Program # 3285 “Kimberly, Part 1

3285 "Kimberly" - Part 1: (Abuse, Deception) Kim's parents divorce when she is four and her older siblings abuse her. She longs for a dad but is helped by a neighbor and a mentor. Her mom works to support the family. Kim and her older sister go to a youth group where Kim is talked into praying for salvation. She meets her dad when she's 16, then falls in love with Brad, a believer. Unsaved herself, Kim breaks their engagement to hang out at bars. The first part ends as Kim prays for salvation.

Program # 3285 “Kimberly, Part 1

3285 "Kimberly" - Part 1: (Abuse, Deception) Kim's parents divorce when she is four and her older siblings abuse her. She longs for a dad but is helped by a neighbor and a mentor. Her mom works to support the family. Kim and her older sister go to a youth group where Kim is talked into praying for salvation. She meets her dad when she's 16, then falls in love with Brad, a believer. Unsaved herself, Kim breaks their engagement to hang out at bars. The first part ends as Kim prays for salvation.

Rev. Dwight McKissic on Jesse Jackson and Phil Robertson

This article from Dwight McKissic deserves more attention than it will get on a weekend between two holidays, but it also should not just sit there. So, here it is. Folks with publish authority, let’s try to let this one stay on top for a day and let it get seen. Thanks, Doug.

CHALLENGING JESSE JACKSON AND MICHAEL ERIC DYSON TO DEBATE THE PHIL ROBERTSON’S REMARKS FOR THE SAKE OF KINGDOM TRUTH

TEN REASONS WHY PHIL ROBERTSON HAS BECOME THE NEW ROSA PARKS

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

In an attempt to discredit and defame the unabashed and uncompromising Kingdom citizen—Phillip Robertson— Jesse Jackson has credited “white privilege” for providing the platform, context and cover for Robertson’s controversial remarks regarding homosexuality and race. (Read more:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-25/news/chi-jesse-jackson-duck-dynasty-20131224_1_duck-dynasty-jesse-jackson-sr-anti-gay-comments)

Michael Eric Dyson stated that when men express love for Jesus, above love for women, they sound “interestingly homoerotic to people who are outside of religious traditions” (Read more: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/26/msnbc-wonders-christian-love-for-jesus-is-kind-of-homoerotic-huh/comment-page-7/). People outside of religious traditions generally understand that Kingdom citizens believe that Jesus is Lord, King, Sovereign and Ruler. Consequently, they would also understand that there is nothing “homoerotic” about loving and worshiping Jesus if He is Lord.

What would trigger Jackson and Dyson to lodge such loaded rhetorical bombshells into an already explosive discussion regarding homosexuality and race? Jesse Jackson and Michael Dyson affirm homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage. Phil Robertson does not. The root cause of this division is not race, but different beliefs regarding homosexuality. Jackson, Dyson and Al Sharpton are passionate, militant promoters of the homosexual agenda. These three men have abandoned their Black Baptist Biblical roots on this issue. Interestingly, Dr. Martin Luther King and Phil Robertson would be in agreement regarding homosexuality.

Should a person be charged with speaking from a platform of “white privilege” and should those of us who love Jesus more than we love our female wives, be labeled “interestingly homoerotic,” because of our love for Jesus, and our common bond with Phil Robertson on the belief that homosexuality is a sin?

I would really love to debate these extreme positions adopted and articulated by these two Baptist preachers. The “white privilege” and “interestingly homoerotic” response adopted and articulated by Jackson and Dyson are far out of the mainstream thinking of African American Kingdom Citizens. Holding to the view that homosexuality is sin and marriage is between a man and a woman, should not subject one to the baseless ridicule, rejection and accusations of ignorance, bigotry, and racism experienced by Phil Robertson.

