Poetic Crusade

What does it mean to be a lazy thinker?
What does it mean to be a tolerant thinker?

Is it when I set aside my convictions,
Or when I set aside my religious dogma?

When I elevate my law degree,
Or theories from Karl Marx and John Stuart Mills??

Tell me what does it mean not to be a lazy thinker.

I was told stating my stand based on what my Bible has convinced me to be true is being lazy.
I was told that I must argue intellectually without bringing in my beliefs.
I was told having a personal opinion based on my Bible is lazy thinking.

At least that is what they made me understand.
That the active thinker has no religious convictions.

That I am a lazy thinker and that the non-religious thinker is an active thinker.

But I have news for you.
I believe that the lazy thinker is the person convinced personal convictions based on faith have no place in the society.

The lazy thinker is too lazy to figure out how faith affects every facet of society.

The lazy thinker thinks that the best way to think is without conviction.

Yet a man without conviction is a spineless being. He has nothing to live for, no purpose.

The lazy thinker is mad when a Christian declares his faith and criticizes it as intolerence;
While yet celebrating an atheist when he declares his lack of any religious conviction and labels it as tolerant, an active thinker.

As if the two men have done two different acts.

As if the two bleed differently.

It is lazy to think without foundational conviction,
As if you are a dead leaf to be blown around by every wind of philosophy and doctrine.

Tell me, what does it mean to be a lazy thinker??

Miserable sacrifice

"When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”  -Victoria Osteen

Before I start, let me introduce myself by saying I am a person called by God into music ministry and I am not ashamed of saying so. That is all you need to know for the purposes of this blog.

So who are the Osteens?? They probably need no introduction to a majority of Christians but to those who do not know, they are the most controversial preachers of our generation and they lead one of the biggest congregations in the USA. They do preach what I may describe as a self centered Gospel that really dwells a lot on me, myself and I, which is half the Gospel if you ask me. I do not listen a lot to them and I rarely talk about them because it would be wrong to make a conclusive judgement based on hearsay and stuff I do not have direct evidence of.

Anyway, back to the statement. It was probably, the most controversial statement made this August and the YouTube comments show why. This is because it touches on a sensitive area and that is worship. Worship is as close to God as any man can get, and I am not speaking just about musical or artistic worship. This is because you worship what you most closely relate to. If it is money, that is it. If it is fame, so it will be and if it is God, so shall it be. And for it to be worship, it has to involve some level of sacrifice meaning you have to give up something about yourself, no matter how small. Thus comes in the aspect of sacrifice.

Worship also in another funky way is the evidence of one's love and admiration for the object of worship. The love part may not necessarily apply for all deities but for the Lord, it does because love is His very essence and nature. You cannot simply worship God without loving God.

So far, out of the many elements surrounding worship I have decided to pick these two. And the third element that we often love to overlook and that is Joy. Joy is one of the least expounded on topics when it comes to worship because church today has taught us there is no joy in sacrifice. It always has to be painful and therefore, any feelings of joy should not be present.
Put in another way, if we derive joy from offering our sacrifices, then it has not cost us enough. The deeper the pain, the greater the sacrifice. And from the pain, we gain a sense of self righteousness which again is totally not the goal of worship.

David in psalms 122 says, I was glad when they said unto me, let us go up to the house of the Lord. They joy was there before the sacrifice came. Let me put it this way, his righteousness preceded his sacrifice. And what I am about to say next will cause me some trouble.
God is the object of worship but man is at the center of it. People believe worship starts with sacrifice but it actually starts with man's delight in God. God is not interested in the depth of the sacrifice if the Lord isn't the delight of the man offering it. Our own joy therefore comes into scrutiny here. God is not a sadist who lives off the praises of man. That isn't him. A sacrifice offered up with melancholy is in no way God's idea of worship. And this is not to say that deep sacrifice is bad. I am just saying if at the end of the day after offering up worship or a sacrifice and all that is left in your heart is anything other than joy; if it is just pain and sorrow, you need to check yourself again.

Most Christians misunderstand joy. Joy is a fruit of the spirit, not a reward for anything we have done. The fruit of the spirit is something that all Christians need to exercise for we all have the Holy spirit as a result of accepting salvation. If joy and delight are not the center of our worship then we are doing it wrong.

The rest is for you to figure but that is the pinnacle of my thoughts regarding the statement by Victoria. I truly and shamelessly believe that man is also a priority in worship. Man's delight and joy are priorities in worship. Sacrifice in worship is important but that is not what God is essentially looking for. He wants to be the delight of our hearts. No delight, no joy, no worship.

War.

