Real Talk

"When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there. Seeing Jesus, he fell at his feet and pleaded earnestly with him, 'My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.'So Jesus went with him."

"A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.' Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering."

"At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, 'Who touched my clothes?'"

"'You see the people crowding against you,' his disciples answered, 'and yet you can ask, 'Who touched me?'"

"But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.'"

"While Jesus was still speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. 'Your daughter is dead,' they said. 'Why bother the teacher any more?'"

"Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, 'Don't be afraid; just believe.'"

"He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue ruler, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. He went in and said to them, 'Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.' 40But they laughed at him."

"After he put them all out, he took the child's father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, 'Talitha koum!' (which means, 'Little girl, I say to you, get up!' ).

"Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat."

-Mark 5: 21-43 (NIV)



Peace and blessings,

As someone who is studying to be a developmentalist by trade, I've had considerable exposure to different developmental theorists. Of the many theorists that I have come across (Piaget, Kohlberg), the theorist that is the focus of this post is Lev Vygotsky. While reading a scholar's analysis of his theory and its application to education, I was struck by Vygotsky's notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD, Miller, 2002), which is the difference between what one can learn or achieve on their own and what they can learn or achieve with the help of others who are (slightly) more advanced. I was well familiar with the notion before reading this analysis, but this I read with sort of a different lens (who knows, I may just be "coming up" with things just to say I posted something on my blog, lol). This around around, viewing youth in terms of ZPD sounded to me a lot like how Jesus viewed those he interacted with, and how he currently views us. Further, it was a sermon today I heard at an event at a friend's church (Harmony Missionary Baptist Church in Oakland, CA) that clarified what I was originally thinking when this topic came to mind months ago.

The speaker spoke from the above passage and focused on Jairus' interactions with Jesus. In a nutshell, Jairus approaches JC, worships him, and asks for Him to heal his daughter who is near death. As JC was going to his house, a woman who had been bleeding for seven years had touched JC's clothes and through her faith, was healed. Noticing that someone touched Him ("power had gone out from Him"), he turned around and asked who touched Him. By the time JC makes it to the house, Jairus' daughter dies. JC tells those at the house not to fear, but to have faith, and then He brings the girl back to life.

What stuck out to me when I heard the message is that I could have only imagined what was going on in Jairus' mind during this whole ordeal. What I found interesting is that Jairus sought JC out and worshiped Him before he asked Him to heal his daughter. This tells me that Jairus' faith in and knowledge of JC was such that he knew that Jesus had the power to heal his daughter. When describing the events immediately following his daughter's death, however, I didn't sense the same kind of certainty on Jairus' part. Not to say that I blame him, because after all, his daughter just died. I know in my life there are times when even small feats that have caused me to doubt Jesus' power (thank God for grace, lol).

I think Jairus' experiences are important to our understanding of Christ's love for us because Jesus' love for Jairus is an example of how, like Vygotsky's notion of ZPD, I think that we all have a zone for proximal spiritual development. Just as Vygotsky believed that children could learn and achieve more with the assistance of more advanced others, we can learn and achieve more with the assistance of JC and the Holy Spirit than we can on our own. Similar to this notion is James Gee's (2003) argument that to be a good educator is to educate students in a way where the demands (e. g. assignments, activities, tests) are on the edge of their students' "regime of competence," which is the students' level of knowledge. This way, the tasks students' face are difficult (i. e. on the edge of their regime of competence), but not too difficult that they cannot complete them successfully (i. e. it is still within their regime of competence). I think that Jesus understood both of these notions, which is why 1) He was and is so patient with His disciples and followers 2) He stresses practicing humility and relying on God and the Holy Spirit and 3) He tells us that through prayer, fasting, and communing with God, we can resist temptation, overcome the devil, and "shake some things up" in this world for the building up of God's kingdom.


