Smuggling Trifles … December 10, 2012

(1,725)

Did you know that three out of four people believe that 75% of what they hear is true, but that one-quarter of the information is lies?

Stop. I just made that up to be funny. So don’t go off and repeat it.

I have to offer that warning because in no time at all, a little piece of misinformation can be transferred across the country, considered common knowledge, without anybody questioning it, challenging its veracity or even considering the source.

We had a whole political campaign this year based on a series of trifles with little evidence, but because they were reported as facts, characters were assassinated and reputations tainted.

In an age of information, it is important for each of us to take responsibility for what we hear and make sure it bears witness with our own experience.

For instance: “I pledge allegiance to the flag.” Really? Have you ever looked at the definitions of “pledge?” And “allegiance?” And what if the flag begins to represent a republic that is NOT indivisible, but still infested with the same conflicts we had during the Civil War? What if that nation we are pledging to is no longer “under God” and doesn’t offer liberty and justice for all?

How about liturgy in a church? Can we continue to recite words which are not only out of our present vernacular, but also beyond our comprehension?

Can you really go on the Internet and retrieve information which is at best dubious and at worst, malicious?

Can we have a generation out there which is beginning to speak to each other using snippets from movie lines and abbreviations from Twitter?

We are smuggling trifles–little pieces of nothing born in the imaginations of promotional-minded sales people–into our everyday lives and calling them “truth.”

So before you go off and say that I have attacked the Pledge of Allegiance, placed a curse on liturgy, or am an old codger who is against the Internet, realize that I am speaking of a blind faith which embraces any misconception simply because it has a little bit of thrill or controversy.

I have chosen a different path. Everything that comes through my personal doorway has to pass the test of my own experience and my own sense of well-being. So what do I know for sure?

1. I feel better when I share my feelings.
2. I find that God is much more possible and plausible when I’m out there helping others.
3. My brain seems smarter when I chip away at my own cemented ignorance.
4. I eat better, I live better, I look better and I am better.

There you go. My core. It is from that base that I begin to circulate into the vat of humanity, absorbing new ideas, new information and new opinions. Being open-minded does not connote that we have no ideals or goals. It just means that we’re seeking confirmation for the truth that’s already made us free.

We will continue to be confused as long as we believe that political parties, religion, corporations or even our culture is out for our good. It’s not that we need to reject these forces, but rather, we need to channel the trifles that come our way through the filter of a thoughtful heart, a discerning spirit, a reflective mind and a strong body.

If we do this, we can keep from being duped.

If we don’t? Duping is inevitable.

The producers of jonathots would humbly request a yearly subscription donation of $10 for this wonderful, inspirational opportunity

Interloper… November 9, 2012

(1,694)

Interloper (n)–one who interferes or meddles in the affairs of others, often for selfish reasons, while intruding into a trade, usually without a proper license.

I am an interloper.

I’m quite proud of it. I have come along at a point in history when the battle lines have been drawn among my fellow-travelers and we’ve been encouraged to pick sides, much like we did as little children at the playground, determining our companions merely based upon our likes and dislikes, and therefore choosing up a team that resembles us but isn’t necessarily qualified for victory.

I am an interloper.

Last night I came to Jeffersonville, Ohio, and interrupted a community which I am certain was pretty content in pursuing its present level of activity and the energy of its ongoing belief system. I interfered. I asked a minister in that town to open up his church to a program offering music, humor, dialogue and ideas which might be just a little bit foreign to the community chest. And you know what? I did it for selfish reasons.

I am weary of living in a country whose people square off against one another, continuing a Hatfield and McCoy style of interaction based on generations of misconceptions and often-disproven theories. I want to be happy. I find a way to do so without the help of others, but would certainly welcome additional friends on the journey.

I interrupted the local newspaper, which I’m sure doesn’t normally advertise such an event, especially one coming from a religious institution, out of fear of showing favoritism for one congregation over another. They broke out of their mold, interviewed us and put their findings on the front page.

Also, I refused to accept the findings of the region, expanded the definition of inspirational music and ideas–and yes, I did it without a proper license. No one has given me permission. No political or religious institution has offered me credentials, and no one has summoned me to the occasion. I choose to do it, I continue to promote it–and I am determined to be the last man standing.