The topic of war is one of particular interest to me. It is a fascinating concept, and has been one of the more consistent marks of society. This fascination is not a result of sadism but of curiosity. The whole concept of life in itself is something astounding because life goes beyond mere existence. Something that the big bang cannot explain.

War from the earliest of ages has been associated with religion and mistakenly, more often than not, blamed on religion. Atheism has made us believe that religion is the main cause of unrest while if you study history carefully, this notion is disapproved.

Religion is one of the social bonds of society. Other social bonds include location, common ancestry, tribes and the like. These points of social organization give us common goals and functions and more importantly, common economic goals. Economy has been at the center of man's existence since God commanded man to bear fruit, multiply and fill the earth. Religion serves as a tool to push man towards this end. That is why we have all these religions in place today. Freemasonry being a good example of one. Our hip hop artists worshipping the devil being another and the most widespread being worship of self. For you see, religion is supposed to be a tool that enables one to tap into the spiritual realm of power and economics. If you do study prosperous men, they might have all not been Christians, but they were religious in one manner or the other.

If in doubt, check all the so called "religious conflicts". Each conflict had an economic angle to it. The conquest of Canaan being one of the examples in point. The current Middle East chaos with Israel, the Jewish Holocaust, the Vikings and others. All these conflicts were and are centered around economic power. What most people misunderstood is that religious conflicts are for the sole purpose of religious conversation. I find this notion funny because as much as you may put a knife to someone's throat and make him profess worship to your preferred deity, if it does not happen in his heart, then it is not real. This would in essence beat the whole purpose of a religious conquest.

Now, some people do argue that the crusades were religious. I do not know much about them but what I do know is that the church leadership then was not just a religious docket in the society but a political seat. Politics is designed to manage economies, not personal religious beliefs. You can fill in the blanks from there.

So what about an instruction to kill in war yet God says do not kill??
This is like the most tricky question to answer because the wisdom of God here surpasses mine but nonetheless, I shall elucidate further on my understanding of this.

Fatherhood is a strange spiritual concept. This is because you are the copy of your father since his blood flows in you, regardless of whether you know him or not. You most likely have character traits and habits from the man that you never knew where they came from whether or not you have met him. And it has nothing to do with genes. Some mothers try to hide their children away from their biological fathers in an effort to "protect" them from their father's flaws only to realise later on in life that their children do act like their fathers in spite of the conditioning they have attempted. This is because fatherhood is first spiritual then physical. To kill children and women in war is a statement of intent. That you do not intend at all for the legacy of the father to continue. That is why in war, it is not merely enough to kill the men because the children will grow up to be twice the man their fathers were. Twice the passion, twice the hatred and anger, twice the economic dominance if given the chance.
Another whole interesting diversion from this is rape in war. In wars, sometimes instead of killing we see rape. The children born out of rape in war grow up to be full of hate, malice and anger just like their fathers; the soldiers who raped their mothers. They grow up into bloodthirsty men with an unexplained insatiable hunger for conflict and war. It is not out of lack of a father while growing up, but actually as a direct result of the father's action leading to the child's conception. That is why much of Africa is still embroiled in conflict and war. With each new generation of children comes a young army with an unexplained thirst for war. People think it is the minerals in Congo that have led to such a long conflict but there is so much more to it. That is why death in war is such a necessary feature.

To the simpleton, it may look like I am making a justification for religious conflicts and even the Zionist movement. To the average, it may look like I am trying to reconcile conflicting Bible verses. To the more advanced mind, indulge me more. I am still learning anyway. Your pick....

To my atheist colleagues, I love the way you provoke me to thought. I hope I have in someway returned the favour.

This post is dedicated to a certain blogger whose name I have forgotten, but whose shallow sentiments about war and religion really annoyed me. In fact I shouldn't have justified her comments with a blog but there is no use in wasting sleep in order not to publish this.

Music and identity.

For the past year or so, I have had a lot of time on my hands and therefore been able to add a lot of knowledge to what our education system had already offered me.  A prime time to review my goals and ambitions in life and more importantly, my identity. One of the fascinating things about me is that I am a cool guy and a musician but apart from that, an African. At this point, I wish to stress how important it is for me to be an African. I believe that I have better opportunities than any other race (not that I have anything against my international friends), but I just believe so. Primarily because Africa is at a period of self definition. The past fifty years have been spent trying to become someone else other than African and that is the tragedy of our continent. In this tragedy, two observations have been made:

1. Black Africans are not totally proud of being African.
2. White Africans are more proud of being African compared to black Africans.

What does that have to do with anything???

