FaithTempo's Blog

Here's a link to one of many articles about this recent tragedy:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/22/heath
.ledger.dead/index.html

It's sad and tragic that he would have been so distraught or beside himself that he would commit suicide.  The official motive is not confirmed yet, but it is at least definite that it was a drug overdose.  Whether or not it was accidental or suicide has yet to be determined.

There were sleeping pills strewn about his room, which suggests suicide to me, but we'll see.  Either way, it's sad.  I wonder if Heath knew God.  He was a wonderful actor and he will be missed.

I just recently saw a Jack in the Box commercial with it's caricature hanging from a noose at the end of the commercial.  It's really bothering me.

How can something that represents so much evil, racism, hatred and violence actually be touted as a joke?  I think that nooses should be outlawed because they are not at all funny. 

It would be like putting swatiskas or Deaths Heads all over a Burger King commercial.  It would NOT be funny at all.  If a swatiska was added to any commercial for the sake of comedy or to sell a product, the Jewish community (and hopefully, all of humanity) would yell from the rafters and fight to have it taken out and outlawed.

Why isn't the African-American community granted the same respect?  It wasn't even 50 years ago when our great-grandfathers and grandfathers were hanging from trees and had burning crosses in their front yards.  Heck, I'd take it even farther:  it wasn't even 15 years ago that James Byrd was tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged to his death. 

And I guess the burning question of all regarding this issue is:

Why does America absolutely break its neck to say and show that what happened to the Jews overseas is the most atrocious thing in the world (and right up there with slavery, it is) but treats the cruelty of slavery and the all out degredation, murder, rape and enslavement of an entire race as if it deserves to be hush hush? 

It was a rhetorical question.  It pains me to know the answer.  It's for the same reason that it's easier to criticize another's wrong doing or shortcomings...IT TAKES THE FOCUS OFF OF YOU.  America doesn't want to face the fact that it has historically been one of the most oppressive nations ever.  America will talk about Hitler all day, but will seldom address the issue of slavery or the hate symbols associated with it because it would be an acknowledgement of the ultimate hate the so-called founders birthed and cultivated for 400 years.

 Finally, it seems to me that the noose (and later, perhaps the burning cross) will continue to be accepted as folly and treated with some gross measure of selective amnesia.  Just look at all the people in Jena who alleged that they didn't know what the noose supposedly represented.  It's selective amnesia.  The Civil RIghts Movement isn't even 50 years old yet. 

People remember...when they WANT to.

If you respond to this post, please, don't innundate me with comments about Jena because that is not what this blog is about. 

Janet Jackson and Tyler Perry were invited via satellite to participate in an interview about Tyler's latest movie, "Why Did I Get Married?"  Well, midway through the interview, one of the newscasters (Mark) asked her, "Hey, Janet, anything happen to you in the Super Bowl?"  I could not believe it.  Tyler continues to talk about the movie, but you can tell from the clip that these people were just having a ball making fun of her.

Look at the video and give feedback.  I'm interested in what everyone has to say about it.  I thought it was completely disrespectful and uncalled for.  What's worse, the guy kept on going.  He would not let up.  I think he should at least be reprimanded for his level of disrespect and unprofessionalism. 

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=25898@kovr.dayport.coma>

This link will take you to the site.  You have to type Janet Jackson's name in the search string for this actual link to pop up.

 

It was amazing. 

I laughed, I cried, I yelled at the screen. My husband did the same. This movie was spectactular. It's Tyler's best yet.

I was especially impressed with two particular actresses: Tasha Smith and Jill Scott. I SO enjoyed Tasha's character because she was straight-forward, unafraid, brash and protective of and loyal to her friends. Tasha played this to the hilt. She worked it and I don't think anyone could have played this role better.

Jill Scott, whose career I've followed for many years, turns out to be a phenomenal actress, too! You go, Girl! She laid it down. She owned this role-- the pain, the disrespect, the longsuffering, the faith and hope, and ultimately, the joy and strength that comes partly from having a heart for God and a healthy and humble love of self and that of a good man. She floored me. I knew she was deep, but I didn't know she could take it there!!!!

Tyler has outdone himself. This movie didn't need Madea, although I look forward to seeing her on screen again. This movie was just beautiful from beginning to end. I especially like the way Tyler doesn't hold back the harshness of unpleasantry that is sometimes ever present in marriage. My husband and I kept looking at each other laughing because some of those couples reminded us of ourselves and how quirky and sometimes ridiculous we are.

Keep it coming, Tyler. You've earned a fan for life.

I've written a couple of blogs about Bishop Weeks and where he went wrong in this situation, so I think it only fair to discuss Mrs. Bynum's role in this fiasco.

In relationships, when a discussion evolves into a heated argument, people are always encouraged to try to walk away from a situation to diffuse any angst-- if only temporarily.

I've dialogued with a few friends and we've gone back and forth about a couple of issues: 

1. Is this the first time Bishop Weeks has ever put his hands on her as her adversary? 

2.  If it's not the first time (and like I said in a previoius blog, he put his hands on her publicly, so it's not likely the first time).  If she knew what the man was capable of, why on earth did she follow him outside? 

