Translate

Showing posts with label Michael Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Jackson. Show all posts

Monday, July 13, 2009

"Works" Do They Have Any Value With God?

This One Is For The Serious Bible Student!

Back To This Week's Lesson:
The scripture you use pertains to saints. The bible was written to (the) believer and not non believers. It says a brother that would mean a brother in Christ Jesus. In the end our good works will mean nothing. Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through fait, and not of works, lest anyone should boast. Read also verses 10-13. We are to be about the work of God .What ever we do in word or deed we should do all in the name of Jesus. MJ did not not do these things for the glory of God. To God be the glory. Peace out. K. Nichols~July 13, 2009 9:53 AM


I received this comment in my recent post The SIN Factor In that post the material works of Michael Jackson were pointed out by many of our commentors. Based on a few of the opposing inquiries and assertions it was obvious to see that funadamentalism, as it pertains to works, has taken its toll on certain individual's ability to recognize and understand the relationship of good works to a sinner's life and ultimately the judgement of God. There were two basic assertions made as it pertains to the works of a sinner:

1- A Person's Works Mean Nothing To God. (Although this statement was made without qualification it's easy to see that it was pertaining to the works of a sinner in particular)

2- The Bible Wasn't Written To And For The Benefit Of Sinners.

First of all, the good works of a sinner need not intimidate a Christian although a Christian should be ashamed to serve Christ and not present good works to a God who is worthy of our entire being including our works. Works done by men in general, although are not salvific, they are yet encouraged by God, noted by God and are blessed by God whether one is a Saint or a sinner.

Does God Not Acknowledge The Works Of Men?

The plain and simple fact is that God certainly acknowledges the works of men and mankind among both saint and sinner. Since God acknowledges works of sin to provide eternal judgement of those works, and works of righteousness to provide eternal reward, it is incumbent upon the critic to set forth a biblical case as to why God would suddenly overlook the good works of sinner while simultaneously acknowledging and punishing their bad works called sin.

The heart is an abundant treasure for either good or bad. The best good that can come from the heart is repentance with the intent to serve the Lord. Although this is not the point of this article, it is diffucult for the observer to know when God has accepted the soul and heart of individuals and we are simply limited by human abilities. In some cases there could be repentance which we are unaware of. Such testimony of an instance is found within the book of Acts when Peter encountered Cornelius. I have set forth a clear and biblically centered case regarding Cornelius in Cornelius, Was He Already A Believer? on the Dunamis Word 2.

The scripture records:

Acts 10:34-35~"34-Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35-But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

In Peter's reconciling of the promise of God upon non-Jewish ethnic groups, Peter came to the realization that God had no variance or class agenda "but in every nation"(Gk: ethnos ie: ethnic group of people), that "feared him"(Gk: phobeo- reverence or treat with obesiance)and did righteously, "worketh righteousness"(Gk: ergavzomai - to make righteous their business, labor or work) that God would bless them. The critic asserts that the "blessing" is upon them that "feared him" therefore blessings are reserved for the works of saved folk only. They key here is in understanding how could a nation of people that didn't know him come to fear him, reverence him and give obesience to him mysteriously?

The Unqualified Blessing Of Abraham

One of the first biblical constructs of unqualified blessing is contained within the blessing we find upon Abraham in Genesis 12. There were 7 blessings outlined upon him and his seed:


Genesis 12:1-4~"1-Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2-And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3-And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The 7 blessing were:

1- Make of thee a great nation
2- I will bless thee
3- I will make thy name great
4- Thou shalt be a blessing
5- I will bless them that bless thee
6- Curse them that curse thee
7- In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed

Many people,without cause, immediately reserve the blessing that was pronounced upon Abraham for the saint or one who is in communion with God. If one were to consistently apply that method of hermenutic the "curse" would also have to be reserved for and only upon the saint also. From diligent study we realize that quite the contrary is true however, and efforts to make the scripture apply to only one class of persons do not hold spiritual water and as assertions do not hold value. By virtue of our assessment here, we can also see that scripture is not contained to them that have relationship to God or are within his Kingdom. The word of promise, both blessings and curse extend to and are made available to the whole world, saint and sinner alike.

