Genre of the Week: Jesus Freak by DC Talk

andreas church

 

This special genre of the week is in connection with the Files’ series on Martin Luther and the 500th anniversary of the 95 Theses. The Jesus Freak series belongs to this series because of its aspects. This is part 1.

 

A while back, while looking for some information about Martin Luther for one of the articles, I happened to run across this phrase that was a complete eye-opener- Jesus Freak.

Before we look at the theme much further, let’s have a look at the theme for a minute:

 

What is a Jesus Freak? 

 

If a person is considered a Jesus Freak, what are his/her characteristics in terms of the following:

His/her behavior

His/her apparel

His/her use of the Lord Jesus Christ (especially in the context)?

When looking at this Wile E. Coyote parody produced by Family Guy, the first question that comes to mind is what makes a person a Jesus Freak?

 

But can a 45-minute lecture on the Lord make him a Jesus Freak?

Can we make a distinction between a Jesus Freak and a avid church-goer?  The answer to that question is definitely yes, regardless of what faith you are in. The question is how can a person go from being either an atheist or an indifferent Christian to a Jesus Freak?  Speaking from experience, especially from my days in college in the US, many people, who are just common people at first, experience an epiphany one night and then become true Christians, reading the Bible and teaching others about Christ. Journalist Lee Stroebel in the 1970s did an investigative report on the existence of Jesus, found his epiphany, and has since then been a pastor. The book “The Case for Christ” talks about his experience of becoming a Christian.  Others are either raised in a Christian household or were born Christian but found their love for Jesus Christ and his teachings that they embrace Him unconditionally.

 

The Jesus Freak movement started in the 1960s in Germany, and one of the catalysts behind the movement is Martin Dreyer, who has written several books about the movement, one of which is in connected with Martin Luther and his Treatises. Yet other authors have claimed that the movement started way back in the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively- namely during the time of Martin Luther; one claimed that even one of the disciples of Christ (John) was considered the first Jesus freak. If that argument was the case, then the question is did the Jesus freak movement occur before or after Martin Luther’s 95 Theses?  If it occurred at or after the time of Martin Luther, then how?

 

To start this off, I would like to introduce you to this Genre special, whose title bears the topic we are going to talk about. Produced by DC Talk, an American rap/rock group in 1995, the videos and lyrics behind the song depicts the typical characteristics of a Jesus Freak from their perspective. The song was part of the album bearing the same name, which won the 1997 Grammys for Best Gospel Album. Watch the video, then take a look at the aforementioned questions at the beginning, and decide for yourself the following:

 

  1. What really constitutes a Jesus Freak and can it be differentiated from terms, such as Bible Thumper, Church-goer, etc.?

 

  1. How can a person really become a Jesus Freak and why?

 

Good luck and looking forward to your thoughts on that. Feel free to comment here or via e-mail. We will touch up on this subject again very soon.

 

Jesus Freak by DC Talk.

 

flfi-logo-martin-luther-500

Don’t Plan for 2020; Plan for the Now and the Future

US-D

 

Dear fellow students, former students, friends and those loving a chat with an American expatriate,

Over the years, many of you have taken a keen interest in knowing about my country and its culture, including those who either have been in Minnesota, where I was born and raised, or are planning to go there. I had many who have spent time in Minneapolis and St. Paul, as well as in New Ulm, Fargo, Worthington, Winona, Duluth  and Rochester (and the Bluffs Region). I even had a former student who was an exchange student at a high school in Waseca, located between Albert Lea and Minneapolis and is where I came into the world almost 40 years ago. Many people have been asking me what my stance is on this year’s elections and despite my voting for my candidate of choice whether I would be happy with the result.

I’ve decided to put this to rest before I utter a word about it to my next class- and waste a couple valuable sessions in the process, because it is a library’s worth of explaining how messed up the United States of America has become, especially since the Elections of 2001 and the infamous hanging chads.

Last year while preparing a presentation for a lecture with a couple colleagues, one of them had a cheek to predict the end of the world and that anything we do is fruitless at this point. At that time, we didn’t have the debates but had prominent people vying for candidacy as the next President of the US by visiting regions and communities. We didn’t have a below-the-belt style of locker talk as we had in these Elections. Despite her being a devout Christian- a Lutheran- I played down her comment as absurd and totally unrealistic.

