I am not really a person who speaks about politics much but this was brilliantly done. Check this out…
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE]
I am not really a person who speaks about politics much but this was brilliantly done. Check this out…
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE]
If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long… Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school… say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. I won’t have any money to leave behind. I won’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. And that’s all I want to say.
“It is also midnight within the moral order. At midnight colors lose their distinctiveness and become a sullen shade of gray. Moral principles have lost their distinctiveness. For modern man, absolute right and wrong are a matter of what the majority is doing. Right and wrong are relative to likes and dislikes…”
In listening to the words of this sermon, I could not help but think how prophetic he was. His words are still very relavent today and I want to leave you words he spoke that night that should stir something deep within our souls today.
If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority….But if the church will free itself from the shackles of a deadening status quo, and, recovering its great historic mission, will speak and act fearlessly and insistently in terms of justice and peace, it will enkindle the imagination of mankind and fire the souls of men, imbuing them with a glowing and ardent love for truth, justice, and peace.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JFLjwAYHks]
With the Presidential campaigns ramping up and everyone seemingly running to there respective corners to point fingers at the other guy and I wonder how we continually miss the point. June 28, 2012 is a day that will go down historically without much of a fight but that day you might have thought the world ended. That was the day the the Supreme Court of the U.S. rendered its decision on President Obama’s healthcare mandates. Some screamed “It’s the end of liberty!” while others ” It’s the beginning of freedom!” and really either way you sliced it, the court’s ruling was momentous, but does it really change reality? People will continue to be born and die daily. You can argue whether the rate will increase or decrease here in the U.S. but that is just reality. What surprised me is “Christ-followers” publicly showed more care and concern about Chief Justice John Roberts’ conservative credentials more that we do about Christ’s Kingdom advancing in our local context. We consistently seem to have more concern for the things of this world and not any focus on the first things.
That last statement is one that has plagued my mind as I try to write sermon and shepherd people of our church I want focus on the 1st things of Christ and His kingdom. I wonder if this is true for you also. Think about it as you listen to this Sunday night sermon.
**Update: I will be preaching this upcoming Sunday morning August 26, 2012 at our 9:15a and 10:45a (CST) services. Please click here follow to watch the whole service live at those times**
If you have missed the firestorm that Chic-fil-A has found itself in after the comments of her President Dan Cathy let me get you caught up. Cathy’s remarks last week to a Baptist Press site, which he affirmed the company’s belief in “the biblical definition of the family unit,” went viral Wednesday. He said, “”We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles”. Supporters and opponents of gay unions immediately weighed in and did so heavily. From Twitter campaigns, petitions to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino telling the Boston Herald he would work to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.” and this is where my interest peaked.
I am a Chic-fil-A fan. Not the food, in particular, but the service. I have worked in restaurants most of my life and they have a culture that I think many others should look to and follow when it comes to service. I honestly was bothered by the calls for boycotts and, death threats that went out against Dan Cathy. I mean I thought this was America, the place where we have freedom of speech or have I move somewhere else?
This weekend I was reading The Atlantic and came across an article from author and blogger Jonathan Merritt. I’m only going to give portions of it but he said in these few paragraphs what many were thinking.
Should they swear off the legendary chicken sandwiches to support gay rights? Or could they eat one of the filets anyway, knowing their dollars would be but a drop in the bucket for a chain that has more than $4 billion in annual sales and donated a pittance to groups they may disagree with?
I’d argue the latter — and this has nothing to do with my views on gay marriage. It’s because Chick-fil-A is a laudable organization on balance, and because I refuse to contribute to the ineffective boycott culture that’s springing up across America.
First of all, Chick-fil-A is not a hate group. In a statement released yesterday, company leaders made their commitment to equal service clear, “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”
As a native Atlantan, I’ve dined at the chicken chain more than I’d like to admit over more than two decades and even interacted with its leadership team. I’ve never witnessed any customer refused service or even treated differently. On the contrary, Chick-fil-A is known for offering world-class customer service to each person that walks through one of the restaurant’s doors.
Additionally, the organization gives millions of dollars each year to charitable causes — and not just to “pro-family” groups. It funds a large foster care program, several schools of a higher learning, and a children’s camp. It has provided thousands of scholarships for Chick-fil-A employees to attend college and grow past the service sector where they got their workplace start. (On Friday, the company provided free meals for Aurora, Colo., policemen.)
And the company’s leaders claim to do all of this out of convictions rooted in the Christian faith. Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the company should know that it does not hide its commitment to biblical values. Its corporate statement of purpose since 1982 has begun, “To glorify God…”
Given this, that anyone was surprised by Cathy’s statements is, well, surprising. Like many conservative Christians, he does not support gay marriage.
I’m flummoxed that so many consumers are so quick these days to call for boycotts of any company that deviates from their personal or political views. For one thing, boycotts rarely cause actual pocketbook – rather than PR — damage. Most consumers don’t care enough to drive an extra mile to get the same product from someone else. And that’s especially the case for companies as large as Chick-fil-A, which has prime locations on many college campuses where there is little head-to-head competition.