I am an interloper.

I am exhausted from listening to people characterize all conservatives as brash brothers and sisters of Rush Limbaugh and all liberals as baby-killing whale-lovers. I have traveled this country back and forth many times. I have dined with conservatives who only want to make sure the progress we make is not to the detriment of their families, offspring and even the heart of God. I have supped with liberals, who have sat in tears only because they desire to see the needs of the poor and less fortunate met, while we attempt to lift the bottom line. There are good people out there on both sides, who really would like each other if they were not forced into despising the other camp.

I am an interloper.

I have no written authorization to do what I am doing–not even a note from my mother, who I am sure would also disapprove.

I spent an hour with strangers last night. We talked.  We reasoned. We laughed. We cried. They kept looking for ways to confirm that I was either a liberal or a conservative and at the end of the encounter, had to surmise that I really was trying to access the Spirit and the truth that would make us free.

I don’t always succeed, but I can identify failure, even when it’s mine. I have given myself permission to correct my own stupidities without feeling diminished. I stand ready to interfere in the present climate of a country which is bound and determined to stubbornly destroy itself with the doctrine of opinion. I have few opinions but I have tremendous aspirations.

I am an interloper.

I will be coming soon to your community to interfere in the affairs of your region, while redefining the trade of ministry–without any papers or vetting coming from a political party. If we do not rise as a nation and object to the existing stalemate of staleness, we will gradually just slip away from significance and be viewed by history as an ignorant people who only honored arrogance.  We can do better.

I am an interloper.

I welcome you to become an interloper, too. To do so you, will have to realize that conservative people have something to offer, as do those with a more liberal twinge. The balance of this condition is found at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance:

” …one nation under God…”

Truthfully, that’s all true conservatives want. They would just like to have the assurance that the Creator would be included in the affairs of His creation.

“…with liberty and justice for all…”

That is at the core of the honest liberal–just a request that we grant people the freedom to be themselves even if we don’t completely agree–as long as it is not detrimental to the pursuit of the common good.

And when you allow these two forces to exist together in a great debate of discovery, you end up with a word that makes this country immutable:

“…indivisible.”

You can’t divide us, because we refuse to be disconnected from one another over some silly issue.

I am an interloper.

I will not join the confusion. I will not participate in the foolishness. I am here … to meddle and interfere.

The producers of jonathots would humbly request a yearly subscription donation of $10 for this wonderful, inspirational opportunity

5ive … March 17, 2012

(1,456) 

Barack, Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ron (alphabetical order)–the five left standing, as it were, desiring the post of President of the United States.

The United Church of Christ, Mormon, two Catholics and a Baptist, respectively, are their religious affiliations. They all love to talk about God. I do not know when, in our body politic, that the pursuit and discussion of the Divine gained such prominence, but now it seems the main arm wrestling occurring over issues is being decided by who, presumably, God likes the best.

Is God a Republican or a Democrat? Since these five individuals are so intent on invoking the name of the Most High, I just wondered whether they would be willing to run on God’s platform, based upon what we know about His character and concerns. Yes, would Barack, Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ron have the intestinal fortitude to abandon previous stances in favor of the universal mindset of the Almighty? Because as I see it, God’s political position would be in four parts:

1. God is no respecter of persons. That means He wouldn’t play one race or group of people against another to gain support, but rather, would promote the notion that no one is better than anyone else, and that the human race is born with complete equality of possibility. Granted, some people choose to use their birthright as emotional toilet paper, to degrade themselves instead of uplifting their situation, but that has nothing to do with the fact that God placed within all of us the ability to overcome our weaknesses, and to temper our strengths, to keep us from feeling dominant by circumstance of birth. Yes, I wonder what these five candidates would think about running on a platform of NO PREJUDICE—not in theory but in practice.  It would mean we would have to take Iran seriously as a sovereign nation and therefore negotiate with them instead of threatening them.

2.  Where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty. How popular would it be to run a campaign with a plank in the platform that proclaims there will be no limits placed on liberty. In other words, anything that inhibits the rights of an individual in our country to express him or herself equally with anyone else would be anti-God. Such a concept would be considered pure idealism and debunked as impossible because we extol our particular rules and regulations, while eschewing the restrictions of our opponent.

