Michael Jackson: Why Are We Crying?

It’s the question I keep asking.  Why?

On Tuesday, July 7th, I should have been working in my studio as normal.  My wife and I should have driven to our health club for a workout.  We should have done the things we normally do, along about the time we normally do them.

But we didn’t.

Instead we spent that Tuesday, watching the memorial service held for Michael Jackson, subsequent televised coverage, listening to his music, and talking about all things related to his life and death.  I’m wondering why.

And my question shouldn’t be misunderstood, because I’m not suggesting he is undeserving of our tears, or that any of us should be expected to explain them.  I just want to understand why, because I sense the reasons are more profound than we think.

ANSWERS

They’ve been quite simple, and mostly revolve around one realization:

“He is simply the greatest entertainer that ever lived.” -Berry Gordy

Yes, in answer to my question, I hear…

-”His music and performances have inspired people everywhere on earth.”

-”He was a true innovator; a legitimate genius.”

-”He changed the direction of and set all-new standards for the music industry.”

Sometimes people make noteworthy comments about Michael’s contributions as a humanitarian.  They also point out the positive messages often found in his music.

So is this it?  Is this the reason why the world has been put on “pause”?  Why nearly every media form seems to be dedicated to coverage of his funeral and retrospectives of his life?  Why almost all of the conversations I’ve had in the last two weeks have had a Michael Jackson component?

Again, I think there’s more to it.

RIVETING ENTERTAINER

I haven’t heard anyone attempt to deny that Jackson was, at the very least, one of the greatest entertainers in history.  From his early days with the Jackson 5 to the recent images we’ve seen of rehearsals for anticipated, upcoming concerts, Michael dressed, sang and moved in ways that both delighted and captivated the world.

I grew up in a small town in northern Michigan, then an entirely white region in which the music–especially the music listened to by teenage males–was predominantly hard rock.  Van Halen, Ted Nugent and Ozzy Osbourne blasted loudly from our cassette decks.  Still, when Thriller hit, it hit hard.  This sound might not have been what we were used to, but it oozed an intensity that seemed new and exciting.  And who was that playing guitar on “Beat It”?  Jesus H. Christ, if it wasn’t Eddie Van Halen himself!!!

In the years to come, even when my musical tastes took me down another path, Michael was hard to avoid.  You had to give him credit for his talent–and his awareness of what people would like.  He achieved a worldwide recognition that (in my knowledge) only Elvis Presley and The Beatles might have been able to claim.  There were stars, and there were super-duper stars, and Michael Jackson was at the top of the latter list.  With reports of unbelievable riches and a team of bodyguards to protect him from insane, screaming fans, his fame was awesome to comprehend.

COMPELLING STORY

The story of the Jackson family is the sort of thing we like to hear about.  A dirt poor family figures out a way to make it big.  Though Dad is demanding and abusive, he fuels the children from dire poverty to fame and fortune.  The fact that the lead singer of this family band was just a little kid made other little kids amazed–and their parents amused.  But that wasn’t the only reason I paid special attention to them.

“Did you hear the Jackson 5 are Jehovah’s Witnesses?!”

This gave me a thrill.  Being raised in a religion largely regarded as a kooky cult by the rest of the world, hearing that The Jackson 5 were JWs provided a bit of credibility.  “We might be religious nuts, but we’re religious nuts who call the Jackson 5 our spiritual brothers!” Later Michael would tell stories about going from door-to-door, just like us, but in disguises so as not to draw attention.

Now and then some of the people in my congregation expressed doubts that the Jacksons truly were Jehovah’s Witnesses.  But my brother-in-law’s brother once wrote me after traveling to a JW convention in California, sharing that he sat right next to Rebbie and LaToya, and chatted with them a bit.

I heard about how The Watchtower Society, the legal body behind Jehovah’s Witnesses, spoke with Michael about some of his Thriller video imagery.  For us, this sort of thing was considered spiritistic and demonized.  As a result, Michael provided a disclaimer on the video…

“Due to my strong personal convictions, I wish to stress that this film in no way endorses a belief in the occult.-Michael Jackson.”