Anatomy Of The Blessing

The facts are that the first 4 blessings are by God's declaration and are upon Abraham and his seed directly. The last 3 blessings are communal and are upon Abraham as it relates and pertains to the interractions with individuals within the community. For those communal blessings there are no qualifications as to who will receive or qualify to receive the blessing, or who will receive the curse or any limitation upon the families that will be blessed because of Abraham.

Since this verse pronounces "unqualified blessings" and "curses", upon the works of individuals, the works of the sinner in obtaining that blessing or curse CANNOT be excluded.

Quick Note: We know the ultimate blessing is the blessing of salvation that is received through the lineage of Abraham through Jesus Christ, and made available for the whole earth, however the promise here is not to the exclusion of non savific blessings. In other words there are more blessings indicated through this verse than blessings only pertaining to salvation.

The Principle Of Right Judgement Of Works & Actions:

In one of the most compelling parts of an argument like this is the acknowledgement that the judgement of the "wicked' has always been proportionate to the sin committed by the sinner. This is what I call the principle of right judgement. This principle is established in the book of Deuteronomy:

Deut. 25:1-4~1-If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. 2-And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. 3-Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee. 4-Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn

In order to understand this verse and what is being said we must note the following

1- Not every wicked man is "worthy to be beaten"
2- The wicked is only beaten according to his "fault"
3- The Punishment was not to be to the utter embarassment or humilation of the one being punished.

Jesus acknowledged this same type of sentiment in Luke:

Lk. 12:41-48~"41-Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? 42-And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 43-Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 44-Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. 45-But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46-The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47-And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48-But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Jesus viewed the unrighteous works of the believer as accounted among the "unbeliever" or the wicked servants. The key here is that the works of both the wicked and the righteous were evaluated, weighed and adjudicated as to what punishment sould be given. Therefore the "works" of an individual mattered whether one was righteous or not.

Works Of Individuals Are Acknowledged By God:

Finally it is not without saying that works of individuals are both encouraged, acknowledged and promoted by God and they too in many instances are without qualification:

In the previous post Oregonsistah set forth these scriptures:

1 John 3:17-18~"17-But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 18-My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

This scripture contextually deals with the compassion of the Christian towards another Christian, but one should ask is the intent of this scripture limited to Christian compassion only? It is better understood that this scripture is a model or standard whereby the saved (Christian) ministers to the unsaved both by example and practice and is not a restriction in ministering to the outside community. Once again a radical left wing hermenutic will promote classism even in applying the standard of love. However it is abundandtly clear that the Christian is to both be and show love both within and without the Kingdom of Christ.

Rom. 12:9 ~ "Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."

If our standard of love was to be without dissimulation (Gk: anupovkrito ~ unfeigned, without hypocrisy and undisguised) then we cannot justify that this scripture is exclusively for displays of love from Christian to Christian. To insist on that type of treatment for this verse or any contained within scripture is absurd.

Further the New Testament church understood the correlation between works and faith. James set it forth like this:

James 2:15-17~"15-If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16-And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17-Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

To say that God somehow overlooks "works" of anyone at any level is beyond scripture and feeds into conjecture and our desire to compartmentalize the actions and behaviors of God.

In another example, Jesus gave the scenario of the judgement to the disciples. You will see 2 groups of people. Sheeps and goats. Everyone thinks they know who the sheeps are (the children of God)but the question is who are the goats and why were there duties the same as the Sheep's?

Mt.25:31-46~"31-When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32-And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33-And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34-Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35-For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36-Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37-Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38-When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39-Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40-And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41-Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42-For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43-I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44-Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45-Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46-And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

The things we note from this scenario of judgement;

1- Only them that had works were called "righteous" v.37
2- The blessing was extended to them because they had done these works to the "Lord" through serving "the lest of my brethern" v.40
3- Those that were "cursed" were cursed because they did nothing.
4- Those that were cursed failed to serve "the least of these" v.46, which is a language change from v.40

The works of righteousness stand before us and with us:

Rev. 14:13 ~ “And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.”

Comparative Sins, Righteousness & Judgement

In one of the most startling comparisons found in the New Testament Mt. 11:20-24 and Lk. 10:12-16 we find that Jesus compares both the sin and judgements of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum to the judgements of Sodom and Gommorah saying that the latter would be judged greater than the former cities because they rejected Jesus and his word in a more personal fashion.