Jackson and Dyson are misrepresenting the Bible and Black America by articulating these extreme and unsubstantiated points of view. Disagree with Robertson if you must—that’s your constitutional right and freedom. But please don’t label his traditional view of homosexuality and his love for Jesus as “homoerotic” and “white privilege.”  President Obama ran for President in 2008 holding to a traditional view of marriage based on Christian beliefs. We all know in 2012 he changed his mind. Phil Robertson and the National Baptist Convention share the same view on the biblical definition of marriage. The majority of African Americans share Robertson’s view of marriage. How can Jesse Jackson then logically label his view, “white privilege”?

Perhaps Jackson and Dyson are responding equally to Robertson’s comments about race in the Pre-Civil-Rights-Era. Unfortunately, the exact question that Robertson was asked regarding race is not recorded in the GQ Interview that ignited this controversy.  Only a caption and his response are recorded.

 

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Was Robertson asked,

  1. “What are your thoughts on how Blacks were treated in the South during the Jim Crow era?” If that was the question, Robertson certainly was aware of the fact that in Northwest Louisiana, where he grew up, there were lynching, murders, segregation, economic exploitation, unequal pay, an unjust criminal justice system, police brutality and the like. I am willing to give Robertson the benefit of the doubt. Had he been asked a question regarding how Blacks were generally treated in the South I believe that he would have given an honest answer, according to his trademark.

But, what if he was asked,

  1. “What did you see growing up in the South during the Jim Crow era?” A question of that nature limits itself to what he actually saw. Inasmuch as his remarks are in line with this question, why would we assume he is addressing a broader question? Most of Robertson’s critics are responding to what he didn’t say rather than to what he said. We don’t know what he was asked; therefore it is patently¸ unfair and unreasonable, to judge the man on his answer to a question that we are unaware of.

While channel surfing I have caught portions of Duck Dynasty twice. I must admit that I like nature scenes, family scenes, and Southern culture in general. Therefore, the show did arrest my attention once I landed there. Until this controversy I was unaware of Robertson’s name or the name of the show. My point is—to use Southern parlance—I have no dog in this fight. However, I do hate to see any man or woman regardless of color being mistreated, castigated, and humiliated without any evidence to support their baseless accusations against them.

For those who argue that Robertson was responding to the first question; they must prove this. For those who believe that Robertson was responding to the second question, then you would have to conclude that he was lying when he said he had not personally witnessed any mistreatment of Blacks in the area where he lived. On what grounds can we say for certain that he is not being truthful?

Robertson said, “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person, not once.” Which one of us can say with absolute certainty and with evidence to back it up that Phil Robertson is not telling the truth about what he did not see “with my [Robertson’s] eyes”? Unless we can disprove his claim, it is un-Christ like for us to address him as if he is lying. Although blatant discrimination and racism certainly existed and was prevalent in the South during Robertson’s upbringing and still exist today, it is possible that in his “neck of the woods,” he literally did not witness it with his own eyes. He did not say it did not exist, He said, he never saw it. That is a huge difference. His critics are responding to him as if he said, it did not exist. Again, it is inappropriate to respond to a remark that he never made. Which one of us would like to respond to or defend a statement that we’ve never uttered?

Phil Robertson characterized Black persons that he knows during this time frame as “farmers,” “godly,” “singing,” “happy,” and non-complaining. Which one of those adjectives would be untrue, based on one’s personal observations? No one would debate that agricultural endeavors were the primary economic engine of the South in that time frame. Most historical Black Colleges in the South offered majors in Agriculture, and the official name of many colleges included the word “Agriculture” or the letter “A”; or as In Prairie View A&M University, Arkansas A, M, and N , and now UAPB and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Alabama  A&M, etc.

George Washington Carver was renowned for his farming and scientific exploits. He was also a “godly” man who taught Sunday School on Sundays at Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, and agriculture and science during the week. He clearly viewed Genesis 19 as an illustration of the judgment of God on a nation that embraces homosexuality. While discussing Sodom and Gomorrah, Dr. Carver asked his class, “And what happened to these wicked cities?” He viewed the desire and activity of same-sex involvement as “wicked.” He then used his scientific talents to cause a sudden burst of flames and fumes to shoot up from the table, and the Bible students fled. He sure knew how to make Sunday School interesting and to illustrate his point. George Washington Carver taught against the practice of homosexuality. (George Washington Carver; An American Biography, by Rackham Holt, 1943, Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, p. 198). I wonder what Jackson and Dyson would say about him. If Carver did the same illustration today, it would create a firestorm of controversy.