Michael was also quoted in the May 22, 1984, Awake!, a JW magazine, as promising that the content in the video was a mistake, and exclaiming, “I would never do it again!”

In the book, Michael Jackson: The Magic and The Madness, by J. Randy Taraborreli, the author indicates that this was not what Michael wanted, but “when the elders threatened to force him to leave the religion, Michael became extremely upset,” and provided this statement to keep from being disfellowshipped.

I found out that, in 1987, Michael did what it would take me another seventeen years to do:  he left the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Perhaps, like me, he came to see that the religion wasn’t what he thought it was, and that subjecting oneself to the moral dictates of a group of men was wrong.

While I remained a zealous JW–even becoming an elder myself and assuming a position of authority in my congregation–I still found certain negative comments made about Michael to be unsettling.  Another elder, an African-American who admitted he’d grown up enjoying Michael’s music, now smirked at his lyrics from “The Man in the Mirror.”

“He says, “If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change.” But the only way this world is gonna be a better place is through God’s Kingdom, which Jehovah God will bring himself–not through the efforts of any man!”

This seemed like a reach to me.  Was there really something wrong with ‘taking a look at yourself and making a change?’  I knew Michael was no longer one of us, but I considered it petty to find fault so easily.

APPARENT STRANGENESS

What do you get when you take Michael Jackson, and subtract all of the weird stories and reported eccentricities?  I’ll suggest that you get an entertainer who is every bit as talented–but somewhat less famous.

While the adage, “no publicity is bad publicity,” may not always hold true, it often does when you’re a marvelously gifted entertainer.  The glove on one hand might have seemed like a simple gimmick, but when the media and the rumor mill started speculating about it, it became something more.  Then came news about him sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber, submitting an offer to purchase the Elephant Man’s skeletal remains, and traveling around with a chimpanzee.  Some called him a nutcase, while others stood back and smiled.

From an early age I tended not to trust everything I heard.  I had enough personal experiences to demonstrate the folly in doing so.  I didn’t know what was true and what wasn’t about this guy, and these things seemed harmless enough anyway.  I formed the impression that Michael was, if nothing else, an interesting, multi-dimensional character.  While I knew that these oddities were contributing to the attention he received, I also got the impression that he (usually) came by them honestly.

What happens when you get together with old friends?  You remember stories.  Stories, which among other things, recall the intimate details and unusual minutiae that form your fondest memories.  In the same way, over the course of many years, we had plenty of stories to tell about Michael Jackson.  Celebrities whose lives seem normal are not as interesting to us as celebrities whose lives are unusual.  Through all the bizarre stories, he gave us a lot to pay attention to, as he worked his way into our lives.

ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE

In 1993 Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse by a 13-year-old boy and his father.  A few years later I would have the experience of chairing a judicial committee, hearing the case of an elder in our congregation who was similarly charged.  I’ve found this subject one of the most difficult for persons to cope with rationally.

People are clearly filled with disgust at anyone who would harm a child in this way.  But I’ve noticed that some exhibit a disingenuous demeanor when the topic arises.  In dramatized tones they call for the death or dismemberment of any so accused.  “Innocent until proven guilty” does not seem to apply when it comes to pedophilia.  Does it seem to you that people are often just posturing when they seethe about things like this, hoping to prove by their passion that they are not themselves pedophiles?

In the committee that I chaired, the accused was found guilty.  To this day, I am confident that we considered all the evidence fairly and gave this man every opportunity to provide facts and testimony to the contrary.  The experience was exhausting, swallowing up four months of my life, but I’m left with some important conclusions.

1) Pedophiles were, in most cases, victims of this abuse themselves.  When they are ten year old victims, we want to gather them up in our arms and protect them, but later when they’re thirty year old perpetrators we want to kill them.  Yes, we must ensure they are kept AWAY from children, whether that’s in a prison cell or some other secure arrangement.  But let’s not let our anger at the individual overshadow what we really need to do here:  attempt to halt the cycle of sexual abuse by identifying it quickly and providing the child with the most effective therapy we can give them.