Well, it is common but uncommon knowledge that you cannot be anything else apart from yourself, a concept few human beings seem to grasp. We see it in our dressing, speech, value systems and everything else that touches on our identity. Most musicians are also plagued with this crisis. Looking to every corner of the world for our musical identity except inwards.
I however, do not mean that we are not allowed to admire and be inspired by Switchfoot and Lecrae, there is no crime in that. I just want to suggest the idea that Africans have something to offer from within. It's like inviting someone over for dinner then buying take-away food for the occasion. It beats the purpose of the invite.

A good friend of mine and pastor once told me that Africa is the only region yet to offer up its own sacrifices to God. She had a point there since the rest of the world has given of itself and its potential except for Africa. I figured our identity crisis has a role in this. Same thing musically and economically. So what is it that we have to offer or what have people offered musically as an example?

I used to look at this issue from a perspective of genre, but upon further deduction, I realised a genre is a carrier of a MESSAGE, not the message itself. The message may have several thematic expressions but the message is usually one resounding message. A good example would be reggae. There are many different themes people sing about in this genre; love, peace, emancipation and all that but it carries one message and that is the message of freedom. It is funny because the birth of reggae coincided with the independence of Jamaica. Reggae therefore became a symbol of independence. However, most Jamaicans still sing of coming freedom for they are legally free but still mentally enslaved. Thus preventing them from celebrating freedom.
Black music is another weird one. Full of emotive energy and screams. If you listen to James Brown, he says the screaming is a scream borne out of pain and oppression of the black people in America. Black music as it originally came from the church represented hope for a better day. It's not a vocal technique they purposely pursued, but rather chose to freely express themselves the best way they knew how to. The message from black music is that of hope.

I could go on and on but the rest is upto the inquisitive mind to investigate for oneself.

However, the more fundamental question here is what story does Africa have to tell the world??? I unfortunately do not yet have the answer though it lies somewhere resident within my identity. It lies within us all.

An African movie writer once described Africans as natural storytellers. Every night after supper, African families used to conglomerate around a fire for stories. This culture did not belong to one community only but to the continent as a whole. It probably explains why songs like Malaika did well and other great songs. Most are just simple stories, nothing extraordinary. But told by extraordinary beautiful fellows because it is part of who they are. Just a thought.

Final story.
One of my favourite bands, delirious, once wrote a song titled, "majesty" co-written by Martin Smith and Stu G. Both are English men. That song was their most popular song and many churches still do it. If you listen to the lyrics, you can understand the sense of awe associated with monarchs. Combine the recognition of the English monarchical system and the the gospel and you get a powerful song like that. I am not proposing this as the ultimate formula for songwriting but I hope it summarises this post.

Pride and atheism

The nature of man when presented with the idea of God is to come up with another alternative. That being the basic flaw of man and even of Lucifer himself. Pride.

The foundation above statement is drawn out of a C.S. Lewis teaching, not entirely my original work. However, the rest of this shall be my own work, so not worry, I will not be regurgitating other people's ideas.

The first sin committed wasn't that of rebellion to God's word but of pride. Adam did not sin when he ate the forbidden fruit but when he decided to take on another alternative other than God. That other alternative being his human logic and intuition. Pride!!! Pride in himself, that he could come up with a better alternative than that which God had offered him. And since then, that has been the fundamental flaw of man. The attempt to attribute everything to himself and his ability to create, explain or sustain. The flaw that made man imagine himself to be a god, though not fully omnipotent, a god nonetheless. I could speak about it in depth, for I as a human, have been constantly fighting this on a daily basis. From the moment I wake up and separate me time and God time, trying to own the time given to me by God and calling it my own. Then allocating to him a portion of that time as if it were mine in the first place and all I am trying to do, is do God a favour and remain in his good books because I have bought it with my own property. Pride!!!

What I'm I trying to say? All I am saying is that the carnal nature of man does not allow him to give full glory or recognition to any other being than himself. Man is inwardly predisposed to glorifying and worshipping himself first. Then when he has had enough of that, to probably share what is left over with other people or beings (which I suppose in this case is close to zero due to man's selfishness). Man has never been at one time been more humble than proud on his own volition. He has only been able to do so when something greater than him changes that. He has only been able to give greater reverence to that only which is greater than him upon meeting that greatness. Humility has never been man's strength.
Therefore I would like to propose the following two scenarios for people who challenge the notion that religious piousness is man's creation.

A baby once born is born faithless and has no spirit capable of communing with God. The parents then choose to bring him up as a Christian and inculcate in him a false notion that God exists and that he created us and we should worship him. This coming out of a point that all men are born faithless but due to their unlimited imagination, fear of the unknown coupled with such a great degree of humility causes them to attribute all that they know and do not know to a supreme being. They extrapolate evidence from their surrounding that such a being can exist. Or.....