3.  Even if she didn't absolutely know for sure, still, why did she not let the man walk away?

The answer to #1 is almost immediately overruled because it doesn't matter if it was the first time he put his hands on her, right?  For the sake of THIS argument, that's wrong.  It's important to hedge a guess about previous discussions gone awry because it establishes a pattern of behavior for her.  If it's not the first time, one has to wonder why she tolerated it.  Of course, they were (are) separated, so it's possible that she reached a point where it was no longer acceptable.

Now to question #2.  As women, if we're honest, some of us know how we have a propensity to be heard...at any costs.  We just need for him to see our point of view. 

If he walks away, for some of us, it's a sign of disrespect or it means we're being blown off somehow.  Some of us are just so emotional that it doesn't matter why he walked away-- he just should not have done it and he's going to hear us out whether he like it or not.  And we talk and yell at the back of a man's head and/or step in front of him so he feels like he can't continue to walk away.

The best decision Bishop Weeks made was to walk away. The worst decision he made was to allow himself to get so upset that he felt he only resort was to lash out and beat her.  He could have continued to walk away.  Yes, he could have.  And if he didn't walk away, he could have walked back into the hotel, called someone to come and get him or called the police to explain that he's trying to walk away from a sensitive situation and doesn't want to get violent.  There are many different decisions he could have made, and what she did or did not do doesn't change the fact that he made the wrong one.

I hope...really hope...that she did not put her hands on him as his adversary.  There's is but no justification for what he did, but he starts to build credibility for himself if she put her hands on him.  Yes, that includes slapping, pushing, grabbing...any of those things that when a man does it to a woman, he's wrong.  IF she put her hands on him, she's wrong, too.  I'm not saying that a man should hit a woman, but if she hit him and he hit her back, some would argue that it was self-defense.

Finally, I'm sure the truth will come out eventually.  I just could not make an argument for women's rights and the right to be free of domestic violence without also pointing out that men have rights, too.  This is in no way suggesting that Bishop Weeks should get off or cower in taking responsibility and expecting and accepting accountability. 

This in no way suggests that he made the right decision to put his hands on her.  Point blank:  he was wrong.  But Mrs. Bynum has to search herself and accept some measure of culpability in a situation like this, too...if following him outside and the actions or words that ensued thereafter acted as a catalyst for what ultimately happened.

  I mean, would he have hit her if she had let him walk away?  And don't misunderstand the question; I'm not asking if he would ever have hit her again.  I'm asking if THIS situation could have been avoided THIS day if he would have left and she would have stayed inside. 

Of course, not much is known about how the fight started or what was said or done to provoke it, or whether it was provoked at all.  Many would argue about whether or not following him constituted provoking on her part. 

Whatever is said, for me, it doesn't change the fact that Bishop now blames the devil for his actions instead of himself.  I take issue with that regardless of what happened because God gives us free will and it's ultimately up to us (in most cases) to practice self-control.  (There are always rare situations where you're backed into a corner and can only fight your way out...in which case, self-control is a non-issue, I guess). 

In any case, his "the devil is to blame" argument leaves me to wonder if she knew enough about the man before she married him and if this was a union that was actually ordained by God.  It seems a far cry for a man who has never been violent towards women to suddenly choose to attack his wife, let alone in public. 

I wrote this blog in an effort to be objective and do not want it suggested that her following him was a justification for his actions.  It's not.  It's just important to look at as many possible scenarios as we can.  Her choosing to make a different decision (perhaps in the next relationship) about how to handle heated arguments doesn't charge her with guilt...it arms her with wisdom.

And let's face it...some men put their hands on women just because.   Yes...just because.  None of us knows whether or not Mr. Weeks fits the profile of such an individual as yet. 

What's your stand?

 

 

SERIOUSLY?  I pride myself on being a woman of God and I try my best to give my best and do my best to the best of my ability daily.  Yes, I stumble and fall sometimes...and sometimes lots of times...like all believers do, but I get up.  It's the how to get up part that I'm challenging Mr. Weeks about. 

And in situations where I not only drop the ball, but fumble it horribly, I take full responsibility and expect to be held accountable.  Bishop Weeks is no less a man of God because of his latest misrepresentation of Christ.  That's a given.  The Word is very clear that  we all "have sinned and fallen short" of God's glory. 

The problem here seems to be that Bishop Weeks takes that premise and attempts to run with it.  Not only did he totally misrepresent what it means to be a Christ-centered, penitent  believer, he furthers his misrepresentation by blaming the devil for the accusations. Does he not know that it's almost the same as saying that it's NOT TRUE?  ...that he DIDN'T HIT HER...or kick her...or really-- HE DID NOTHING WRONG? 

When I read this, I thought, "You have GOT to be kidding me.  "...the devil is just out to get me" argument????  Speaking ebonically:  PALEEZ! 