2) There is a strong archetypal model of “protecting innocent children,” and for good reason.  But our heroic zeal can handicap our good judgment.  Sometimes we can think something is true when it really isn’t, can’t we?  And when the charge is pedophilia, we had better have a lot more than a “strong gut feeling” to so condemn a person.  Further, if someone is found “guilty” of sexual abuse, there should be powerful consequences, but if he is found “not guilty,” we cannot fairly continue to brand him as evil for the rest of his life.

I know that some of the stories surrounding Michael Jackson’s sleepovers can sound bad.  And I do not blame you for thinking there might have been something very wrong going on there.  But it reminds me of another judicial committee that came before another body of elders when I was a JW.

There was a JW woman who was both mentally impaired and (for clarity’s sake) considered extremely unattractive physically.  A circumstance arose in which she spent the night at the

house of a particular non-JW man.  Now, official Jehovah’s Witness guidelines provided to elders stated that “spending all night alone with someone of the opposite sex” could be used as evidence of fornication.  Let’s skip past how weird it is for a bunch of guys to sit around and cast judgment upon someone like this, and move on to the conclusion they came to.  They recognized that, although spending all night with someone of the opposite sex can mean they had sex, it does not mean that they must have done so.

“I would say that an adult male who sleeps with young boys is a child molester.” -New York Congressman, Peter King

Again, I’m not bothered by people who question what was going on at Jackson’s pajama parties.  Sorry to say, after seeing what I have seen, I can’t say I’m completely convinced myself.  But I’ll also admit I wouldn’t be surprised if nothing sexual occurred at all.  Looking at him myself, in all honesty, I see a fragile little kid.  The idea that he somehow lost his childhood and was trying to recapture it is perfectly consistent with everything else we know about him.  Neverland? During the investigation, Michael was examined by mental health professional, Dr. Stan Katz, who, after spending several hours with him, concluded that he was a regressed 10-year-old, and did not fit the profile of a pedophile.  The mother of the original accuser came forward to say adamantly that she did not believe Michael did anything wrong.

How many times have we heard this question:  “So would yoooouuu let your child stay all night with Michael Jackson???” A fair person can certainly answer “no,” while still choosing not to forever demonize a man whom twelve people in a court of law agreed was “not guilty.”  An honest person might privately express their personal doubts, but the idea that an elected State Representative would go on national television to both dishonor our nation’s legal system and angrily denounce a recently dead man is preposterous.  If he disagrees with the media’s intense focus on things like this, (and there are valid points to be raised in this regard,) maybe he could make his point without spitting on the man’s grave with such a slew of thoroughly ignorant statements.

Okay, I’ve gone off on a tangent; sorry.  But let’s apply these allegations of abuse to the question asked by this article.

Michael had (wittingly and unwittingly) already maneuvered his way into our hearts, and now he’s being accused of an horrific act.  Regardless of your particular viewpoint, this controversy injected even more emotion into our “friendship” with the man.  These accusations cut right to the heart of who he is and who we are, based upon the position we take regarding the accusations.  Did you immediately defend him as you would a beloved brother?  Did you feel disappointed in him him as you might have in a friend with whom you were frustrated?  Did you become righteously indignant and denounce him as you might a castoff cousin?  Despite the specific reaction, one thing is certain:  your virtual relationship had become bigger.

HUMANITARIAN

I have found the following statement posted all over the internet…

“In the Millennium-Issue of the “Guinness Book of World Records,” Michael Jackson is named as the Pop Star who supports the most number of charity organizations.”

I have no trouble believing this is true, but I’ve become suspicious since I cannot find any verification of it.  Although the Guinness site contains plenty of MJ records–and even a video in which Michael is welcomed and lauded by the Guinness Editor in Chief–I find no reference whatsoever to this claim about charity.

Regardless, there is no question that Michael Jackson spent an extraordinary amount of time and energy on humanitarian causes.  In addition to personally contributing to many, many charities, he also launched enormous campaigns to raise more funds for them too.  The sources I’ve found indicate that the grand tally is at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you ever listened to Jackson speak on the subject, you know he did so at length and with strong feelings about helping others.  As compared to the number of celebrities who appear to be so self absorbed, this quality has endeared him to many throughout the world.