Man is born with a spirit that inwardly recognises that there is a God and they need to revere this being because He is greater than all men. However, due to the intrinsic flaw of man, pride, he tries to come up with other alternatives and so resorts to the scapegoats of logic and science. They fit in perfectly into the picture since both rely on the human mind, man can use the two to exalt himself. After much reasoning and thought, he concludes that religion is a creation of men birthed out of fear and ignorance. Since the atheist by now has transcended that level of ignorance and.achieved a higher level of self-consciousness, and has become fearless and.somewhat self-sustaining, he concludes that there is no such thing as God.

An atheist once called my argument simple and naive and for the purposes of the following section, I will validate his opinion.

I could only come up with the above two alternatives since life is primarily composed of two choices. And so follows the subsequent questions.

1. Which element best depicts man's character: humility or pride? Are men creatures clothed with pride or are they creatures clothed with white stainless garments of humility?

2. Which is easier for man to do? To beat his own will and in great humility, declare there is a being greater than him who could conceive such a glorious universe or; to try in his pride to rob God of the glory due to him by attributing the myth of creation to science and logic?

Call me naive but I think it is a bit unreasonable and utterly stupid to imagine man in all his pride and glory to willingly declare that he is so humble, humble enough to ascribe the pride and glory he has so long held onto, to an imaginary being. Man is the most imaginary of all creatures, but the least humble of them all. And if an atheist argues that religion is the apex of man's imagination, he must be ready to prove that humility is the greatest virtue in all men.

To believe that men are more humble than proud sounds very naive to me. Even I believe it is impossible as a man, as a Christian, that I am able to attain humility by my  own strength. I need a good deal of the Holy Ghost and the cross for that, and I believe that is the same case as with all Christians, even the holiest of them all.

I stand to be corrected but I think it is possible for man to creatively come up with the notion of deity. However, it is impossible for man in his pride to worship such a being unless there is enough evidence to compel man to humble himself.

To reconcile imagination and humility to the extent of coming up with God and surrendering wholly to him must be the most self-defeating thing man in his state of pride can do.
To come up with the above scenario and validate it is to me, the most naive thing an atheist can do.

Faith and doubt

"In order for a man to test his faith, he must open all possible avenues for doubt" Lelli Mandela.

As human beings we are all aware that the strength of an object or person can only be tested when the object is stretched to its limits. We understand that in every area of our lives, especially school and work where our endurance and patience is tested. Sometimes, even in relationships and courtships leading to marriage agree our love and long-bearing is tested. We understand that when it comes to dealing with children when they push us to our limits. Our devotion to God in our prayer and fasting. In all these areas, we do understand this principle. All these except one: our Faith.

Faith in this sense not being the ability to believe in God's working power, but faith: our salvation; Christianity. Faith for the purposes of this article being a religion.
Do you believe everything the good Lord says in the big black book because it is and has always been there, or do you believe because you are convicted by the truth. The big black book says God will spit out the lukewarm person. The person who has no conviction of where he/she stands. Going by that scripture, it would seem that the Lord would possibly be displeased by our pious following of His word in the event of failure to be hot or cold about it. God in this case would seem to be more tolerant towards the person who wrongly but convictedly interprets God's word as compared to the person who has no opinion about his word, only religious fanaticism towards it. Such a person would on the face of it look like a windy person, able to be tossed here ans there by every wind of doctrine.

Doubt, more often than not, tests our Faith and resolve in the Lord. It reveals our minds and hearts concerning God's words in our lives. Without arousing doubt or suspicion, we can rarely get to know if we really believe God's word and are convicted if its righteousness or we just follow it because it is the letter. Without testing our faith, we can really never determine if we are religious fanatics or true disciples.
A person without true conviction of his faith can never be fit to defend the gospel when called to rise to the occasion. Many Christians are guilty of this since we are too cowardly to ask ourselves the questions atheists ask themselves. If I am not the first person to be convicted by the truth, how else I'm I supposed to disembody the seed of doubt in another unbelieving human being?

The case here isn't being made for the evangelising Christian but for the Christian willing to do a personal audit of their faith. A person ready to test the extent of his faith. That is why I admire Peter when he walked on water. He made the conditions perfect for the testing of his faith. He decided to weigh the Lord's word against doubt and ended walking on water. Many people remember Peter for drowning but I remember him for being mad.enough to test his faith. No wonder God could trust that that he would be the rock upon which the church would be built.

What most people do not realize is that Peter did not walk on water because he was a fanatic but because he had an untethered conviction. How many of us can boldly say I will take up all my fears and doubts and weigh them against my faith in God? How many can say I an ready to test my heart and weigh my beliefs? How many are ready to take that leap from religious fanatics to convicted disciples?