mercredi 31 octobre 2012

Les 7 paroles de Jesus a la croix

Jésus a toujours été un personage fascinant, et il ne cesse de fasciner ceux qui lui cherche. Ainsi que ceux qui explore la foi en Dieu qu'il a preché et a aporté a l'humanité. Je dois admettre que ma fascination sur la precieuse persone de Jesus a commencer il y a de cela 2 decenies par la lecture du chapitre 24 de l'evangile de Mathieu. Ces prophecies inscritent dans cet evangile ont preocupé  mes pensés pendant le reste de mon adolescence. A cela, c'est ajouté des literatures plutot inhabituelle telque, "Il est venu liberer les captifs" par Rebecca Brown, ou l'autobiographie de T.L Osborn. Mais celle qui a réelement ouvert mes yeux sur la personne de Jésus telque reveler dans la Bible, reste celui de Watchman Nee dans son ouvrage intitule 'La Vie Chretienne Normale'. "Impossible!" Je ne cessais de m'exclamer interieurement tout au long de la lecture. Tout ce que Jésus avait fait, meme les choses les plus anodins sembler porter une explication profonde entre les mains de l'auteur. Mais cela fais bien longtemps depuis que j'ai pu vivre quelque chose de semblable, jusqu'a dernierement qunad j'ai vu mon jeune frere completement abasourdit par la meme realization mais cette fois ci venant d'une autre source.

A Living Word Association (LWA), un groupe d'enseignants et predicateurs excellents ont été inviter, suite a l'initiative de quelque brave freres qui travail inlassablement a l'ombre (que Dieu leur rende cela au centuple). Et l'un de ces enseignants etaient le frere Jean Louis. Ce qui l a presenter ce jours la, a fait l'effet d'une bombe dans la vie de mon jeune frere et de ma jeunne soeur. Il/elle ne parle que de cette enseignement. Le message est simplement intitule 'La Croix de Jesus' ou comme Jean Louis l'a intitule "Les Sept Paroles de la croix". Si vous pensiez connaitre tout sur la croix de Jesus et bien, je vous defie de suivre ce message audio-visuel a ce lien de la page Youtube de Living Word Association. Le message est en francais, et interpreter en kinyarwanda. Bien que l'orateur commence a parler en Kinyarwanda pendant une minute, il neanmoins commence son message en francais juste apres cela. Ainsi, vous pouvez tous suivre son message/enseignement en clickant sur le ce lien.

Voici le lien: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ1IDjOghIQ

Que le Seigneur vous benisse alors que vous explorez les dernieres heures de Jesus a la croix dans toute ces implications.

N'oubliez pas de checker mon livre sur l'identite de Jesus ici ou la.

P.S: Desoler de mon proste priver d'accents et de ponctuations adequates.

mercredi 24 octobre 2012

Christian Morality Explained!

CARDINAL VIRTUE

In second point, St Paul points out, Christ never meant that we were to remain children in intelligence: on the contrary. He told us to be not only `as harmless as doves', but also `as wise as serpents'. He wants a child's heart, but a grown-up's head. He wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and teachable, as good children are; but he also wants every bit of intelligence we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim. The fact that you are giving money to a charity does not mean that you need not try to find out whether that charity is a fraud or not. The fact that what you are thinking about is God himself (for example, when you are praying) does not mean that you can be content with the same babyish ideas which you had when you were a five-years-old.

It is, of course, quite true that God will not love you any the less, or have less use for you, if you happen to have been born with a very second-rate brain. He has room for people with very little sense, but he wants every one to use what sense they have. The proper motto is not `Be good, sweet maid and let who can be clever,' but `Be good, sweet maid, and don't forget that this involves being as clever as you can.' God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you, you are embarking on something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all. But, fortunately, it works the other way round. Anyone who is honestly trying to be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened; one of the reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that Christianity is an education itself. That is why an uneducated believer like Bunyan was able to write a book that has astonished the whole world.

The temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that have changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second cardinal virtue was christened `Temperance', it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant
not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are incline to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying.