Robertson labeled Black persons as “godly” that he grew up around. In 1960, 80% of all Black families were intact. Today over 70% of Black children are being born out of wedlock. Bill Cosby’s book documents a higher percentage of White inmates during the Pre-Civil-Rights-Era than today.  Blacks are committing and being convicted of crimes at a higher rate than in the Pre-Civil-Rights-Era. School dropout rates are higher today than then. What exactly did Robertson say that was racist or untrue? I wish his critics would quote his exact words that could be viewed as “racist”!

A Black preacher, Charles Price Jones, wrote the popular hymn sung in Black churches during the Pre-Civil-Rights-Era, “I’m Happy with Jesus Alone.” A traditional favorite hymn that Kirk Franklin later did a remix of had a popular refrain: “I Sing Because I’m Happy, I Sing Because I’m Free. His Eye is on the Sparrow and I know He Watches me.” There was another fairly well known song of that time: “I am so happy, happy as can be, because I have a Savior, who is walking daily with me.” We learned in childhood back then:  “If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands.” A popular solo that has stood the test of time over the past 30 years in the Black church is named, “I Won’t Complain.” Because Phil Robertson did not hear Black people complaining did not mean they didn’t complain. We were simply taught to take our burdens to the Lord and leave them there. We dealt with injustice and racism within the confines of immediate and extended family and our churches. We looked to our Pastors to voice our complaints because at times they were the only individuals whose paycheck was solely derived from Black employment.

My point is: I recall the Blacks in my childhood as happy. I was happy.  Those that I observed were basically happy also; and that was because of our faith. And although we failed miserably at times, Robertson is right…there was a pursuit of godliness that existed among our families and leaders. I fail to understand why some find that point of view offensive.

I am ten years younger than Robertson. Certainly, I am not denying or turning a blind eye to the reality of racism. It was cruel and unusual; and unlike Robertson, I did see it, feel it and experience it. Yet, that did not keep us from experiencing the joy of the Lord. I refuse to let my past limit my present pursuit to maximize my potential. And it was the godly people Robertson was referring to. Exactly what qualifies his remarks to be “white privilege” and “homoerotic”? Please explain!

Perhaps it is the Rosa Parks and Phil Robertson analogy that has Jackson and Dyson upset. However, there are ten similarities between Rosa Parks and Phil Robertson:

 

  1. They both took principled stands.
  2. The positions that they took were rooted in biblical righteousness.
  3. Their positions were counter-culture at the time they took them.
  4. There was a huge backlash and criticism for their positions that they took.
  5. They both ignited public debate that captured the nation’s attention.
  6. Their positions polarized the nation.
  7. Their positions triggered boycotts.
  8. They both were on the right side of history.
  9. Their positions unveiled the weakness of the church; for Rosa Parks—the weakness of the White church. Jackson and Dyson are exposing one of the weaknesses of the Black church.
  10. They both became a cultural heroine and a cultural hero.

 

Yes!!! Phil Robertson is the new Rosa Parks!!!!

Social Networking: A Few Tips for the New Year

The new year is a good time to reflect on our past and choose to make life changes. Social networking has become a huge part of people’s lives and perhaps now is a good time to think about our online presence and suggest a few changes. Read this as helpful pastoral advice or as my personal pet peeves. Feel free to change them into your New Year’s Resolutions.