Mt. 11:20-24 ~ "20-Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 21-Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22-But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23-And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24-But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."

From A Humanistic Standpoint

Works, whether of righteous or unrighteous individuals can help save lives and change fortunes of the receipients. Some individuals have tapped into that free flow of of giving without qualification. Paul understood this concept and Luke records his comments toward the principle:

Acts 20:35 ~ "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."

A person's "works" mean something both to God and men as God does not overlook any actions among men. God is not capricious or arbritrary in his judgements towards men...His judgements are right therefore all things and considerations are included within it. If a sinner feeds the hungry that meal should be equally accepted as if the righteous were providing the food. Certainly the good deed will not be overlooked either by god or mankind. Assertion to the contrary are ridiculous notions.

The ultimate judgement of the soul is made on one essential point that cannot be purchased with anything other than repentant faith, however God acknowledges even the least gesture of grace compassion and mercy extended among men toward men because we have been created in HIS likeness and image above all of creation and extension of service towards one another is among the higher calls in life.

Summary Questions:

Does God Despise Blessing Sinners? NO

Does God Have A Covenant Relationship With Sinners? NO, not until the sinner repents, then he/she becomes a Christian.

Can A Sinners Works Save Him? NO. (Ephes. 2:8-9)

Can a Sinner's Works Cause Him/Her To Be Blessed? Absolutely.

Are The Works Of Sinners Acknowledged By God? Certainly. God acknowledges, blesses and even curses individuals for their works.

Do the Works Of Sinners Have Value Before God? Absolutely and without question. In fact in some instances sinners bring blessings into their lives through acts of grace or kindness and noone but God orchestrates true blessings upon the lives of people.

Was The Bible Written For The Benefit Of Sinners? Certainly. The message is the power of God unto salvation (Rom.1:16) unto salvation and blessing for all to adhere to. The desire os that one will be saved by it's message but application of biblical principles in life will even bless a sinner.

Conclusion:

The Christian performs works as an outgrowth of a committment to Christ. As stated works cannot save but as one should be able to see, this is a common sense argument.

Many of us can identifiy sinners in our life that have been blessed, acknowledge that the blessing is from God and are yet unsaved. Still many others can acknowledge individuals who serve the community faithfully and rightfully but are yet not saved. Those things happen around us everyday and those works and actions are very important to many individuals including them that are saved.

It is a shame that many in the church would be so predjudicial as to pervert the biblical message of serving humanity just because certain "works" were not done by persons that served the Lord. Please keep in mind that 2 of the wealthiest men in the United States (Bill Gates & Warren Buffet) do not honor or fear the Lord. Their works will not buy them salvation at any price however, no one can challenge the effectiveness of their gifts, the works that they have rendered to the world and in many cases the benefits that believers and their families and churches have received as a result of the efforts of these men.

God values the works of all men who take the time to selflessly display the kindness and concern for others. The Christian should set the pace for this, but oftentimes falls into the trap of self-righteousness and classism. When will the church turn to bless the world that we live in? I'll tell you when, when we repent and begin to serve one another and all of humanity!

Blessed!


Read more!

Thursday, July 9, 2009

The SIN Factor

Matthew 12:34-35 ~ "34-O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35-A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."

I had not planned on taking time to go further into the Michael Jackson story or related issues surrounding his death, that is at least until I sat down to watch Bill O'Rielly's "The Factor"on FOX Wed. July 8th 2009.

In one of the most strange and insulting interviews that I have ever seen by a "supposed" professional news talk show host, Mr. O'Rielly set out to receive a response from Rev. Al Sharpton on a prior interview with Republican Congressman Peter King Of New York. Remember Peter King openly alleges (against a unanimous 12-0 jury decision) that Michael Jackson was a serial pedophile and child molester and that news coverage of his memorial and events leading to the memorial were excessive and shows that America has totally lost its sense of value and morals. (I got news for him, America had lost much of that long BEFORE Michael Jackson's death, and it began with arrogant individuals like himself...If he could pulled his pious and racist head out of the sand long enough, he may see that, if only but for a minute)

In the response interview segment, Rev. Sharpton's only point was that it was irresponsible for a "lawmaker" (Congressman King) to repeatedly disrespect the rule of law (which he is sworn to uphold) by continuing to make criminal allegations of Michael Jackson's guilt especially since he was acquitted of all 10 counts that were brought against him in the 2004-2005 trial in Santa Barbara, CA.