I can no longer say that when I read the results and after watching the debates, while draining the keg at the same time. In fact, if the opportunity arises, I would still like to ask her whether she holds this opinion and if so, why.  In response to what I saw in the Elections, as well as everyone else, it is as follows:

The role of the President of the United States is the most unwanted, underappreciated job of any jobs in the country. To get to where you are, you have to undergo the same procedures as Homer Simpson did when he joined the Stonecutter’s Society- getting spanked with a stick and getting humiliated in the process. This is what we saw with Clinton’s e-mail scandals together with the Benghazi affair on one end, and Trump’s Aryan rhetoric during his campaign speeches, sexual harassment lawsuits and ruined businesses. Once the ass is swollen, the media exploits you like a soap opera show and turn every debate into a wrestling match regardless of gender and who is refereeing- er moderating the debate.

With every debate I’ve watched, even over a few rounds of Flensburger Flotilla and wine, the first impression I had was any tag-team match between Velvet McIntryre and Princess Victoria vs. the Fabulous Moulah and Wendi Richter would trump the verbal spats the two candidates had. And these matches of the 1980s were real and not scripted, genuine and not choreographed, tough knuckled and not pussy-like.  And you wonder why professional wrestling of the Eighties was one of the best products produced on TV.

And now what? As a new member and leader of The Stonecutter’s Society known as the President of the United States, with a swollen ass and a bruised ego, you have a country to lead, many angry people to calm down and countries to impress. My prediction is simple: you will never make it past one year. And even if you did, the United States of America will never be the same as it was before the elections took place. It was becoming a stranger during the days since 2000. With the results of the Elections and the writing on the wall, the country where I grew up, with its pride in history, culture, landscapes and even literature, with friends and family alike, has become a total stranger. It used to be an example to follow, it is now divided like Spain prior to the Civil War (1936-39), conquered by hate and segregation similar to Germany under Hitler, an anarchic state where ideas are not welcome and selling one’s soul to Satan in order to get ahead is the norm. In four years, we could see the country as either an authoritarian state or one that is on the brink of a Nebuchadnezzar-style uprising and raid.

And what will become of the republic that we have followed for over 227 years?  A faded memory.

But it is not too late. Our votes were not fully wasted. We have a democracy but it is the one which we the people can run. While we may have voted for the lesser of two evils in the elections, it is only we who can make the changes. Why wait until the next elections in 2020 when we can make a difference? After all, with all the hatred we expressed to our candidates and the people who supported them, it is time that we take action to handle the problems the US has on its home front, let alone with other countries. I really doubt the winner will hold to his promises, nor do I think Washington can afford to rollback policies of the Reagan era, let alone prepare for the 2020 elections. We have pressing issues to deal with. And the list is long: The environment, immigration, improving foreign relations, helping war-torn countries rebuild, rebooting health care, restructuring the education system, improving the infrastructure, and so on. No president can handle this alone in four years, if he survives it. I don’t think anybody in Washington can handle it, but bickering and bitching will be a waste of time. We’ve tried two different policies since 2000 and neither one worked. I doubt the next style of policies will be any better. Therefore it is up to us, we as an international community to handle these problems head-on.

Did I use the words international community?  You bet I did.

We are no longer the people of the United States of America. We have no association between the Republicans and Democrats. We come from different backgrounds, but have the same problems as everyone else in the world. Instead of relying on politics as a way to providing comfort, we should go out there, see how things work in other countries and regions and see if we can work them into our system and our lives. We should implement the ideas we ourselves have and ensure everyone can benefit from it. We should create agreements that will benefit everyone and not the select few. We should pray for and help those who are unloved, underappreciated, narrow-minded, helpless- strangers, friends and family alike- and open the doors for God to help and bless us whenever we and they need it. We should read the Bible, Quran and other religious works and understand why the power of work and prayer works. We should learn about the other person and include him/her in our society. If fire and war hits, we should go and help them rebuild. After all, we all have a purpose in life. It is how we handle our lives that is the hardest to do, especially if we make decisions that can alter our course for the good.