One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reason - marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he start saying that the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning. (Oxford Professor, CS Lewis, Mere Christianity. Page 77-79)


P.S: Don't forget to check out my book - Help Me Understand Jesus. Check My Book by clicking here or more here.

lundi 22 octobre 2012

Why I Am A Catholic

This isn't my personal proclamation. I should actually come around and make my personal case on why i am a catholic since people keeps asking me. But while i make you wait for that piece, this can already give folks an idea on the likely avenue i may take while writing my own personal piece. My friend Dr. Thierry L. has made his case in response to an article that challenged the christian-hood of all Catholics. My approach has always been slightly different to Dr. T, as we debated some issues on our shared catholicism in 2008 .. but we usually see things the same way. So i recommend his personal apolgia on why he is a catholic.

Hope you find Dr. T responses enlightening, new and interesting.
P.S: Don't forget to check out my book - Help Me Understand Jesus. Check My Book by clicking here or more here  

...
Dear brethren, I great you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and hope that these few words will open you up to another perspective that is worth considering and thinking about.

I am a catholic and consider myself a Christian. In fact the two terms were interchangeable until the 16th century, and the word catholic means universal, to emphasize the universal nature of the covenant that God wants to make with everyone (1 Tim 2:4) through Christ. And the term was used to separate those who subscribed to apostolic teaching from those who deviated from it (the heresies). Therefore, the answer to the title of your article that I would like to suggest will differ from yours: I am a Christian because I am a follower of Jesus Christ (this is the biblical definition by the way: Ac 12:26).

It is also important dear brethren to make sure that you understand what the Catholics believe accurately and the reason they believe what they believe before making such judgements about them; otherwise you may be attacking a straw man: This is a basic error in logic.

Another thing I would like to mention before addressing some of the specifics of your comments, is the problems in your equation: A billion truths+ a trillion truths+ 0.001 lie = LIE
-  It presumes that the beliefs of Catholics are lies rather than a genuine different interpretation of the apostolic teaching. It betrays already the same old anti-Catholic bias accusing us of I don’t know what. We may be wrong in some of our beliefs, but didn’t it ever occur to you that maybe it is just a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation, and not a lie (with all the assumptions and implications you attach to this word)?
-    If you see lies in every doctrinal differences, this logically means that everywhere you disagree with another Christian (a non-catholic that is) on a doctrine, it means that one of you (probably him or her) believes a lie, and therefore his entire belief system is a lie according to your equation.

As you know non-catholic Christians don’t agree on everything, in fact there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations. Do you realise the implications of your equation in this context. I wonder who would be the only people who are Christians if you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, the members of your congregation perhaps.

Furthermore I feel you contradict yourself when you say “some catholic are saved” and at the same time “a little wrong belief contaminates the whole thing”. Those catholic that you claim are saved do believe in little things that you consider “lies” therefore contaminating the whole thing!?!? Please make up your mind.

I believe we should have enough humility to recognize that as St Paul says “we see through a glass darkly” (1 Co 13:12), and it is therefore possible to be brethren in Christ agreeing on core beliefs, while disagreeing on specifics or on how a belief is applied without neglecting the importance of these differences.

Now let me briefly address some of your comments:

Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:102 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18Romans 10:13-17). Christ on the cross told the repentant criminal that that day they’d be together in paradise. That thief was saved because he believed, not because he was baptized in water.

  1. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by baptismal regeneration, but you don’t seem to know what the requirements for baptism are, check your facts before attacking a faith you don’t seem to understand. It teaches that there are three requirements for slavation: (1) REPENTANCE (Mat 3:11; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30; Acts 26:20; etc.), (2) FAITH (Eph 2:8; Gal 5:6; Heb 11:6; etc.) and (3) BAPTISM (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:11–12).

Let’s examine one text: Acts 2:37-38: “When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


It is interesting to notice that when Peter preached his powerful sermon at Pentecost, when people ask what they should do, he focused on Repentance and Baptism. I am convinced that it is not to downplay Faith which is obviously implied (You can only be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ if you have Faith in Him) and you can only understand that if you look at the entirety of the biblical data rather than one verse here and one verse there. It is called 'proof texting' and it is a very dangerous practice because you can prove almost anything using one verse of the bible here or another there. As for baptismal regeneration, again, refer to these different verses on baptism that either say explicitly or imply it.