In a particularly strange exchange, Mr. O'Rielly challenged the statements of Rev. Sharpton who said that Michael Jackson was an influential post civil rights era entrepreneur that opened many doors for blacks in the entertainment industry and had a positive impact on American culture.

Specifically, Rev. Sharpton gave 3 basic facts in support of his statements. He said:

1- Michael was the first black musician/entertainer to break into the short film/video era with the directing of his short story videos which were the first of their kind opening opportunities for industry professionals to expand their talents and impact in the entertainment field.

2- He stated that Michael was a leader, employing and opening the doors for many black entertainers and musicians who would go on to have successful careers and carry on other efforts and ventures of significance.

3- He stated that Michael was the first musician to use his platform to raise significant amounts of money to aid children in Africa to the tune of over $50 Million in the "We Are The World" collaborative venture and further gave record setting amounts of his earnings to charitable causes around the world.


Rev. Sharpton asked Mr. O'Rielly "are these not FACTS" about what Michael Jackson did? Mr. O'Rielly responded by saying;

"THOSE THINGS ARE NOT IMPORTANT"

Mr. O'Rielly then stuck his foot further in his mouth (even though it was already out of his posterior by then) and questioned the race of Michael Jackson's children and Michael's parentage of those children by making this statement;

"If Michael was so dedicated to the cause of blacks, then why did he have white children?"..."You don't become an African-American icon when you do something like that,"

Now, I don't intend to argue either of these points biblically in this post. However these are some observations that I couldn't help but make. Alone either of these statements are horrific and worthy of never watching "The Factor" again. Combined, these statements show the persistent and ever evolving racism, jealously, rage and SIN bound in the hearts of people like Bill O'Rielly, Congressman King and others that think like them.

What Must Be Said

Aside fro the fact that O'Rielly is STUPID, his dogmatic assertions should be examined. First, he tells black people what type of icon, they should have and accept. I wonder who died and made Bill O'Rielly the king of black people all of a sudden, or who gave him his grand insights into what black people need to have? Further, NO ONE questions Angelina Jolie's and Brad Pitt's race or iconic status because they have adopted black children. Further NO ONE questions Madonna's iconic status or dedication and sincerity to the black child that she adopted. In neither case are these stars commitments to their communities or race questioned Why is the parentage of blacks, who wish to parent white children, suddenly called into question, because the children are white? Why is the desire to be a parent across racial lines, considered not being faithful to one's race?

Then let's go to O'Rielly's prior STUPID remark...You mean to tell me, that economic opportunity for blacks (who are American citizens) is UNIMPORTANT? Proving aid to those starving and dying with disease around the world is an UNIMPORTANT venture? Mr. O'Rielly, did you suggest or tell this to Bono? By your standards his works are UNIMPORTANT also???

I suppose the only thing that's IMPORTANT to Mr. O'Rielly is unwanted phone sex and sexting in the afternoons or between shows at FOX studios???

Mr. O'Rielly's statements are from a person who is blinded by hate, and feels that his agenda is the most important thing in the world for all men. Bill O'Rielly and people like him live and seeth hatred covered up with an emotional appeal that sounds good but that does nothing to address issues at hand.

It was to the O'Rielly /King types(Pharisees)that Jesus said:

Matthew 23:27-28 ~ " 27-Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28-Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

I pray that America will turn back to what works and we already know that's God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Only he can take the hate and pain away.

Blessed!