While the next president will make many promises and break them, it is up to us to make and carry out solutions to the problems that we are facing, for it is we who cannot afford to wait until 2020. It is we who cannot afford to watch events to unfold. It is we who cannot afford to hide behind people whose purposes are to hurt and destroy other lives for their own gain. I know that there are more than enough unloving people out there, but we need to take action to persuade these people that we the people are doing this for their good. Believe it or not, the person predicting the apocalypse at the beginning of this article, I found her such a quote some weeks later that said just that:

We need to love the unloving, take action to help others in need and let the world under one God decide our fate. The more good we do, the better place we’ll have for generations to come and the more pride we have in ourselves that we accomplished something our president had previously promised but never carried out.

The future is now, not in 2020. We have to shine now, because we are now in uncharted territory. How events will unfold will depend on our actions and not that of others. So don’t wait, act!

IMGP5251

I could say more but in case you want my personal opinion about the elections between Donald Trump and Hilliary Clinton, and the state the US is in, this is my honest to God truth. We can talk about how the political system works and other issues to be resolved. However, sometimes the truth can be hard to swallow and we need time to digest it before we can decide what to do next. In my opinion, I will keep teaching and talking about my culture in comparison to Germany, continue to write my column pieces, exploit the sides we don’t read and talk about, and help those who wish to have a better life. After all, that is my sole reason for being here on this planet.

FF new logo1

“Wir sind das Volk” als illegale Ansage?

FlFi Newsflyer Logo new

frage für das forum

“Wir sind das Volk!-” literally translated as We are the People: A phrase that is universal. We stand together as one group, one republic, to all mankind.

Although its origins date back to the time of the 1848 Revolution and it was used during the Third Reich, this phrase was introduced during the Leipzig Demonstrations in 1989, protesting against the East German regime and their control over their rights and passage to the west. The peace demonstrations were the key to opening the Berlin Wall on 9 November of that year.  It resonated when the population of both Germanys demanded that there is only one Germany. Germany was reunited a year later on 3 October. You can imagine what the phrase meant during that time:

 

Fast-forward to the present, and we see the phrase being used in a totally different way:

In the past three months conflicts involving the housing of refugees in Germany have reached their boiling point where we have seen people taking arms against the will of politicians. Especially in the German state of Saxony, attacks against planned apartments for refugees have been reported in cities, like Dresden, Chemnitz and Freiberg, but also in smaller communities, like Meerane and Bautzen.

The videos posted here consist of a fire at a former hotel reserved for refugees in the town of Bautzen. People there tried to hinder the firemen from putting out the blaze. In Clausnitz, a suburb of Chemnitz, a bus full of refugees heading to a shelter, was blocked by numerous protesters. Both times, the phrase “Wir sind das Volk!” was used.

This has resulted in numerous reactions from politicians and others on state and national levels, ranging from disappointment to appalling. The phrase has been used very often and in an increasingly way during the PEGIDA demonstrations as well as with the right-wing extreme groups.

This has resulted in the need to question this phrase. While “Wir sind das Volk” is used to unite the people for a better Germany that is free and democratic, it appears that this phrase is increasingly being used for patriotic purposes, which in German terms can be compared to the Third Reich and Hitler’s greeting “Sieg ****!”  This phrase has been declared illegal since 1945 because of its association with Hitler and the atrocities he and his people did against millions of people of his disliking.

While Germany prides itself on its culture and technology, especially both after 1945 and German Reunification, it is a country that takes its pride seriously and does not use patriotic slogans as much as the US does, for it brings back memories of this dark period. In case one is wondering, for the US, we have “One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All,” as our patriotic slogan. Given our religious beliefs and how they have shaped our history, this is justified.

However, the phrase “Wir sind das Volk,” is becoming one that should be deemed illegal because of its misinterpretation in the eyes of the PEGIDA and those opposing housing and helping refugees. It has become a phrase that is enhancing a German nationalism that the majority of the population does not want at all- a nationalist state where Aryanism is the norm.