  1. When you say the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9): I would correct you in saying that the Bible says through ‘Faith’, not ‘simple Faith’. If you want to add qualifiers to the word ‘Faith’, it would be better to stick with the biblical ones: E.g. “Faith working through Love” (Gal 5:6). Furthermore it is obviously not clear in this passage alone what the means of receiving this grace are, and what is meant by Faith (Faith is not just intellectual assent, it is a commitment to trust that can only be seen in the way you act: This is why to repeat myself, St Paul says that: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” Gal 5:6).

  1. Ephesians 2:102 Corinthians 5:17 do emphasize the change of heart as a result of salvation, but these two verses don’t mean that you automatically become perfect at your new birth. Yes the dispositions of your heart have changed, but this becomes concrete in your life through a lifelong process that is only made possible by the grace of God provided that you progressively put all your will to it by completely surrendering and completely trusting Him. That is why the same person who wrote these two verses you cited, also wrote to the Philippians “… continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose” (Phil 2:12-13). God does most of it but we must cooperate but trusting and surrendering in the way we leave and act (with fear and trembling), not just mentally.

  1. Don’t confuse general mean given by Christ and his apostle as seen in the Bible (repentance, faith and baptism) with God’s power to save anybody in special circumstances, because of the Cross of Christ. Among those special circumstances we have the case of the Good thief who obviously didn’t have the time for baptism. This is why the term Baptism is quite broad in the catholic faith; there is what we call "baptism of desire" for instance. But it is undeniable that the general mean by which one enters the family of God according to the Bible, is through these three, even though the sovereign God that we serve is not limited by the means he gives us.

Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.

What is meant by that is that salvation is available as long as we cooperate. When we convert to Christ, we are the children of our Heavenly Father, but because of our free will that can be influenced by all sorts of circumstances, it is possible to decide like the prodigal son (1st part of the story) to leave the house and therefore stop believing in Christ as required in John 3:16 (the act of believing suggest a continuous act, not just at one point in time), and our heavenly Father who respects our free will, will not force us to stay home. And this is biblical: Rom. 11:22; Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21. Please read these verses carefully and you will understand that we are not limiting the grace of God, but we are recognising that our will is crucial not only at the moment of our conversion, but throughout our Christian life.

Purgatory: There is nowhere in the Bible where it mentions the opportunity to cleanse the soul of the sins committed while alive, in this “holding place”. This one has got to be one of the biggest lies taught in Catholic doctrine.

The purgatory issue only arises because we have a different understanding of salvation. For Catholics, salvation is the full blown reality of becoming a child of God, not just in name but by nature, “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” Eph 4:13. We as Catholics believe that when Jesus said: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mat 5:48), He meant exactly what he said. I don’t know about you, but I am not there yet. In fact even the great Paul at some point acknowledged that he didn’t get their yet (Phil 3:12).

So the way we see salvation, God doesn’t just look at the righteousness of Christ and say because you believe in him I declare you just, he does that but but much more: In addition he gives us the grace to live a new life until we are like Christ himself, indeed our Master and Teacher said: “The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.” (Lk. 6:40). So we have to get there. Now what happens to those that don’t reach this final state before they die? Remember that “nothing unclean will ever enter heaven” (Rev 21:27). So what happens?

The answer to that question is found in 1 Co 3:10-15: “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

In the last part of this passage of Scripture, St Paul speaks about those who have built on the right foundation: Jesus Christ, but whose quality (their life) was tested and it were burned up. This can be that one is converted, but there is still a little hypocrisy, white lies, etc. though he is a follower of Jesus. And Paul says that they will “suffer loss” but “they will be saved only as through the flames” This is what we call purgatory. If you don’t like the term (especially because of the past abuses attached to it) drop it, but you cannot deny that the reality is biblical under this particular interpretation of the texts. You can accuse us of being wrong in our interpretation (and this is another debate all together: that of authority), but you cannot accuse us of lying as if the Church deliberately misleads people, this dear brethren I find very offensive and I consider as a lack of show of Christian Charity.

Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5;Ephesians 2:8-9Galatians 3:10-11Romans 3:19-24).