Update: Here is a portion of the transcript from the show as found on O'Rielly's Site Part 1 deals with O'Rielly's disregard for the works of Jackson while he was alive. Part 2 Deals with the "white children" issue. The video is in the transcript so you can view both Sharpton's and King's interviews in their entirety:

Part 1

SHARPTON: What I said was that Michael Jackson, in his career, pop culture, broke down racial barriers. First black to get MTV to run black videos, his. First black to get people like Rolling Stone to have blacks on the cover. These are facts. This is not my guess. That "We Are the World" was the first time a superstar got other superstars to help African hunger. This is a fact. You may not like it, Mr. King may not like it, but those are facts. And I think that for me to say that there is for you and anyone else to raise allegations about his personal life doesn't answer the facts of what he did. He brought people together. This is as irresponsible as someone saying we're going to honor President X in history, and I say but President X…

O'REILLY: All right.

SHARPTON: ...in his personal life did so and so. What does it have to do with the fact that he was president?

O'REILLY: I heard — did you…

SHARPTON: Did Michael Jackson not do the things I just outlined?

O'REILLY: Yeah, but they're not important.

SHARPTON: Well, then that's why…

O'REILLY: They're not important.

SHARPTON: They're not important?

O'REILLY: No, what MTV does isn't important. What Rolling Stone magazine does is not important.

SHARPTON: It is important to the millions of people that bought his records.

O'REILLY: And that's OK.

SHARPTON: He is the top record seller in the world.

O'REILLY: Good. Look, you used to work for James Brown.

Notice how O'Rielly caught himself and went from the works of Michael Jackson not being important to MTV and Rolling Stone Magazine not being important. Look at the video to see if you see the same thing that the transcript records.

Part 2:

O'REILLY: Answer me this. I heard a lot of people yesterday — and I think you were one of them, but correct me if I'm wrong — saying that Michael Jackson was some kind of African-American icon.

SHARPTON: Yeah, he was.

O'REILLY: Well, then why did he have white children?

SHARPTON: What does that have to do?

O'REILLY: What does that have to do? He chose to have in vitro by a white woman and a white man. What does that have to do?

SHARPTON: So in order for him to be an African-American icon…

O'REILLY: An icon? An icon?

SHARPTON: Wait a minute.

O'REILLY: Why would he have that choice? Why?

SHARPTON: Because he — I'm trying to answer you. Would you like an answer from an African-American?

O'REILLY: I would. Yes.

SHARPTON: Because he broke all records. He changed music. He brought people together.

O'REILLY: No, the kids, the kids.

SHARPTON: Well, we didn't say he was an African-American — father of African-American children. We said he was an African-American icon.

O'REILLY: An icon? But why would he have white kids then?

SHARPTON: What he did in his personal life and his personal — has nothing to do with his iconic status.

O'REILLY: It doesn't?

Let me know your thoughts.
Read more!

Monday, July 6, 2009

When The King Of Kings Calls

They Called Him "The King Of Pop"

On Tuesday July 7th 2009 the world gathers to say goodbye to what one could consider the most controversial and renowned entertainer and person in modern history. Michael Jackson (August 25th 1958 ~ June 25th 2009) is celebrated by many as the greatest performer that ever lived. The facts are that no one in history has sold more albums than Michael in his lifetime (estimated over 750 million) or has been so widely accepted all over the world for both his entertainment acumen, dedication to perfection in performance and his humanitarian efforts. In 1985 those humanitarian efforts brought together more entertainers and singers in one singular event "We Are The World", than any other effort in modern times raising over $50 Million in economic Aid to Africa.

Although there are many things that could be said about Michael, our intent in this article by addressing the issue of his life and death, is not to adore, worship or admire him as most of the world and even many Christians have done during this time. Neither is our intent to bash his character or his works as they speak for themselves both good and bad. Michael's works have gone before him as he has stood before his maker to give an account of himself and his deeds, whether they were for Christ and to HIS glory, or to the glory of self and humanity. One thing is for sure, eternity's stage will not be shared by Michael or anyone else; Jesus alone is the epitome of all worship and all eternity.

I thought to initiate conversation on at least 3 issues and addressing those issues to the church in general, hoping to ask the church, especially them that are hailing Michael's entertainment successes as God's gifts, to examine its position in light of what was obviously seen by all during this man's lifetime.