And contrary to the fact that immigrants and refugees have helped develop Germany into an economic power, especially when dating back to the 1950s where labor shortages were noticable because of the after-effects of the war, opponents seem to not care about these benefits which far trumps the cleansing of the German population with this slogan “Wir sind das Volk.” And in the eyes of the typical German, this is not what Germany is about.

Keeping all this in mind, this leads to a plea to the German Supreme Court in Karlsruhe and to Chancellor Angela Merkel: Do away with the slogan and replace it with a more neutral but friendlier version, like “Wir sind Deutschland! Ihr seid (herzlich) wilkommen!” or “Wir sind Deutschland! Wir sind eins!”

As Germany has become a melting pot with lots of multiculture, I think such a slogan will have a more international taste than the slogan, which I now have added to the ones not to be spoken in Germany ever again, let alone to any German. It will present more of a sense of home to the people who really, and desparately need one, even if it is for a limited time. If you think this will work, then carry it out. I’m sure every person living in Germany and having listened to the events happening recently will be greeted with a proactive decision.

ODER?

What do you think? Should the slogan “Wir sind das Volk” be considered an illegal one and banned by law, similar to that forbidden slogan used by Hitler?  Why or why not?

Place your votes here but you are also free to explain (in German or English) why you feel one way or the other.

 

 

five years flfi

 

 

And to the people who committed the atrocities against the refugees or have supported PEGIDA: As I’m a Christian of mixed faith (Catholic, Lutheran and Methodist), allow me to quote a couple passages worth considering before you join another demonstration or hinder the right of others to live in your neighborhood:

Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.  One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Mark 12:31 – And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

It doesn’t matter where the people come from, it does matter as to accept them into their community and integrate them, for they have a future like we do, and a right to live as we do. Think about it. And purgatories do exist, indulgences not! 

 

 

The House of One in Berlin: Three Religions, One Dialog

Site of the construction of the House of One. Photo taken by Molgreen and available through WikiCommons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20150917_xl_P1030026_Berlin-Mitte_Petriplatz_an_der_Gertraudenstrasse_The_House_of_One.JPG

FlFi Newsflyer Logo new

 

 

BERLIN-  In light of the plight of the refugees and the terrorist attacks that occurred in Beiruit, Paris and the latest in San Bernardino, California, our short term reaction would be to follow Donald Trump’s unrealistic advice by banning the Muslims and do what Adolf Hitler did during the days of the Third Reich- which is get rid of them. Both ideas have been shot down by the majority of the public as absurd, barbaric, even cowardly. Even historian Dee Brown would tout the comments “We are still here,” in reference to the Native Americans keeping their culture despite years of repression on the reservation and failed attempts to integrate into American society.

In Germany, a new concept is being built on the ruins of history that will change that. As a sign that Germany is the posterboy for multiculture and acceptance of people from different countries, three religious leaders: a pastor, a rabbi and an imam are creating a religious institution where people of all three religions can come to worship.  The House in One brings Christians, Jews and Muslims together for one dialog and one convention with God, bringing different traditions and friends interested together. It will house a church, synagogue and moschee in one building located on the ruins of five churches, the last one being the St. Peter’s Church, which sustained substantial damage during World War II and was subsequentially removed in 1964 to make space for a parking lot. Rabbi Tovia Ben-Chorin,  Pastor Gregor Hohberg  and Imam Kadir Sanchi developed the concept in 2011, with the goal of expanding the concept on a global level in the future. A brief explanation can be found in the video at the end of the article. Berlin was chosen because of not only its cosmopolitan setting, but it was a place where all three religions once thrived but were suppressed by dictatorship over the course of two centuries, including the Jews during the Third Reich and Christians during the era of Erich Honecker. With a starting sum of 10 million Euros, construction of the new building began, with a donation program being launched in 2014. As of right now, over 1 million Euros of the 43.5 million Euros needed has been collected, including a lion’s sum by the German Government.

