and dysfunctional behaviors,” as Baker put it. Such a 12-step group would be truly unique in its approach, a successor to the venerable, if worn out, ambiguity of A.A.

If only Baker and Warren actually knew the true origins of Alcoholics Anonymous, actually knew something about what they were talking about, their demeanor, and that of countless others, might be different. For those who care, and for those who already know, it is time to pull back the curtain and get at the truth of the matter.

For those who believe that until 1991, there had never been a Christ-centered recovery program, I present to you the Oxford Group. The group was a self-styled first-century Christian movement founded by Frank Buchman, a Protestant evangelist, in about 1919. It advocated finding God through surrender to Him, a moral inventory, a confession of defects, elimination of sin, restitution, reliance upon God, and helping others. It appeared from the successes of several alcoholics in the Oxford Group that a conversion experience (which they chose to call a spiritual experience, and later a "change") would relieve alcoholics of the mental obsession that kept sending them back to alcoholism after periods of sobriety.

One of its members, Ebby Thacher, visited an old school friend of his, Bill Wilson, in November of 1934. Wilson had been hospitalized several times over the years for alcohol poisoning and had been warned that he would wind up either dead or in an asylum if he did not stop. Still, though he knew the state of his malady, he found he didn’t have the will to keep from drinking. Ebby announced, “I’ve got religion.” Then he proceeded to tell Bill of his story. In Bill’s own words, "My friend sat before me, and he made the point-blank declaration that God had done for him what he could not do for himself."

Bill was deeply impressed by Ebby's words, but was even more affected by Ebby's example of action. Here was someone who drank like Bill drank - and yet Ebby was sober, due to a simple religious idea and a practical program of action.

Sadly, Bill would need to make one more trip to the hospital due to his drinking. While there, he finally had what many have called a conversion. The Conference approved biography, Pass It On, quotes Bill as describing this experience: "What happened next was electric. Suddenly, my room blazed with an indescribably white light. I was seized with an ecstasy beyond description. Every joy I had known was pale by comparison. The light, the ecstasy - I was conscious of nothing else for a time.

”Then, seen in the mind's eye, there was a mountain. I stood upon its summit, where a great wind blew. A wind, not of air, but of spirit. In great, clean strength, it blew right through me. Then came the blazing thought, "You are a free man." I know not at all how long I remained in this state, but finally the light and the ecstasy subsided. I again saw the wall of my room. As I became more quiet, a great peace stole over me, and this was accompanied by a sensation difficult to describe. I became acutely conscious of a Presence, which seemed like a veritable sea of living spirit. I lay on the shores of a new world."

Bill questioned whether he had a genuine conversion or was on the verge of madness. Dr. Silkworth advised him that "hopeless alcoholics" sometimes report conversion experiences before being "turned around" toward recovery. Ebby brought Bill a copy of William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. Silkworth had also read this book, which contained many conversion accounts. Bill spent the better part of the day poring through its contents and concluded that his experience was like those reported by James. Silkworth advised Bill that he had undergone a genuine conversion. In AA Comes of Age, Bill states that Dr. Silkworth "reminded me of Professor William James's observation that truly transforming spiritual experiences are nearly always founded on calamity and collapse."

Bill found that his own sobriety seemed to grow stronger when he shared his personal alcoholic experience with other alcoholics. He was on the verge of a relapse while on a business trip to Akron, Ohio. Desperate, he decided to phone local ministers from the lobby of his hotel and ask if they knew of alcoholics he could talk to. Eventually, he found his way to Dr. Bob Smith, another hopeless alcoholic. The two talked for hours about their respective problems. Dr. Bob would eventually go out on one more spree before finally putting down alcohol for good. That date was June 10, 1935, the official birth of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Unfortunately, Ebby, the man who brought the message of hope to Bill, would end up getting drunk, and for the remaining years of his life would continue to battle alcoholism. He eventually died in 1966. He was never able to come to grips with his disease, and often resented the fact that Bill was thought of as the founder of A.A.