Two comments:
-    Again you misunderstand the Catholics, we just believe that certain actions that Christ commended us to do are carriers of grace because he told us to do them: We don’t have faith in faith, we have faith in Jesus, and therefore, we do what he tells us to do. Just like prayer (the sinner’s prayer in particular that I am sure you are familiar with), fellowship, Bible reading etc. You can’t label those meritorious works the same way when you do your sinner’s prayer, it is not meritorious work. It is the way you express your Faith, trust and obedience in God, you do what you believe he told you to do to be saved. We receive baptism (Mat 28:19; Mc 16:16; Acts 2:38) and confession because Jesus told us to (John 20:21–23, Mat 10:40). A mandate given to the apostles, and now to their successors (the bishops: 1 Tim 3:1-7), who established and delegated elders or presbyters (from the Greek presbuteroi from which we get the word priest: E.g. 1 Tim. 5:17–22; Jas. 5:14–15, Titus 1:5). How can you label us non-Christian for doing what the Lord Jesus told us to do???  

-          As for confession, we don’t confess to a priest as such, we confess our sins to God, and the priest is there as a servant to guide us through that process, he points us to the Love and Mercy of God through the person and work of Jesus Christ, and Jesus gives them the authority to tell us that we are indeed forgiven (John 20:21–23). This sacrament is even referred to as the sacrament of Love where you need someone to remind you of the Love of God and his forgiveness when you confess your sins.

-     As for the merit issue, again don’t attack a caricature of what Catholics affirm: The only merit given to us is when we surrender to the One who can do it all in us. It is like a little girl who asks her father to give her money and to drop her to the mall so she can buy him a birthday gift. All that she gave her father was possible because he gave her the money, a lift, maybe went with her to the shop, etc.

A great catholic teacher once said: In order to merit, it is enough to know that our merits do not suffice for us.” Our merit, our glory is God’s recognition of what we do with the grace he gives us as eloquently described in the parable of the talents: “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” (Mat 5:21,23). This is the context in which the whole language of merit should be understood. And I acknowledge that in the history of the Church, there has been a misuse of this concept, and that even today some Catholics misunderstand it the way you do.  But a well informed bible believing Catholic who is committed to the teaching of his Church knows better. 

Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9Luke 18:1-7). In fact, praying to anyone else besides God is idolatry, be it Mary, the dead saints or anyone. Prayer has to be to God alone. By the way, you don’t have to dead to be ordained a saint, all believers, dead or alive are saints, and not just the dead Pope.

  1. Here again you do 'proof texting', and you do it wrong because this has nothing to do with an interdict to prayer to the Saints. In fact this prayer to our Heavenly Father is one that Catholics know above any and are much more attached to it than most other groups. All that this text does is to show us how to pray to our Heavenly Father.
  2. Praying for some may be intimately associated to worship, but the word simply means ‘asking’. And this is how it is used in the Catholic Church. The real issue is our different understanding of death. We believe that the dead in Christ are with God and can intercede for us. Indeed we believe so because Rev 5:8 says that “they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.” We are told in the letter to the Hebrew that “you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” Heb 12:22-24. Etc.

Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Your distinction is wrong: the difference between clergy and lay people doesn't mean the difference between believers and priests. Again, please check your facts. It is true that there is a difference between the people of God (lay people), and those within the people of God that He has called to be servants of the people of God (clergy). In the New Testament there was a clear difference between the [Apostle, bishops, elders and deacons] and the [people of God], and the first group (the clergy) was there to serve the second. Today, whatever your Christian denomination, there is a difference between those in the pew (people of God) and the Pastors (clergy).

That is why we differentiate the ministerial priesthood from the priesthood of the faithful. All those in Christ are priests in the second sense, but also prophets and kings, but only those who have been chosen among the people to continue the work of the apostles (in serving the people of God by preaching, catechizing, teaching, giving the sacraments, etc.) are ministerial priests. The difference is only functional (to determine who does what, but we are all priests).

Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible.

The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Christ alone is able to save, he doesn’t need an assistant!