But my bigger question is this: In a nation that’s as divided as ours is, do we really want our commercial lives and our political lives to be so wholly intermeshed? And is this really the kind of culture we want to create? Culture war boycotts cut both ways and are much more likely to meet with success when prosecuted by large groups of people, such as Christian activists, who are more numerous than gays and lesbians and their more activist supporters.
Gay and lesbian groups were famously rankled when pro-family activists reacted against Kraft for posting a photo of an Oreo cookie with rainbow-hued filling last month in honor of Gay Pride Month, and also when similar groups protested JCPenney for announcing lesbian talk show host Ellen DeGeneres would be its next spokesperson.
So should the 45 percent of Americans who oppose gay marriage opt for Chips Ahoy! instead of Oreos? Should they begin shopping at Belk instead of JC Penny? If they did, it wouldn’t make any more sense than the endless failed calls for liberal consumers to boycott Urban Outfitters, because its owner is a conservative and Rick Santorum donor, or to not order from Domino’s Pizza, because it was founded by a Catholic conservative who helped fund anti-abortion causes.
Please read the rest of the article here The Atlantic and please let me know your thoughts on the subject.
Will you boycott Chic-fil-A or will you eat more chiken? Why?
Since the endorsement by our President of same-sex marriage I have heard some of the most frustrating, and mind numbing arguments. Honestly, between this issue and the attachment parenting article in Time Magazine, I’ve almost completely checked out of social media. Everyone has an opinion and wants to make sure that it is not only heard but known to be right though most of them (on both sides) are unintelligible. This changed a few days ago when I was redirected to yet another article concerning this subject. This article [finally] looks at this from a unique perspective and shines a light that will [hopefully] get both sides of this debate thinking.
Many are debating the moral and social obligations of the Black church in the wake of President Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage. The details of what should be the appropriate reaction of the media-crafted monolithic “Black-church vote” are being hotly debated, and well they should be; this is good political discourse. However the limited focus of these debates seems to ignore a much larger picture.
Many wonder about the timing of this announcement. Some have pointed out that it was all too conveniently issued on the eve of Obama’s $40,000 per plate re-election fundraiser among the super rich who might favor such a move.I believe this timing touches on the fringes of the picture we see, yet to gain better perspective we must first reflect on the 2008 election. In the months following Barack Obama’s announcement of his candidacy, Hillary Clinton – with the anointing of the Democratic establishment – was well on her way to being “in it to win it.”Then we saw a great reversal at the Iowa caucuses, transforming Obama from a Black candidate driven by politics to a mainstream candidate driven by a movement. This caused a convergence of multitude paradigm-shifting factors, resulting in a tipping point. Even African American Democrats who favored Hilary experienced this paradigm shift – a shift that was completed with the South Carolina primary. The rest is history.
A cultural movement will always trump politics when they go head to head; this is culture vs. politics. The “marriage equality” advocates seem to have learned this lesson, but those who advocate for traditional marriage are, like a needle on a record, stuck in the groove of an ineffectual political approach.
With Obama’s recent endorsement as we approach the 2012 election, it seems that the order of the day will be politics vs. politics. This time, there is no euphoric movement on the horizon. In this light we can understand Obama’s pronouncement as a matter of political calculation.
I am mystified by the shocked reactions emerging from various quarters, since as early as 1996 Barack Obamais documented as stating,
“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
As the dates add up, his talk of “evolving” now seems a ruse.
Without a movement to ride, perhaps Obama felt the need to assemble a winning coalition. He took for granted the Black vote, in spite of their traditional opposition to same-sex marriage. Given the alternatives, perhaps he reasoned that Black folks would “get over it” and still choose him. After all, why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? Likewise, he counts on the liberal/left vote. It seems to me that this well-timed endorsement of same-sex marriage was aimed at shoring up the enthusiastic support of the LGBT community, with its considerable wealth and clout – a community that was beginning to show signs of antipathy towards him.
In my perspective, same-sex marriage is not the ultimate issue. What disturbs me more is that today’s politicians and judicial activists presume that they can redefine stabilizing institutions that have survived for millennia merely for the sake of short-term gain. Their hubris is rooted in the notion that they are wiser than all the generations that have preceded us. It is this calculated approach that will “fundamentally transform” this nation from a government of laws into a government of men. In such a society, power is applied according to the impulses of flawed leadership. The winds may blow in your favor today, but tomorrow they may tragically reverse, with no recourse.
If our institutions can be redefined at whim for political gain, it makes us all – Black, White, gay, straight, liberal, conservative, or what have you – into pawns in a game in which there are no rules.
You wanted equality, same-sex advocates? Congratulations. You are now a vulnerable piece on the chessboard – just like the rest of us.
I would love your thoughts…
Dr. Carl Ellis Jr. is a cultural analyst, theological anthropologist, minister, husband, father, son and world traveler. If you would like to read more from him please checkout his blog at http://drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/
804 Fairmount Blvd
Jefferson City, MO 65109
(573) 635-4832