Jairus shows us how our knowledge of and faith in Jesus is a progressive thing, such that insofar as we are connected with and following God, we will learn more about Him, and increase our relationship with and faith in Him. While initially Jairus knew Jesus as (and believed Him to be) one who prolongs life (healer), it appeared that he did not know Jesus as (or believed Him to be) a one who restores life once it is seemingly "lost" (life-giver). Once JC restored his daughter's life, this increased his knowledge and faith in JC so that it not only includes healing, but also restoring life. It was as if JC knew of Jairus' regime of competence regarding his knowledge of Him, and knew that just with some assistance ('Don't be afraid, just believe'), that Jairus could expand his regime of competence. I think for many of us, our spiritual development may follow a similar trajectory. If I have learned anything since seriously deciding to walk with JC, it is that my knowledge of and faith in Him was not "complete" once I made the decision. However, I have to continually learn about Him (through reading the word, fellowshipping with other believers, and looking at His track-record as evidenced in my life) and work on increasing my faith in Him. After all, this walk is a marathon, not a sprint. As a developmentalist-in-training, I really like the idea of constant growth and progression, and there is no better way to grow and progress than in knowledge of and faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

What do you think? Until next time, stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...


Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy: NY: Palgrave Macmillan.


Miller, P. H. (2002). Vygotsky and the sociocultural approach. In Theories of developmental psychology (pp. 367-419). NY: Worth Publishers.

Labels: development, faith, Jesus Christ, Mark, spiritual, Vygotsky

Peace and blessings,

During the last post, I provided my general thoughts on Dr. Hendricks’ “Politics of Jesus,” highlighting things that I agreed with and things I either disagreed or had concerns with. I now want to offer a potential explanation as to why I think he went to such great lengths (by “great lengths” I am referring to the extent to which he used biblical scripture to support and further his position) to urge us as Christians and those who may not be Christian but are passionate about issues of social justice to pay more attention to Jesus Christ’s revolutionary nature, and the implication of this nature on past, present, and future politics.
Looking back at the points in my life when I first realized that I was passionate about something, I noticed that whenever this realization occurred, it was as a result of experiencing or wrestling with two extremes simultaneously. In other words, once I learned something that was totally contrary to what I had previously been taught, I would kind of “flip out” in a sense. As a result, I would devote all of my energy embracing this “new” information that I would cut myself off from considering any other type of information that may differ from this “new” information that I was now fully embracing.
I think that Dr. Hendricks had a similar experience. It the start of the book he talks about his experiences with trying to understand God and Christianity as a child. He mentions how whenever he would suggest to others that the way he sees Jesus is different that how the Messiah has been characterized, portrayed, and widely represented historically and presently, he would run into opposition. In particular, he would be made to feel as if his “radical” view of Jesus is nothing more than a function of his misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the “real” Jesus: one who is meek, divine, and only concerned with our personal piety and salvation. As he got older, however, he began to become more engaged in the scriptures and realized that his “radical” notion of Jesus was not “wrong” or inaccurate. In fact, it was the exact opposite. In other words, Hendricks had discovered this “new” characterization of Jesus that was so drastically different than the apolitical characterization of Jesus that he was so accustomed to.
As a result, he focused most, if not all of his efforts on emphatically supporting this position. Further, I think that it was this simultaneous struggle between two drastically different conceptions of Jesus, and the resulting focus on supporting his “new” realization that Jesus was in fact a revolutionary, that explains why some of his interpretations of the scriptures (e.g. the passage in Matthew and the passage in Mark), seem to be earnestly trying to highlight some further social, economic, or political motive, when it is possible that it may not be.
As I said in the previous post, I am not saying that his interpretation of the passages in Matthew and Mark that I highlight are inaccurate, because I am in no way a biblical scholar, and he is. What I am saying is that for me personally, I do not see those larger motives. Second, there are plenty of interpretations of scriptures that he highlight in the book that I do agree with.
In conclusion, I want to note that Hendricks sheds some much deserved and long overdue light on some very important aspects of Jesus’ revolutionary nature, that in my opinion are just as important as His divine nature. In fact, I would argue that Jesus’ life and ministry is absolute proof that having an intimate relationship with God necessitates intimate relationships with others, such that we work to break down the walls of injustice, in any and every way God calls us to do so. We cannot be intimately connected to God if we are not also intimately connected to God’s children. Lastly, I think that the potential explanation I offered for as to why I think Hendricks was so “hard core” on arguing his position, reflects a larger issue regarding the “popular” conception of Jesus and Christianity that is prevalent within mainstream America. The sooner we start looking at Jesus’ divinity and revolutionary natures as sequential and interconnected (i.e. because He was divine, He was always concerned with holistically meeting people’s needs) and not polar opposites (or at the very least two separate, distinct, aspects), the better we will become as a people. Books that highlight the revolutionary nature of Jesus will then no longer be looked at as shocking revelations, but instead as confirmation.