As for the Oxford Group, prior to World War II it changed its name to Moral Re-Armament, in a belief that divine guidance would prevent war from breaking out. While Bill and Dr. Bob were inspired by the Oxford Group, they eventually split with the group because of one – and only one – underlying reason. While it was true that many alcoholics found hope in the spiritual principles espoused by the group, its primary mission statement (or primary purpose, if you will) was not to help alcoholics recover from alcoholism; it was to encourage non-believers to convert to Christianity. Like Ebby, it put the cart before the horse. While A.A. would grow into the program we know today, spawning more than a dozen off-chutes, the Oxford Group became a footnote in the annals of recovery.

Christianity has been responsible for bringing the message of Christ to millions of people, and in the process, has brought light and salvation to the world. But it was not until A.A. was formed that a program of true recovery, where the alcoholic can finally find freedom from his or her affliction, was made available to the world.

For those who still insist that its spirituality is vague, I give you these parting words from Dr. Bob. “If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you. If you still think you are strong enough to beat the game alone, that is your affair. But if you really and truly want to quit drinking liquor for good and all, and sincerely feel that you must have some help, we know that we have an answer for you. It never fails, if you go about it with one half the zeal you have been in the habit of showing when you were getting another drink. Your Heavenly Father will never let you down!”

People who worship the coffee pot at a meeting are no measure of the true success of any 12-step program, let alone the grand daddy of them all. If it bothers you that the word Christ does not appear in the Third Step, well then get over it. There are countless Jewish and Muslim people who got sober through A.A. Some of them might even have gotten saved later on in their journey. All deserved the same chance at recovery that you and I got. In deed, my own journey led me first to A.A., then to Christ. Imagine if when I first walked into an A.A. meeting and was told I had to accept Jesus first before I could get sober, what my response would’ve been. I dare say I would not be around to witness to God, much less write a blog about it.

If we truly believe in a God that pre-ordained everything from the beginning of time, then he must’ve willed that there would be an A.A. where the struggling alcoholic could be relieved from his malady, walk free under His direction, and spread the light of freedom to others who still struggled. If that isn’t spiritual, I don’t know what is. Why would anyone in their right mind want to mess with something like that? Would that the rest of the world be so uncomplicated. If you feel that you need more than A.A. in your walk, fine, but for God’s sake, let’s stop trying to reinvent a wheel that never needed to be reinvented in the first place.

Let’s, as they say in the rooms, Keep It Simple!

DUMB AND DUMBER: How Corporate America takes out its garbage.

“What did you do on your vacation, Peter?”

“I went to sunny and warm Florida and got a chance to relax. How about you?

“I got a chance to see a radio icon commit suicide.”

“That’s the last time I take a vacation during sweeps!”

Yes, as hard as it may be to believe, legendary, hall of fame radio personality Don Imus threw himself on his sword as it were, quite possibly ending an otherwise prestigious, if tumultuous, 36 year career over his remarks towards the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team. The now infamous phrase “nappy-headed hos” will join ranks with other illustrious comments, like, “I did not have sex with that woman” and “I’m not a crook.”

What strikes me most about this spectacle is not the outlandishness of the remark; anyone paying attention over the last four decades probably had the “pleasure” of hearing worse language from him. Nor is it even the clamor from outraged minority groups, lead particularly by Al Sharpton whom Newsday’s Shawn Powell correctly referred to as a racial ambulance chaser. No, the remark was repugnant and the outrage justified. One could say that Imus finally got what he deserved. In an ironic twist of fate, after years of playing Russian roulette, critics argued he finally caught the bullet.

But did he deserve the bullet, and why, after all those tumultuous years of deriding and, in many cases, defaming people, did this political and emotional tidal wave finally take him out? Race is the ultimate four-letter word in American society; after three centuries, it is still a hot button for the body politic. While it is true that African Americans are treated far better now than they were, say, forty years ago – lynchings and cross burnings are virtually a thing of the past – critics say that America still has a considerable way to go to mend the damage of that legacy. So when anyone, especially someone in the position of Imus, cracks a remark that touches a nerve among such an historically discriminated group, there are consequences that must be doled out.

But did the consequences fit the crime? Certainly no one with half a brain could argue that Imus should get off scott free for his remarks, but shouldn’t the actions that both NBC and CBS took over the last two weeks bare an equal and complicit review? As Warner Wolf would say, “Let’s go to the video tape.”

Wednesday, April 4, Imus is in the middle of a comedy bit with Bernard McGuirk when he utters his now infamous comment. Both laugh heartily, not realizing the under-water sea quake that they just started.