  1. That news story, internet tip, food contamination scare, new gang initiation, IS NOT TRUE!!! (Yes, I meant to shout; see point 6 below). Make snopes.com your new friend and research before you post.
  2. Do you know what “satire” is? Don’t share your outrage over what you read at theonion.com.
  3. When you share a photo from someone else’s page or profile, note that you are also sharing the caption. I’m not sure you really meant to say that. Look before you share.
  4. The stats, quotes and “facts” on your meme may support your political position, but not when they are grossly exaggerated, taken out of context, or completely fabricated. Check to see that what you are presenting is true before you share it.
  5. The meme you just shared is really funny! – It’s also from a page named “&*%!#$es of the world unite.” Is that the really the message you want to send to your grandma?
  6. People don’t like being shouted at in real life, so don’t shout at them online. Don’t use ALL CAPS unless you mean to shout, which should be rare; make that never (sorry about point #1 – I apologize for shouting at you).
  7. People don’t like being nitpicked in real life, so don’t do it publicly on line. If you has to really be the grammar police, at least have the curtesy to not to do it on my wall. Send corrections in a private message or bite you’re tung. I will prolly still be annoyed, but at least I’m not being made fun of in public.
  8. You took English in high school right? You don’t have to follow all the punctuation rules, but have a heart for the rest of us and at least speak intelligibly.
  9. TMI (too much information), I really did not need to know that (or worse, see it)!
  10. Not enough information. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A little context, please?
  11. People are much more bold, rude, crass, etc. online than they would be in public. I’ve got news for you: your FB posts are in public for all to see! If you would not say it in person, don’t say it online (and never post when angry).
  12. In a discussion or debate, your words may sound more angry, annoyed, assertive or rude than you intend. Choose your words carefully.
  13. People often sound more angry, annoyed, assertive, or rude online than they really intend. Don’t assume emotion; take words at face value.
  14. Do not try to resolve conflicts by text, instant message, or comment stream. I know you don’t want to, but talk to the person face to face or at least pick up the phone.
  15. Talk-to-text technology is great, but be careful when you use it. You never know what your phone might do. Check before you send.
  16. Your constant corrections of talk-to-text mistakes are annoying and wearying. Unless I can’t figure out what you meant to say, just leave the mistake uncorrected, please.
  17. Angry cryptic posts are not as cryptic as you think. I know you’re talking about me, and even if you’re not, you are. Just don’t.
  18. I have 855 friends and I don’t live on FB. Please don’t assume I saw the last sentence of your three paragraph post from six months ago. If it’s that important that I know, personal messages are still best.
  19. I hate group messages. Unless it’s truly a group conversation, please message me individually or count me out.
  20. I’m glad you are having a party this Saturday and I’d love to come. But please don’t make me “decline” your invitation when I live 1600 miles away.
  21. I don’t need a play-by-play of the big game in my news feed. I’m watching it too (or else I’m not interested). One or two posts will do, thank you.
  22. Admit it, you clicked on that video because the picture was a girl in a bikini. You got suckered into watching the clip and now everyone knows it because it posted your status for you.
  23. I friended you because you’re my friend, not because I want to buy products from you or join your multi-level marketing scheme. Please don’t post constant advertisements as your status and don’t hijack my page by posting ads on my wall.
  24. I’m pretty self-conscious about how I look in pictures and I don’t want my bad hair day or embarrassing moment frozen in time for all to see. Please ask permission before you post pictures of someone else.
  25. I have absolutely no interest in playing the latest FB game. Please stop inviting me to play.
  26. I’m not against selfies, but there’s a fine line between playfulness and narcissism. Every once in a while, post a picture of something else, please.
  27. I don’t need another picture of Gene Wilder on my wall. Thanks anyway. :)
  28. Do you really need an emoticon on every post? :):):):) – Sometimes words are enough. :P
  29. I took time out of my schedule to spend some personal quality time with you, not watch you check your twitter feed. It’s ok to put the phone away sometimes (you won’t die, I promise).
  30. I’m sitting right next to you, son. Really?!?
  31. Don’t forget that you friended your mom and your pastor. Just sayin’.
  32. It’s a beautiful day – log off and enjoy it!

These are just a few of my ideas. Feel free to share your own social networking advice in the comments below. I may just turn them into a few New Year’s Resolutions of my own!