“He epitomized the words of our father that an individual hasn’t started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of humanity.” -Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr., during Jackson’s memorial service

THE MEDIA

“The mainstream and once contemplative media has now become infused and morphed as one with the Paparazzi. As a seasoned journalist, I am now thoroughly embarrassed to call myself one, hence the hatred and scorn of what my profession and what I once felt was my “calling”. To admit one is a journalist now is akin to confessing an immorality of the worst kind.” -Francesca Biller-Safran, as appearing in The Huffington Post

In his 1964 book, “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man,” Canadian educator and philosopher, Marshall McLuhan, coined the phrase, “the medium is the message.”  I recall being exposed to his writing around 1993, but confess that I have only truly grasped his meaning in the last two weeks.  He makes the point that the content offered by media has less impact on a society than the nature of the media itself. He likens the media’s content to a juicy piece of meat carried by a burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.  His point was that, while we are focusing on the obvious, namely the content intended to educate or entertain us, we are largely missing the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time.  Again, McLuhan made these points in 1964! My take?  He may turn out to have been one of the great prophets of my lifetime.  And it applies to the subject at hand.

The changes that have occurred–in the news media alone–over the last three or four decades are utterly astonishing.  Television news prided itself on being unbiased and no-nonsense.  This is just not something that can be claimed today.  CBS network news anchor, Walter Cronkite, would have briefly reported the death of Michael Jackson on the evening news.  If he had known Jackson or any of his family, he probably would have phoned to give his condolences.  He would no doubt have been personally saddened by the news.  But he most definitely would not have set up his news desk outside the Staples Center for a multi-hour extravaganza, joined by music producer Kenny “Babyface” Edmonds.

This isn’t something easily explained to those who are too young to remember–or who just weren’t paying attention.  They may seem offended when such a thing is questioned, as if this inquiry is an attempt to somehow discredit the genius of Michael Jackson.

Imagine there’s a traveling circus of epic proportions, featuring all of the world’s greatest entertainers.  In each country where they perform, they find some high-profile individual to act as the clown for this event.  Who will they pick from the United States?  Robin Williams?  Jim Carrey?  “I know!” someone says, “let’s get Barack Obama!”  And imagine Barack Obama actually does it! He dons a furry, orange wig, puts on a big, red clown nose, and drives in on a little clown car.  The leader of the free world jumps out, honking a horn, juggling balls and waving all day long.

An exaggeration?  Sure, but I’ll bet “clown” is just what Edward R. Murrow would have considered himself if he ended up spearheading an hours-long broadcast from outside a celebrity’s memorial service.

Walter Cronkite was affectionately referred to as “the most trusted man in America,” not because of the celebrities he snuggled up to, a knack for generating advertising revenue, nor for his political correctness.  You know how “fair and balanced” he was?  Only in recent years have his personal political perspectives been identified.  Turns out he leans quite left–but, unlike today, you’d never have known it from his reporting.  The news was considered something serious; a newsperson’s credibility and reputation could not be jeopardized by anything that distracted from the sober, objective reporting of the news.

“The network news anchors seemed befuddled by their roles in an unprecedented bit of communal mourning.” -Mark A. Perigard / Television Review

“Some network anchors seemed a bit mortified by their own unstinting and reverential coverage. Brian Williams of NBC, who sat on a special platform outside the Staples Center, told his colleague Lester Holt that the public had a way of deciding for itself what matters, “despite, at some times, the news media’s better wishes.” He added ruefully, “And this is an event because it is.””-Alessandra Stanley, writing in The New York Times

Even the aforementioned Babyface, both a successful performer and accomplished producer who knew Michael personally–and did a fine job in doing what he was asked to do–seemed uncomfortable in his role as “color commentator” alongside CBS News anchor and managing editor, Katie Couric.  Shouldn’t CBS have sent their “entertainment reporter” for this?  Well we can’t have that.  If the other networks are sending Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams, we have no choice but to send Couric, do we?  And this is the case why?  Because what mattered more than credibility and reputation was ratings. And ratings mean…money. End of story.