3. God is love, and perfect love casts out fear. Would it be possible to be President of the United States if you weren’t able to scare the voters into selecting you as their savior from terror? If you removed apprehension and worry from the equation and had to run a race for the White House based upon NO FEAR, would you be able to do it and still gain enough attention from the electorate to get them to the polls to choose you? Certainly some great men in history have said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” but we have not heard much affirmation of that concept of late. After all, frightening the peasants is a great way to get the serfs to pay taxes to the castle. It is rather doubtful that any of these five individuals would want to renounce that practice in entirety.

4. And finally, God is light and in Him is no darkness. Would Republican or Democrat be willing to present himself to the American public based solely upon his ideas or aspirations, without trying to attack his adversary? And that would include, of course, allowing their names to be sold off to Super Pacs, running negative ads against any competitor who dared to surface. Could we actually have a political climate that was free of darkness, free of deception, free of lying–in other words, transparent as much as human beings are able to become? Would this quintet of wannabes be willing to remove darkness from the table and enlighten us?

So let’s take another look at a platform that really would represent the spirit of God rather than invoking His name to evoke controversy.

• No prejudice. That means gays, women, Iranians, Jews and immigrants.
• No limit on liberty. That means gays, women, Iranians, Jews, immigrants–and you and me.
• No fear–skipping the step of terrifying people, but instead, informing us on the legitimate information available to make an intelligent decision.
• No darkness–precluding the instinct to exterminate our opponent with vile threats and less-than-truthful assertions. Are we prepared to speak the truth in love and let it make us free?

So in the midst of all this discussion, where the political parties think that God is more concerned about a woman’s menstrual cycle than He is her personal freedom, we might want to stop for a second and consider what our government would become if it really was one nation under God, indivisible. Are we ready for such a step? Or is there still enough carnality left in us that a spirit-led administration, inclusive of everyone, would fall flat on its face and be deemed impractical?

So I don’t mind you Republicans being conservative. And you Democrats, feel free to pontificate on your issues with great aplomb. I would just request that you both be a little bit more careful in assuming that the Father in heaven has signed up as an advocate for your particular side.

Because He would lobby for no prejudice, no limit to liberty, no fear and no darkness.

**************

Below is the first chapter of Jonathan Richard Cring’s stunning novel entitled Preparing a Place for Myself—the story of a journey after death. It is a delicious blend of theology and science fiction that will inspire and entertain. I thought you might enjoy reading it. After you do, if you would like to read the book in its entirety, please click on the link below and go to our tour store. The book is being offered at the special price of $4.99 plus $3.99 shipping–a total of $8.98. Enjoy.

http://www.janethan.com/tour_store.htm

Sitting One

 I died today. 

I didn’t expect it to happen.  Then again, I did—well, not really.

No, I certainly didn’t expect it.

I’ve had moments of clarity in my life.  Amazingly enough, many of them were in the midst of a dream. For a brief second I would know the meaning of life or the missing treatment to cure cancer.  And then as quickly as it popped into my mind it was gone. I really don’t recollect dying.  Just this unbelievable sense of clear headedness—like walking into a room newly painted and knowing by the odor and brightness that the color on the wall is so splattering new that you should be careful not to touch it for fear of smearing the design. The greatest revelation of all? 

Twenty-five miles in the sky time ceases to exist.

The planet Pluto takes two hundred and forty-eight years to circle the sun. It doesn’t give a damn. 

The day of my death was the day I became free of the only burden I really ever had.  TIME.

Useless.

Time is fussy.  Time is worry. 

Time is fear.  Time is the culprit causing human-types to recoil from pending generosity. 

There just was never enough time. 

Time would not allow it.  Remember—“if time permits …”

Why if time permits?  Why not if I permit?  Why not if I dream?  Why not if I want?  Why does time get to dictate to me my passage? 

It was time that robbed me of my soulful nature.    It was time that convinced me that my selfishness was needed. 

I didn’t die. The clock in me died, leaving spirit to tick on.  

So why don’t we see the farce of time?  Why do we allow ourselves to fall under the power of the cruel despot?  Yes, time is a relentless master—very little wage for much demand.

I died today. 

Actually … a piece of time named after me was cast away.