Whatever I say about Mary, I know how difficult it will be for you to accept my point of view, but let me however say something: For lack of time I will deal with only two of the titles that you scorn to show you that all this titles have an explanation and if one wants to disagree with them, one should at least do so in the terms in which the ideas are articulated rather than a caricature. Please note that the Catholic Church is not trying to deify Mary at all; it is simply acknowledging the special place that she has been given by God in Salvation history. By the way when she prophesizes that “all generations will call me blessed” (Lk. 1:48), I wonder if you at least fulfill that prophesy by explicitly recognizing that special grace God gave her, otherwise, in some way you are going against an explicit prophecy in the Bible?

Queen of Heaven:

Many things can be said to support that, let me just mention a few:
-       First of all her Queen ship shouldn't be a problem because of her belonging to Christ: as all in Christ are a royal priesthood.
-      Second since Jesus came to restore the Kingdom of David (The main theme of the Gospel according to Matthew) or actually that the Kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament was a foreshadow of Christ's true Kingdom, an important person in that Kingdom was the Queen Mother (Since Solomon and Basheba onward) who had special favors from her Son the King. And this is why though his time did not yet come, he accepted to do a special favor for his mother at the wedding in Cana (Lk 2:1-11). So Jesus being the King of the universe, his mother receives a special privilege in the Kingdom (not deity, Queen ship)  
-      The other reason for her Glory and maybe the most important is her ‘YES’, her total and unconditional obedience to God, even when her Son was hard on her sometimes.
-         Queen of Heaven does not mean goddess. God’s aim is to share his Glory with humanity, so there is nothing wrong with making the one he favored to bear his Son, and the one who has been faithful all her life with such a privilege.

There are other reasons but I will stop there. Again you may disagree with us, but don’t treat us of liars just because our interpretation of the Biblical data lead us to different conclusions than yours, the only charitable conclusion you can come up with is that we are mistaken. But again, this is another debate all together: Whose interpretation is the best?

Co-Redemptrix:
As soon as people hear this word they immediately without inquiring further, assume that this term means that we are saved by the work of both Mary and Jesus. But this is not what the term means. All it means is “the one who is with the redemptor”, as she stood at the feet of the cross while he was dying. All it says is that she was there, and as a mother when you see your only son being treated like this and you faithfully accept it, this is something that is worth recognizing. It boils down to how faithful she was and how good a model of faith she is to inspire Christian to imitate her, and therefore imitate Christ.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I urge you to review your conclusions: We may differ on these important issues, but we both affirm Jesus as Lord and Savior, we both affirm that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Act 4:12, we both affirm the inspiration of Scripture, etc. This should make us brethren in Christ, separated brethren, but brethren nonetheless. If you disagree with a doctrine from another group, try to look at the doctrine as articulated by the group, and try to get as much info on the reasons behind them, before making any pronouncements.

And we should have conversation between us to understand each other’s beliefs, instead of criticizing what we hear from the outside and labeling each other. Let’s be humble enough and leave to God the task of deciding who is saved and who is not, let’s rather radiate the love of Christ to a world that really needs Him, and continue to exchange in a productive way so as to arrive to that unity of Faith very dear to our common Master (John 17).

I hope this will give you enough food for thoughts and I hope the end of this lengthy response to your article, will find you in the Love, Peace and Joy of Jesus.

A brother in Christ, who cares.


For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness”, made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.” 2 Co 4,6

vendredi 12 octobre 2012

Cultural War: Learning from Secular Musicians

 For those who have been reading me since 2007 on ArchButare you probably remember i wrote a post on two DvDs i watched about Beyoncé 2006 Birthday concert and J-Lo (Jennifer lopez) concert tour in Latin America. Well in that post i was commenting on my admiration on how serious non-religious or non- Christian artists put much hard work in what they do, reminding me the word of Jesus saying that the sons of this age are more prudent than the sons of light.
"the sons of this age are shrewder and more prudent and wiser in [relation to] their own generation [to their own age and kind] than are the sons of light." Luke 16:8 Amplified Bible (AMP)
Somewhere in 2010 and in 2011, i was comparing the contents (Lyrics) and rhythms between American love songs and old french love songs (i.e. Nana Mouskouri) and it was quite stunning what seemed to emerge through my countless hours of listening to them. Americans are very optimist about love. They kind of think that it is a healer. French looked at it as a mysterious thing that do hurt people more than make them happy. I wondered why such diverging view and approach of this issue. On one side there is an overwhelming optimism and on the other side some form of pessimism.