Again, to people who are unaware of the role major news organizations used to play in our society, this is worthy of a simple shrug.  To them, the idea that a tragic event surrounding a celebrity will be hyped day and night, seems perfectly natural, be it from “Entertainment Tonight,” “The National Enquirer,” or “NBC Nightly News.”  And in the end…they’re right.  When are the rest of us going to get it?  The major news organizations are just not what they used to be.  Journalistic judgment has been replaced by the pursuit of ratings, and there is precious little attempt to deny it these days.  The medium has indeed become the message.  What were the rest of us waiting for?  A leading story simulcast on all the networks entitled, “You Can Stop Trusting Us Now”???

All right, so this has been yet another apparent detour from the primary purpose of this article.  But if we are to understand the reason why much of the world is crying over Michael Jackson, we cannot ignore the role the media has played.  For we (in the main) have become fixated upon it.  Jackson would not hold the meaning he does for us were it not for our present relationship with the media.  And, since the media has assisted in administering our ongoing, quarter-century-plus infusion of Michael Jackson, to borrow from NBC’s Brian Williams, he is a part of our lives…because he is.

ATTENTION = ENERGY

“Energy flows where attention goes.” -James Arthur Ray, as quoted from “The Secret”

The above axiom is primary to the Law of Attraction.  Whether it is war, pain, peace, love or our income potential, whatever we give our attention to receives energy and becomes stronger.  And who, over the past few decades, received more attention–in more ways–worldwide than Michael Jackson?

In considering the attention he received for his abilities as a performer, I think Martin Luther King III said it best when recalling his father during the Jackson memorial service…

“Finally, Martin Luther King Jr. said that in life, if it falls ever your lot to be a street sweeper, you must sweep streets so well. In fact, you must sweep streets like Beethoven composed music. Sweep streets, he said, like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets like Raphael painted pictures. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heavens and earth and would have to pause and say, here lived the great street sweeper that did his job well.

On June 25th, because he was the best, I believe heaven and earth did pause, indeed, to say of Michael Joseph Jackson, here lived a great entertainer who did his job well.”

But I’ll suggest that it wasn’t only for his accomplishments as a performer that ‘heaven and earth paused.’  Attention had been given him as a singer, dancer, songwriter, performer, oddball, abused child,  accused abuser, timid boy-man, kind humanitarian, and on and on…

For all of those things, with their accompanying range of emotions, there had been an unprecedented, universal focus on one person, magnified by a powerful and new sort of media.  That our relationship with Michael Jackson might have been created artificially is beside the point.  Energy flows where attention goes. And that accumulated universal energy is, I think, behind our tears.

That’s why we’re so affected by the death of someone we didn’t really know.  That’s why nearly my entire Tuesday, July 7th, ended up being dedicated to his memory.  And that’s why we’re crying.

Christianity and Financial Abundance

I find myself arguing with others on this subject lately.  The conversations usually start the same.  We’re talking about the intriguing story of Jesus Christ.  I always remark about some of the quotes and stories… How Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” [Matthew 7:20, NIV]

The Bible also records the experience of Jesus and Peter, walking on water.  It notes that Peter’s ability to do so required his faith (or belief) that he could, and that it was when he observed the physical things (wind and water) that he let his faith wane and began to sink.  What better story to support the Law of Attraction?