With dialog and peace being the only remedies to stop the conflicts that have been ocurring and end the attempts of fulfilling certain prophecies, could a person imagine having a place of worship for Christians, Muslims and Jews, maybe even adding other religions, like Buddhism, Taoists, or even some Native American religions? For people like Donald Trump, it is unimaginable, however their hate comes from the lack of information about religions and the real situation in society today. Inspite of the protests against taking on refugees, even in the United States (which could house 10 times as many refugees as Germany has been doing), perhaps a house of worship for many religions can serve as a place of peace and dialog. For the House of One in Berlin, the first of its kind in the world once it is open in 2016, the three founders are creating the platform for others to follow, and perhaps a remedy for all the religious conflicts going on today. If you are interested in donating for the House of One, click here for more details and watch the video for more information. Together, we can make it happen. 🙂

God Bless, no matter what religion you come from.

 

The ruins of St. Peter’s Church at Petriplatz in Berlin. Photo taken in 1951, courtesy of the German Federal Archives

 

Flensburg Files logo France 15

The Right of Choice

RRR12

The author’s take on universal marriage after the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Same-sex Marriage

Marriage: a unity between two people who share the same values and ideas, who respect each other and their shortcomings, who love and care for each other, who want to take a lifelong voyage together until death does them part. Up until Friday, marriage was supposed to be a union between a man and a woman. Since the Supreme Court’s decision, now the right to marry has been extended to between two women or two men. Every state in America now has to honor the right to administer the marriages regardless of whether the couple is hetero or homo.

This historic decision has split the country in half, between those who prefer to keep the tradition of a man and a woman being married and those who favor more freedom to marry someone they like, regardless of sex. While I consider myself hetero and prefer the traditional way, I do fully understand the feelings of others who are different than they are and are welcoming this decision with open arms. If we look back 100 years, one would see a marriage as being a process of tying the knot between a preacher’s daughter and an owner of a local merchantile. In other words, they were on a local level; it would be rare for a Minnesotan to marry someone from New York, or a Mississippian marrying a Washingtonian. And even more so an American marrying someone from Europe. Yet as the years roll on, so do we see an increase of Americans marrying foreigners, whites marrying blacks or hispanics, and Christians marrying Muslims. So why not see people of the same sex marry each other? They are the same as us heterosexuals. They love some good company, have to deal with the same issues as we do, regarding taxes, raising families, dealing with college expenses, and the like, and are as normal as we are.

Homosexuality was considered a crime a century ago, and attempts to convert people to become heterosexuals only garnered partial success. In fact, some success stories ended in tragedies as the patients took their own lives, as was seen with the hanging of Kirk Murphy in 2011. Yet attempts are still being made to force the ideals on homosexuals that it is a sin to by gay. While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, some states, like Texas and Alabama are disobeying Washington’s orders and are denying marriage licenses to these people. Churches are still not allowing them to marry or be part of the congregation, and many people are taking to the newspapers and electronic media shouting down the decisions. My question to these people is this: Would you do this if you knew someone from a Catholic faith marrying a Muslim- a heterosexual couple for that matter? Or what about an Iranian marrying an American? A Native American marrying an Aborigine?  How would you define a marriage, BEYOND the concept of a man marrying a woman? Think about it.

From my perspective, I would like to comment something a friend of mine mentioned recently in a discussion on this topic, which hits the spot: institution of marriage is a union between two consenting adults who love and care for each other and want to legally bind themselves together as they journey through life. The choice of who to love, marry and start a journey together for as long as they live. It should be regardless of what religious, cultural and sexual preferences should be. Couples change many times in order to the right fit. Some choose to wait until they find the right one. Others find love in high school, lose it for 20+ years, then regain it. Then there are others who find each other and after 30+ years, still have a healthy marriage with loving children. But the bottom line is, as long as the couple is happy, they should have the right to marry and live a long and prosperous life. It should not have to be based on a long religious tradition which still exists but has to make room for other couples who may be different, but share the same values as we do. And with this, a comment to finish my soapbox comment, something I wish and hope others will have that same opinion, regardless of background and preference:

While I prefer to be different from the rest, I respect those whose views and feelings differ from mine, as long as they respect the opinions and decisions I have made that I’m living with. Through this understanding we can have a peaceful co-existance where we can talk about these issues and share our ideas.

It’s time to put down the differences and share, instead of slamming the door on certain people because they’re different. It’s long since due.

FF new logo1