"The arts are in the dark, because nobody knows what it means to really live anymore."
That was just one of the nuggets I gleaned from Robert McKee's Story Seminar this past weekend in New York. Vilified by some, adored by others, McKee is considered a guru among Hollywood screenwriters, but the seminar had value for anyone in the communications world, anyone who needs to capture people’s attention with compelling narrative.
An avowed atheist and all-around curmudgeon, McKee is open with his disdain for organized religion (not “spirituality," he assures us). However, what I found most interesting was his decidedly traditional view of storytelling and how it reflects the broken human experience. McKee has run from his Catholic upbringing, but he has been unsuccessful in divesting himself of all remnants of a biblical worldview.
His frustration with Hollywood movies is not one of style, but one of form: McKee's complaint is that Western people can't tell good stories anymore. Why? Because good stories are forged in the heat of adversity--something Westerners have essentially eliminated from their cushioned lives. Good stories, whether or not they end with the bad guy getting away, must be wrapped around a moral spine of the author's belief in something. It is stories of sin, redemption, consequences, temptation and love, that people resonate with, McKee contends, not ambiguously artsy pieces, created by people who don't really believe much of anything, who let their tales wander aimlessly toward unresolved endings.
McKee's is an interesting insight that reveals the inconsistency of a world without God. The search of the soul for meaning, consistency and truth is a search for God Himself. As Augustine said, "We were made for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."
23 October 2007
"The Arts Are in the Dark ..."
"The arts are in the dark, because nobody knows what it means to really live anymore."
That was just one of the nuggets I gleaned from Robert McKee's Story Seminar this past weekend in New York. Vilified by some, adored by others, McKee is considered a guru among Hollywood screenwriters, but the seminar had value for anyone in the communications world, anyone who needs to capture people’s attention with compelling narrative.
An avowed atheist and all-around curmudgeon, McKee is open with his disdain for organized religion (not “spirituality," he assures us). However, what I found most interesting was his decidedly traditional view of storytelling and how it reflects the broken human experience. McKee has run from his Catholic upbringing, but he has been unsuccessful in divesting himself of all remnants of a biblical worldview.
His frustration with Hollywood movies is not one of style, but one of form: McKee's complaint is that Western people can't tell good stories anymore. Why? Because good stories are forged in the heat of adversity--something Westerners have essentially eliminated from their cushioned lives. Good stories, whether or not they end with the bad guy getting away, must be wrapped around a moral spine of the author's belief in something. It is stories of sin, redemption, consequences, temptation and love, that people resonate with, McKee contends, not ambiguously artsy pieces, created by people who don't really believe much of anything, who let their tales wander aimlessly toward unresolved endings.
McKee's is an interesting insight that reveals the inconsistency of a world without God. The search of the soul for meaning, consistency and truth is a search for God Himself. As Augustine said, "We were made for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."
That was just one of the nuggets I gleaned from Robert McKee's Story Seminar this past weekend in New York. Vilified by some, adored by others, McKee is considered a guru among Hollywood screenwriters, but the seminar had value for anyone in the communications world, anyone who needs to capture people’s attention with compelling narrative.
An avowed atheist and all-around curmudgeon, McKee is open with his disdain for organized religion (not “spirituality," he assures us). However, what I found most interesting was his decidedly traditional view of storytelling and how it reflects the broken human experience. McKee has run from his Catholic upbringing, but he has been unsuccessful in divesting himself of all remnants of a biblical worldview.
His frustration with Hollywood movies is not one of style, but one of form: McKee's complaint is that Western people can't tell good stories anymore. Why? Because good stories are forged in the heat of adversity--something Westerners have essentially eliminated from their cushioned lives. Good stories, whether or not they end with the bad guy getting away, must be wrapped around a moral spine of the author's belief in something. It is stories of sin, redemption, consequences, temptation and love, that people resonate with, McKee contends, not ambiguously artsy pieces, created by people who don't really believe much of anything, who let their tales wander aimlessly toward unresolved endings.
McKee's is an interesting insight that reveals the inconsistency of a world without God. The search of the soul for meaning, consistency and truth is a search for God Himself. As Augustine said, "We were made for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."
15 October 2007
"Become a Better Me": Why I Don't Really Want To
I met Joel Osteen in 2005, at the grand opening of the Lakewood Church's new digs at the Compaq Center. I was fortunate enough to sit in the front row and enjoy a nice meal afterward for VIPs, journalists, friends of the family, etc. The facility is stunning, the staff friendlier than Asian flight attendants and the music pitch perfect. The sermon that muggy Houston morning was about how the Osteen family overcame great odds in building a great church ... and (you guessed it) how you too can overcome great odds and be everything God wants you to be. Osteen was gracious, with his self-deprecating humor and "awe-shucks" persona. I have no reason to doubt that his integrity behind the scenes is beyond reproach.
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
"Become a Better Me": Why I Don't Really Want To
I met Joel Osteen in 2005, at the grand opening of the Lakewood Church's new digs at the Compaq Center. I was fortunate enough to sit in the front row and enjoy a nice meal afterward for VIPs, journalists, friends of the family, etc. The facility is stunning, the staff friendlier than Asian flight attendants and the music pitch perfect. The sermon that muggy Houston morning was about how the Osteen family overcame great odds in building a great church ... and (you guessed it) how you too can overcome great odds and be everything God wants you to be. Osteen was gracious, with his self-deprecating humor and "awe-shucks" persona. I have no reason to doubt that his integrity behind the scenes is beyond reproach.
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
08 October 2007
Where's John Adams When We Need Him?
Three things make me less likely to vote for a political candidate this primary season:
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
Where's John Adams When We Need Him?
Three things make me less likely to vote for a political candidate this primary season:
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
04 October 2007
A Few Observations on the ORU Debacle [UPDATED]
Oral Roberts University and its current president, Richard Roberts, are being sued by former professors who claim they were fired/pressured to resign because (1) they took issue with being asked to use students and the resources of the school to promote political candidates, and (2) because they revealed evidence of ethical problems in the school's leadership to the board of regents.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
I'm a Delinquent Parent
In dealing with the absence of a full-time graphic designer on my team, I'm learning a few basic functions of Photoshop. Here's some practice: Maddie leaping from the top of a 30-foot waterfall. Really, she and her brother were jumping from the dining room table, while our exchange student Min Hee took pictures of them. What's the worst that could happen?
A Few Observations on the ORU Debacle [UPDATED]
Oral Roberts University and its current president, Richard Roberts, are being sued by former professors who claim they were fired/pressured to resign because (1) they took issue with being asked to use students and the resources of the school to promote political candidates, and (2) because they revealed evidence of ethical problems in the school's leadership to the board of regents.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
I'm a Delinquent Parent
In dealing with the absence of a full-time graphic designer on my team, I'm learning a few basic functions of Photoshop. Here's some practice: Maddie leaping from the top of a 30-foot waterfall. Really, she and her brother were jumping from the dining room table, while our exchange student Min Hee took pictures of them. What's the worst that could happen?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)