That said, the argument usually ensues when someone suggests that the Bible or Christianity can promote the accumulation of material wealth.  I approach it somewhat cautiously; I don’t want to start an argument.  The truth is, I believe wealth in all areas of life is a good thing, though it might come with accompanying challenges.  And I understand that some may choose to embrace some Bible teachings as valuable, while dismissing others as ancient dogma or possible misunderstandings.  I don’t consider it any of my business to tell them such a policy is wrong.  But…when they actually propound that Christianity, as expressed in the New Testament, promotes material abundance, I just can’t seem to let it go.  I spent an enormous percentage of my life studying the Bible.  And while it’s true that part of that time involved being indoctrinated with the tenets of a particular sect, it’s also true that I became very familiar with the scriptures in general.  Here are some verses that come to mind…

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” [Matthew 6:19-21, NIV]

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” [Matthew 6:24 & 25, NIV]

People acknowledge these scriptures.  But they suggest that Jesus was not condemning wealth; he was instead merely trying to encourage a proper perspective of it.  Quicker than Joe Vitale can come up with a new marketing concept, they will say, “And remember:  it’s not MONEY that is “the root of all evil,” but the LOVE of money!”

It’s really funny that I find myself in these conversations.  I no longer consider myself a Christian–although I certainly respect the religious beliefs of others and acknowledge some of the positive qualities I now possess as probably coming from my Christian upbringing.  I suppose it has to do with observing people who are (I believe) deceiving themselves.

Some will spend all of their time dissecting the many scriptures that clearly discourage the pursuit of material wealth, and try to find little snippets here and there that might, in some indirect way, prove their point.  And if they can’t find anything substantive in the actual Christian scriptures, they’ll pop back to the Old Testament for a nugget about God promising to “multiply Abraham’s seed,” which to them means he wants us to have lots of money.  Ask them about other Old Testament teachings, which allow for the owning of slaves and putting others to death for working on the sabbath, and they’ll smirk dismissively.  And they will SWIM past verse-after-verse, which expressly dissuades the faithful from pursuing riches, to find anything that can make them feel better about doing so.

I recognize that Christianity, as expressed in the Bible, does not prohibit a person from having material wealth, but my point is that there is no way an honest-hearted person can examine the New Testament and come away with the idea that Jesus Christ wanted us to pursue it.  Neither can you avoid the fact that, at nearly every opportunity, he strongly warned against it.

There is the account at Luke, chapter 16, in which Jesus provides a parable about a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus.  It’s one of those stories that people scratch their heads over, but the gist is that the rich guy went to a place of fiery torment and the poor guy “was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.” The rich man appeals to Abraham, but is told that he received his good things while on earth, but poor Lazarus evil things.  Now Lazarus was being comforted, but the rich man was in agony, and not a darn thing could be done about it.  The only thing the rich guy can think of is to warn his still-living brothers.  He wants Lazarus to go and caution them, suggesting that seeing a dead man would prove an effective warning.  But Abraham says, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

Why is the rich man being punished?  The account doesn’t say that he had been evil; only that he had “dressed in purple and fine linen, and feasted sumptuously every day.” It also mentions that the poor man laid at the rich man’s gate, longing to satisfy his hunger from “what fell from the rich man’s table.” We can certainly conclude that the rich man was being punished–not for being rich, but for failing to give to the poor from his riches.  Fair enough.  But we still cannot deny that Jesus is, yet again, speaking negatively of wealth.  And we certainly can’t use this perspective to conclude that He wants Christians to pursue monetary wealth, can we?

Maybe you can be a Christian and be wealthy.  Fine.  But you can’t use the New Testament of the Bible to suggest that Jesus encourages you to pursue wealth.  Paul, who wrote more New Testament books than any other writer, indicated that the seeking of wealth was a trap.

“People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction… But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.” [1 Timothy 6:9-11, NIV]

What is Bible message about the desire for wealth?  Is it that we should go for it–as long as we proceed with caution?  No.  It distinctly instructs Christians to ‘flee from it’! And it’s kind of ironic, because just as the aforementioned rich man’s brothers would not listen to a risen dead man on this subject, many Christians today will not listen to Jesus, whom they believe has risen from the dead, and who is the leader of their own religion.  They keep trying to find ways to justify somehow, some way, that it’s okay to focus on material wealth–and still be a zealous Christian.

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [Matthew 19:24, NIV]

“Ahhh, but it doesn’t say it’s impossible, now does it?!”