All mature believers know that the devil comes to steal, to kill, and to destroy.  Knowing this as I'm sure Bishop does, why on earth would you allow the enemy to get you so amped that you'd put your hands on your wife...your rib...as her adversary?  I said that to say this:  as believers we can't go out and do dirt and then turn around and say it's the devil's fault or that the devil made us do it.  As believers, we have to understand that we are held accountable for the penalty of sins we commit.  People who know better are held to a much higher standard than people who can plead ignorance. 

The word penitent means "feeling or expressing humble or regretful pain or sorrow for sins or offenses."  I got that particular definition from http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictsn?v
a=penitent.  Blaming the devil for the accusations is hardly a sign of remorse or regret. 

The worst part is that these are people-- married people-- who wrote a book together called "Teach Me How to Love You" and you mean to tell me that the book did not contain not one iota of education about respecting one another and loving one another as Christ loves us?  Of course it did. 

I'm not saying that Bishop shouldn't have some type of support network.  What I am saying is that those that are supporting him should consider their motives.  Are you (we) being supportive out of loving, Christian grace and mercy and in the hopes that he will take responsibility and welcome accountability, or are we supporting him simply because he's Bishop Weeks?  Are women supporting him because they're hoping to be the next Mrs. Weeks?  Are men supporting him because some of them have beat the water and will out of their own wives at some point and are happy to finally have a respected, Christian public figurehead to look up to?  

I'm asking because I distinctly remember that when the attempt was made on my life, there was quite a few waiting in the background because they believed that they would be next in line for his affections.  Each one had the same tale:  he would never do me like that.   The one who got him after me knows better.  I really didn't get much of the male reaction because with his final attempt on my life, no one aside from the the person who saved my life was present. 

I certainly hope and pray that Bishop Weeks is going to be a man-- that is, a true God man-- and confess with his mouth about his dastardly deeds against his wife.  What's more, I pray that he sincerely repent to God and apologize to his wife.  Finally, I pray that he expects to and welcomes the opportunity to be held fully accountable for his actions. 

And if he doesn't do these things-- AND seek help-- I'd run as fast as I can to divorce court...in Jesus name...and sign on the dotted line. 

Final Thought: 

If a man cannot recognize his wrong with something so serious, it means that he thinks more highly of himself that he ought to.  The Word is very clear in warning against that arrogance and sense of entitlement, which ultimately manipulates our minds into thinking that we are somehow exempt from penalty of sin.  Puffed up things can easily pop.  The last thing we want to do is to cause God to grieve our promotion-- to have a problem with the way we handle our blessings (thanks, Pastor S). 

I'm still praying for Bishop and Sis. Bynum.  After all, aside from sounding off and hoping, that's really all I can do. 

I am thoroughly astounded that the recent events occurred between Mrs. Bynum and her husband.  It's a crying shame that people at the forefront of ministry would choose to act this way. 

And by that, I mean HIM.  How on earth could he see fit to put his hands on his wife as her adversary?  The Bible says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves us (and vice-versa).  Anytime a person feels he has the right or any type of rhyme or reason to act in such a way, it's time for him to leave.

I don't know the particular circumstances behind why what ensued in the hotel parking lot ensued, but I do know that no man has the right to publicly (or privately) humiliate his wife by hitting, choking and stomping her.  (And yes, the same holds true for women who act adversarial towards their husbands).

I had a similar incident years ago where my fiance at the time punched me in the face and tried to choke me to death-- publicly.  If not for the friend who was there to stop him, I'd probably be dead now-- and so would the child I was carrying at the time who is now 12 years old.  Yes, I pressed charges, and NO, the authorities never did anything about it.  It happened on a college campus and the campus police were just bonified security guards...nothing more, unfortunately.  I left under the false pretense from them that something would be done, but I never even got my day in court and last I heard, he's still a womanizer to this day.  Matters not, however, because he didn't stop anything.  If anything he made me stronger, more resilient and more aware of what I would and would not accept in future relationships.

As for Mrs. Bynum, I wonder if a man who has no qualms about putting his hands on her publicly didn't first do so privately?  I know that's how it started with me...a small push, a yank of the arm, wrestling for play that turned into seriously choking, etc.  Usually, when a man is bold enough to do it publicly, he has definitely practiced privately. 

If that is the case, if I could speak to Mrs. Bynum, all I would say is this:  GET OUT, don't look back except to reflect and to remember what NOT to accept in any way, shape or form in future relationships.  What God has for you is for you and no man in the world can stop that.  As for him?  Don't worry...God's got that handled already.  You're a learned woman so you know God will make your enemy your footstool and to not fret yourself because of evildoers. 

Finally...forgive him and pray that God has mercy on his soul.  Yes, forgive him.  You've taught it in the past...now apply in the present.  And forgiving him doesn't mean forgoing your right to freedom from oppression...it doesn't mean to take him back.  It means to free yourself from your emotional, physical, psychological and yes, spiritual bondage and loose that man and let him go. 

Forgive him because it frees your spirit from vengefulness (Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord) and it lets you move on to the even higher place and purpose that God has set for you. 

God bless you, Mrs. Bynum.