Thursday, April 5, Imus tells listeners to get over it; that it was just street language. The tsunami begins headed for the shore.

Friday, April 6, with protests coming into both WFAN and MSNBC officials, Imus issues an apology for the remarks. The tsunami picks up momentum and speed.

Monday, April 9, five days after the original remarks, NBC and CBS, within hours of each other, as if trying to out do each other, finally issue statements condemning the remarks as “deplorable.” A giant “duh” is heard emanating from the African American community. Both networks agree to suspend him for two weeks, the suspension to begin the following week. The wave is within striking distance of the shoreline. Later that day Imus goes on Al Sharpton’s radio show and with already one foot squarely in his mouth, he inserts the other foot by referring to both Sharpton and a black congresswoman as “you people.” Turn over steak and apply seasoning!

Wednesday, April 11, one full week after the initial insulting remarks, MSNBC decides to drop the Imus in the Morning show from its simulcast, effective immediately. Water recedes from the shoreline as on lookers see a massive wave off in the distance headed straight for them.

Thursday, April 12, late in the afternoon, CBS radio follows MSNBC’s lead and fires Don Imus. A statement issued by CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, said, "From the outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and repulsed by the statements that were made on our air about the young women who represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship with such class, energy and talent." The tidal wave finally sweeps ashore, taking out the man most thought to be impenetrable and indestructible.

While Moonves’ statement was accurate, if superficial, in its theme, why did it take over a week to issue? Was Don Imus any less insulting or repulsive last Wednesday when he made his comments? Of course not, but last Wednesday all he was was a loud-mouth shock jock who uttered another in a series of questionable remarks. No one at either network could have anticipated the groundswell of public outrage and furor that was to come. What is the most repulsive thing about this entire episode is not the fact that an aging white man uttered a phrase more commonly heard on a hip-hop album, but rather the conduct of both NBC and CBS. By waiting as long as they did to take action – five days! - they exacerbated an already tense situation, until, finally with sponsors bailing on them left and right, they had no choice but to remove Imus, just to stop the hemorrhaging. All the high-brow, altruistic comments made by both companies were nothing more than a feeble attempt to placate an outraged community who kept insisting on blood and the corporate sponsors, who were themselves concerned about their own image. Imus became the poster boy for all that was wrong with American race relations. Somebody please pass me the barf bag.

Ironically, the TRUE victims in this messy affair, the Rutgers’ Women’s Basketball Team, have proven themselves the only decent and courageous party. If anyone had a right to get on their high horse and scream for vengeance, it was those 10 young women and their coach. But instead of calling for Imus’ head, all of them wanted to meet the man who slandered them, and get to know him and hopefully give him a chance to know them. Their class and dignity, in an otherwise vulgar scenario, should have set an example for the country and laid the foundation for a true dialogue into the problems in our country. Instead the focus has been on Imus and his storied career.

In the end what got Imus canned was not so much his mouth, though it certainly played a role, but the underlying fear within corporate America that whatever rocks the boat and threatens the bottom line must be dealt with in the harshest of terms. In deed Imus’ greatest crime might have been that he bit the hand that fed him. The very same networks that financially benefited from his off-color humor and abrasive personality, when they saw their profits threatened, turned on him like a tiger eating its young. And like the tsunami that swept onto shore to devour the invincible, when it was finally done receded back into the ocean leaving in its wake the aftermath of its destruction.

Imus will be back, perhaps sooner than most expect. The backlash against his firing is already gaining its own sort of tsunami, though not nearly as big as the one that lead to his dismissal. And the reason he will be back is very basic and simple: he makes his employers money. You may call them shallow and transparent, but company executives know a cash cow when they see one. But when, and in what manner will he return? Will it be on terrestrial radio, or on satellite? Already there are rumors that Sirius may sign him. Sirius president Scott Greenstein was Imus’ old boss when the two worked at WNBC in the 1980s. It was Greenstein who signed Howard Stern to his multi-million dollar contract two years ago. Satellite might well become the perfect venue for Imus to reconstitute his damaged reputation, and given what will likely be a very rigid and carefully-watched landscape in radio and television, could prove to be the only outlet that will have him.

It has been said that politics make strange bedfellows. They got nothing on corporate America!