Sigh… To be clear, I want you to have wealth.  Emotional wealth, spiritual wealth, relationship wealth, and even material wealth…  If, like me, you simply enjoy reflecting upon and discussing what’s in the Bible, more power to you!  If you believe that, among many good things, the Bible may also contain teachings that are based upon misunderstandings–or that have been altered by possibly well-intentioned humans over the years–but that it’s still something sent to you by God, I understand.  Further, if you believe in a form of Christianity that does not require the use of the Bible, I nod respectfully.  But, if you consider the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and the final word regarding the Christian faith, to ignore all it has to say about wealth, while still choosing to believe that biblical Christianity encourages the pursuit of money, is an exercise in self-delusion.

I’m aware that some might not appreciate this–or be ready for it, so I’ll just ask for your understanding.  In the last few years I’ve come into a new way of comprehending the world, which includes the Law of Attraction and other related concepts I see as universal truths.  Unlike the culture I once embraced, which was marked by judgmentalism, I have finally realized the peace of not expecting everyone to agree on all matters…of true freedom of thought and expression.  But I’ve also seen the wisdom in releasing our attachment to unhealthy, untrue and limiting beliefs, and it’s in this spirit I have offered this piece.

If you’d care to point out what I’m missing here, I assure you, I’m open to your comments.  Do you believe that New Testament Christianity not only allows for the pursuit of financial wealth, but encourages it?  Do you believe your case for it is stronger than the case made against it?  I await your replies.

God?

It occurred to me, during the third Law of Attraction Success Stories interview, that I’d like to ask each person, “Do you believe in God?”

The responses have been very interesting (at least to me.)  But it addresses something that most of us have to contend with when we begin to embrace a new understanding of The Universe.  Can we harmonize the LoA with our former religious beliefs?  Must we turn our backs on them, or at least modify them?

I’m aware that for most, this may not be an extraordinary challenge.  In considering the experiences of many of my friends, it seems clear that–even when they come from “religious” households–changing their worldview doesn’t produce substantive upheaval in their lives.  They may have incredible, eye-opening experiences, they may reset former patterns of thought, but most people don’t have a difficult time releasing previous beliefs that they didn’t feel too strongly about anyway.

For some of us, it’s an entirely different matter.  If you’ve read my About page, you know that I was born into the third generation of a religious organization that I now recognize isn’t what it claimed to be.  (And it only claimed to represent the sole channel of communication from Almighty God to all of humankind…nothing major.)  I’ve given it some thought and decided (at least for now) not to identify this organization here–although I reserve the right to do so at a later time.  I don’t want this to be about my former religion, and I don’t find it necessary to expend a lot of energy, shining the spotlight on it.

But my point is that, since I was so deeply involved in a religion that most would agree subscribes to a variety of rather extreme viewpoints, it was not something that I could easily sidestep.  I had to deal with it.  There was no allowance, in my former faith, to (for instance) consider oneself an actual extension of The Divine.  God was God–and you were you, and suggesting anything else was nothing less than blasphemy.

In my first podcast, I spoke about readjusting my former understanding of God as being “that chubby guy hanging in the clouds.” I say that because that’s how I always pictured him.  Yep, I had a very clear picture of a mostly bald, bespectacled, rotund and smiling older man.  What’s funny is that, at some point in my teen years, I was looking through my parents’ old photo album and saw the man (apparently a friend of the family) whose exact image I’d evidently borrowed for my concept of The Creator.

“Holy crap, it’s Jehovah!”

Did I just give it away?

Anyway, as I scanned through Google Images for an artist’s rendering of God, I didn’t really find any “chubby guys.”  In fact most were powerful, athletic images that looked like something chiseled by Michelangelo.  As you see, I settled on one that obscured “His” physicality.  The point?  Not only might we all have had different mental images of God, but these images–and even our understanding of His/Its nature–has both evolved and may continue to evolve.

If you’re planning to connect with me in one of the cities I’ll be traveling to, I hope you won’t mind if I ask you this question.  And, rest assured, I won’t mind whatever you say!

And what about the rest of you?  How exactly has your understanding of God changed?  Do you still use the word, “God,” or is there some other word you prefer?  Do share…