What Michael Jackson’s life really teaches us
Greg Stier over at the Christian Post has a nice article entitled Michael Jackson's Real Legacy. Here's the shortened list, modified by me:
- He taught us all how to dance
- He taught us all that money and creative success don't make you happy
- He taught us that cultish and outward religion doesn't make us happy (Jehovah's Witness)
- He taught us that cosmetic surgery can go really bad
- He taught us that abusive parenting can mess you up for a lifetime
But probably, if you know and live with Biblical values, you don't have to end up like MJ, who in my estimation, though an influential and creative genius, was not really successful by spiritual measure. King Solomon explored the many possible routes to happiness even more than MJ, and like a good scientist, recorded it all in the book of Ecclesiastes. His conclusion?
Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink,
and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the
few days of life God has given him—for this is his lot. (Ecclesiastes 5:18)Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 15:13-14)
Gee, what a surprise! daniel picks out verses emphasizing fear and judgment, the basis of his spiritual (and political) life. I prefer my spiritual motto, taken from Micah:
He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
That is indeed a beautiful verse, and well worth memorizing.
I wonder if it's really all that different from the verses Daniel pulled from a piece of wisdom literature… What happens then, if man, even though God has showed him what is good and required, ignores that and goes his own way, seeking all the pleasures of this earth instead? What happens if he ignores justice, despises mercy, and walks away from God? Then he finds, as Solomon did, that all things under the sun are temporary, fleeting, and ultimately meaningless. That which is above the sun is the only thing of eternal value.
I have no argument with Ecclesiastes, taken in its entirety, just the penchant daniel has for picking out bits of scripture which feed his nasty vision.
As for your analysis: I agree that the man who ignores "needful things" and pursues the path of ego winds up alienated, sad, and thoroughly lost within the prison of his own mind – no external judgment is needed. But I feel he is a figure fit for compassion, and it's love and healing, not condemnation (which we are not qualified to render anyway) which he needs. In my view, all the things under the sun are just the outward and visible emanations of that which resides "above the sun" (the metaphor is imprecise and misleading in my view) – and it's right and proper to participate in them to the fullest. It's when we forget that that we get into trouble.
I agree with almost everything. Especially the "he is a figure fit for compassion, and it's love and healing, not condemnation." If my Christian friend didn't have the patience and grace to point this poor sinner to the truth and the Truth, then I would be sadly lost. I hope I never ever lose sight of that.
"and it's right and proper to participate in them to the fullest. It's when we forget that that we get into trouble."
That's the only part I potentially disagree with, and it hinges on the "fullest" part. Things are good. Too much of a good thing is bad. I struggle to think of what good thing that wouldn't apply to. So if "fullest" means to the nth degree, then I disagree and think that this is the source of most of the world's ills (and it boils down to idolatry, which is why God is SO smart and warns us so very regularly about it). If "fullest" retains the limits of what is healthy and good, then I think I'm all in on that one. :)
The part about Daniel picking bits of scripture to fulfill a nasty vision? Well I think we've well established what lense you view his every word through… I chose to see those bits of scripture as the culmination of the entire book of Ecclesiastes (as is, if I understand correctly, the orthodox Jewish and Christian stance on the book), and therefore within its context.
I don't know if you've noticed it yet, but I am in no way "orthodox." Sorry about that.
As to daniel: he's reaping what he's sown, as far as I'm concerned. I do think he has a nasty vision of things (I've learned this from nasty experience), especially where gay people are concerned. Too bad.
You're not orthodox!?! no wai! ;)
How's my score as gay people are concerned?
Not nasty, just dismal.