So since mid last year up to this month, i've went through quite a lot of Secular American 'hit' songs about love. Today, i was sharing with one of my young brother how i was surprised that even within the American culture the attitudes of female singers about love have been evolving to the point of being even opposite.

Here are just two examples.

In Whitney Houston's love songs or even Celine Dion (and others before the year 2000), they elevated the love feeling as some sort of an overcomer of hardship. Women were exhorted in a sense to accept the suffering of love or to look at their 'lover' with an undying love even at the face of a break-up/ loss.

However, in Beyoncé's songs -- the woman mentality has evolved, the emancipation is no longer crawling but fully developed and running.

Let first grant the similarity: She (Beyonce) doesn't either encourage her ladies fan club to feel satisfied without 'their' men. Not even her song 'Single ladies' encourage that. Actually, 'Single ladies' calls ladies to war against men's lack of commitments. It is not an invitation to enjoy singleness or a single life.


Now the dissimilarity: But what really emerge in almost all her (beyonce) songs is more the opposite of what emerged before the year 2000 in love songs. She literally reflect her generation saying that there is no reason to suffer in silence. If a 'lover' makes you uncomfortable or worst make you suffer, just show him the way to the door or as she had eloquently said it once, 'to the left'. No more should a woman be the only one to feel martyred in the name of love. And one more thing, love is more and more becoming synonymous to sexuality or provocative sensuality. Interesting contrast with the old love songs that were readily equating love with feelings of moral duties (such as deed of service, friendship, commitment through hardship, etc.)

 The more i hear and i compare different songs, things i have been doing since 2007, I am really more and more convinced that there is a real revolution going on in our global culture. It doesn't matter where you live. Those new leaders of our cultural change are heard from the East to the West. Their singles hit often

the number one spot on foreign countries. If i had not the confidence on the Gospel's power to change people's mind and values -- i would have grown despair against the new form of mind control and value re-education on our young generation through all these songs. Actually, if there is someone that i find quite dangerous or uncomfortably disturbing, it would be the famous lady Gaga and Rihana. But i have yet to examine thoroughly their songs but the few that i have had the opportunity to hear and watch .. well let say that they don't inspire in me more confidence on their moral benefit. They seem to have the potential to seriously injure the moral organ of their faithful young fans and followers.

Today, Christians will have to make sure that in their counter-action against heathenism, hedonism and secularism that they don't forget to influence the media, the sport arena, the arts, the entertainment industry as well as the intellectual platform. In case you may think that i may have overestimated this issues, why don't you just discuss with a young Christian ladies (not even a non-christian lady, just try a young christian lady) and ask her about her values about romantic relationships and their modus operandi of it. I bet you might find her understanding and ideals to be a more faithful representation of 
the modern songs views (of emancipation, sensuality, sexuality, hook-up and break-up, etc.) than the biblical one of charity, reconciliation, commitment through tough time and hardship, etc. You see our young christian girls or ladies don't even have to hear those songs to embrace its values. Only a sufficient exposure to its content via friends suffice to remake their worldview and shape their ideals. Just like many people have used Marxist and atheistic ideologies without even having read Karl Marx or Frederick Nietzsche. Certain views penetrates culture through uncontrolled outlets (e.g. conversations between friends, random parties here and there, etc).

Anyway, sooner or later someone will have to fight back by using the same weapons of art (superb music, fun to read books, flashy magazine, enthralling movies, fascinating paints, adventurous and educative videogame, etc.) to overcome what i seem to see as an already advanced stage of the colonization of our mind by secular values and silent worldly arguments. Beside that, what I said in 2007 is still of actuality. I am absolutely impress by what those secular artists do. They have redefined for me the meaning of commitments, professionalism and inspiration. If it weren't for our very opposite values, i would have given them a 2 thumbs up for a work well done! I am officially impressed! I pray that the Christian community roll up its sleeves and do likewise or even better.

"for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.Luke 16:8 - American Standard Version (ASV)
P.S: Don't forget to check out my book - Help Me Understand Jesus. Check My Book by clicking here or more here