Evolution To Effeminence

Having been a child of the Michael Jackson era, I admired him since my early youth. "Rockin' Robin" and "Got To Be There" (early 70's){I was 7 to 8 years old} were songs fit for me and my understanding and were among the first hits that caught my attention. At that time Michael was clearly a black youth like me: brown, smiley, lots of potential and seemingly loving life to the fullest. I had no idea that some 36 to 37 years later, that that brown complexion would be nearly white, that smile would become strained, that expression would be exhausted, and all that potential would be restricted to a stage presence and performances. Aside from all those changes, I find that one of the most disturbing things about Michael was his development into what appears to be a feminine character.

The theories on this evolution from male to female appearance range from Michael's trying to avoid looking like his father, to Michael trying to appeal to the greatest range of audience possible to radical plastic surgery gone bad. Now, whatever the reason, that was Michael's choice to make. However, I cannot fathom any religious leader exhibiting praise for Michael without also noting and reaffirming that if at all medically possible, a man should look like and remain a man all of his life and not only for a portion of it.

Now, the word effeminate {Gk. malakov}as used in 1 Cor. 6:9 {Discussed HERE}comes into effect IF Michael was trying to appeal to those who either were trying to take advantage of him sexually or those whom he wished to appeal to that preferred men with feminine looks. It's hard to imagine that a man would prefer to look like a woman without some motivating factor. That leads into our next observation:

Extensive Verbal & Psychological Abuse
Does The End Justify The Means?


As we have both seen and read, Mr. Joseph Jackson, the head of the family, was an intense and shrewed business man when it came to music. According to available records and statements some that even Michael made himself, Mr. Jackson was not only a disciplinarian, but he also, at times, crossed into the area of verbal and borderline physical abuse. I think Michael made his thoughts known regarding his father over the years by wresting management of his brand away from Mr. Jackson almost as soon as he possibly could, and also placing what many thought was damaging information in the screen production mini-series "The Jacksons, The American Dream", Some say that a strong indicator of how Michael thought about his father is found in his father's exclusion from his will. To be fair, noone has any idea of who controls trust assets and by law those records cannot be made to become public. So Mr. Jackson could very well be included in much that we don't know.

Nevertheless, stories have been told that Michael's father consistently criticized his son saying that his nose was "too big" or that he was deficient in some other way. In fact as a sign of an obvious disconnect, when Mr. Jackson was asked at the June 28th 2009 BET Awards for his feelings and comments regarding his son's death, he responded by saying, "We've just lost the biggest superstar in the world" then he went on to introduce his new music production joint venture. During that interview he never referred to Michael as his son, only a "star" and "superstar". This came across to me as being self-centerd.

These type of sentiments can cause an individual to lose or never come to their own identity. It was already problematic enough that Michael didn't have a true childhood. It would seem that the abuse of Joseph Jackson set the stage that no matter what was achieved by Michael, wouldn't be satisfactory or appeasing to his own conscience in any manner because his father had never taken the time to affirm him or his manhood.

Do the results of stardom justify the means of abuse? It seems that now is an opportune time for the church to set forth the difference between verbal abuse and biblical discipline. Wholesome discipline is essential in the life of growing children but abuse is an unacceptable reality that many of our children face daily and struggle to overcome. Being told that one is: too short, too fat, too stupid, ugly, too dark, incapable of learning, slow, mentally challenged etc. are all labels that tend to hurt and when combined with memory over a long period of time, create prisons within the mind that people sometimes grow and live in for a lifetime. Mr. Jackson seemed to have forged an inescapable prison for Michael by which death would be his only liberator.

Amazingly, this type of abuse occurs and many of us sit silently as we did with the Jackson family, while it happens. Sometimes it's from a coach, who crosses the line with personal attacks toward a student athlete. Sometimes it's from a teacher who mocks and criticizes the efforts of a student in front of the whole class. Other times it's from family member such as Joseph Jackson, who drives others to fulfill their vision of what they weren't able to achieve. Still other times it's from a Pastor or church member who excludes certain individuals from activities because they aren't the favored "family" or named individual within the church. The message should be that abuse of all kinds is not an acceptable standard and is not worthy to be praised. Some argue that the "abuse" made Michael rich. I would only say that "riches" aren't worth the value of a soul and that I am sorry that Michael had to endure such hardship in this life at any cost.

Issues Of Pedophilia

The worst time in the life of Michael was his 10 count indictment that was levied against him in Santa Barbara County, California in 2004. Going back to Mr. Joseph Jackson again, it must be said that Mr. Jackson was front and center with Michael every day during the worst time of his Michael's life.

Many continue to say that Michael was guilty of the charges of sexual molestation and abuse against the children at his Neverland Ranch. In addition to the jury finding and pronouncing him innocent, I find that there are additional very compelling reasons to believe that Michael was innocent of the charges against him in that indictment.

On his radio segment the week of June 30th 2009, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, when responding to the accusations of one of his callers against Michael, said that he had read the full indictment against Michael Jackson and heard the resulting testimony and concluded that the complete case was a waste of the courts time and was only brought about as an effort to simply extort money from Michael. He acknowledged, as most do, that Michael had a terrible disconnect of what was appropriate in adults sharing sentiments with children, but assured his audience, that there was never a case against Jackson, and what case that did exist was only driven by a frenzied media fishing for the worst and most sensational type of situation. (Similar to the current Debra Rowe encouragements to file for custody even against Michael's expressed wishes for the children within his will)

What makes Mr. Limbaugh's statements especially interesting and certainly worth considering is that Rev. Al Sharpton on his daily radio show, as late as Friday July 3rd, said the same thing. All week long Rev. Sharpton has stated his support for the remaining Jackson family and plainly noted that he was also at the Jackson trial in support of Michael daily, hearing the testimony for himself and finding that the case was a complete sham from the start. If anyone knows these two personalities, there has not been a lot historically over which they have agreed, and on Michael Jackson and the issue of pedophilia, especially as it pertains to a case that seemingly broke Michael's spirit, both of these men agree 100% that Michael was rightfully exonerated of all charges.

When The King Of Kings Calls

The ultra fundamentalist will read this post and think that it has nothing to do with the church. Quite the contrary is true. Michael was fed the false doctrine of a non Christian cult since his youth. The Jehova's Witness group as formulated by Charles Tays Russell was built on rejecting the biblical Christ and creating their own version of Christ who wasn't God and that didn't raise bodily from the grave. No doubt these false teachings were among the first religious concepts that began to shape Michael's mind and life as they were given by his mother whome he valued and honored greatly. Then there were others such as the Nation Of Islam, who entrapped Jermaine and are certainly not focused on Jesus as Lord and savior. In the end, it seemed that Michael was a universalist/humanist/pantheist seeking advice from mystics and non biblically centered teachers such as Deepak Chopra who holds to the pantheistic view of hinduism and the New Enlightenment. There was certainly no help for Michael in any of these teachings.

Even though Marvin Winan and The Winans sung with Michael on the song, "Man In The Mirror" which may have been an excellent opportunity to reach his soul, it seems that the true church was either too busy or too disconnected to really help Michael overcome the terrible hand that he was dealt in life. I don't assume that the Winans didn't try, but I simply believe that many more also had the opportunity. I simply wonder did they take it? Or did they only like the recognition of the worlds "superstar"?

Every King of this earth will be subject to the call of the King of Kings and will be without excuse as to thei spiritual position and place. As noted, I don't join the chorus of praisers as it pertains to Michael Jackson and his work, but neither do I join the crowd of cynics that seem to be happy that a soul has been lost. God certainly didn't make a mistake in the process so we can only praise HIM for HIS wisdom. I only stop to remember Michael for what he meant to me as I was growing up and respect and pray for his family that they will find the peace necessary to live a truly abundant life for Jesus, and turn from sin embracing truth and righteousness.

At the end of the day, we can travel the whole world and everyone everyplace can adore us, but there is none greater than God and ONLY what's done for Jesus Christ will last. All the material benefits and popularity amassed in this life cannot replace meeting God in peace.


Mark 8:34-38 ~"34-And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35-For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it. 36-For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37-Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 38-Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

If I wish anything, I only wish that there could have been a better end to the life of Michael Jackson. As a church we should be challenged to do even more to win souls and not be enamoured with names, titles, recognition and money. There is a world that is lost and suffering no matter how much money fame and accolades that they have, they yet need the Gospel of Jesus Christ to set them free from their sins and their sometimes terrible past. Church we have a great mission and a great responsibility.

Blessed!


Read more!