What do you think? What is your conception of Jesus? Where does your conception of Jesus come from? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit…

Labels: African American, children, Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, mainstream, Mark, Matthew, Politics of Jesus, relationship, revolutionary, scriptures

" Rather than taking a literalistic or legalistic approach, the politics of Jesus calls for scrutinizing every political policy and policy proposal by this standard: It is based upon the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself?' That is, does it treat the people and their needs as holy? It is important that this principle not be treated as a law with layers of liturgical and organizational requirements. Rather, it is to be seen as a yardstick that at every point seeks to apply mishpat (justice), sadiqah (righteousness), and hesed (steadfast), continually demonstrated love for our neighbors to every public and private act of consequence. This is the way the politics of Jesus enjoins us to approach every question of politics and social policy (pg. 323)."


"If we look honestly and unflinchingly at the political culture in America today, it becomes clear that Jesus' judgment against the religious and political leaders of his day (in reality, they were the same) is also his judgment against the leaders of our day. America's most vocal and self-described politicians 'of faith' profess biblical beliefs while consistently acting in ways that contradict biblical justice. Worse, they portray themselves to the American masses as the definitive moral voice of America, the righteous, divinely ordained spokespersons for God to us all. Yet there is little question that if Jesus were walking among us now, he would stand against the political leaders of our day--and many of the religious leaders, too--as he stood against them in his own day (pg.329)."

Peace and blessings,

I chose to begin with these quotes, because I think they accurately characterize Dr. Obery Hendricks' position as articulated in his book, "The Politics of Jesus." The following book review will be two fold. First, I will briefly (but then again, do I ever discuss anything "briefly?"LOL) discuss the aspects of Henricks' position that I agree with, and those aspects that I disagree with. Afterwards, I will offer a potential explanation as to what factors may have influenced how he argued his position.

In a nutshell, Hendricks (2006) argues that both historically and currently, leaders (political and religious) have in some form or another misinterpreted Jesus' ministry and/or neglected critical components of His ministry. As a result, Jesus has been, and is currently regarded as a passive Messiah only concerned with our personal piety, righteousness, and salvation. According to Hendricks, this view of Jesus is inaccurate or at best incomplete because it fails to acknowledge Jesus' revolutionary nature and his mission to non-violently dismantle social injustice and economic and oppression. Through closely examining scriptures and the social, economic, and political contexts in which these scriputures were written, Hendricks passionately reminds us that in addition to His divinity and the fact that He came, died, and rose so that through Him we can be saved, He was also dedicated to changing the structures which sought to oppress and marginalize the very people He came to save (which is everyone). Whether it was feeding the five thousand, healing (restoring) the lives of those treated as social outcasts, or constantly opposing the Pharisees' and other leaders' illusions of power and dominance over "the least of these," Jesus was always about meeting people's needs (spiritual, mental, physical, and economic).

I agree with his general arguement, and that Jesus' revolutionary nature is often neglected within most political, social, and economic discourse and policies in the U.S. In addition to some political and religious arenas, I think that the media (movies, etc...) is also partly responsible for the neglect of Jesus' revolutionary nature and His emphasis on social, economic, and political change that lovingly and righteously serves all humanity. My only criticism of the book, however, is that I think that some of Hendricks' arguments that he derives from analyzing certain scriptures are somewhat "far-fetched." One example of this is his analysis of Matthew 20:1-16, which is the parable where Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven using the analogy of a householder going into his vineyard to hire workers. In the parable, the householder ends up paying the workers who were hired last and thus only worked one hour, the same wage as those who were hired first and worked for twelve hours. Hendricks argues that despite the general impression that this parable is about how God's love, grace, and mercy are available to everyone regardless of status or circumstance, the parable is actually about the oppressive condition of the workers, the low wage they were paid, and how they were exploited by the householder who hired them.

Another example has to do with his examination of Mark 5:1-10, which is the passage where a man is possed by a legion of demons and is healed by Jesus. Primarily drawing on the facts that the demons asked Jesus no to send them out of the country (as opposed to being sent out of the man), and that at the time "legion" referred to the Roman legions, which was the Roman army, Hendricks argues that the passage is not about an exorcism, but about Jesus addressing the Roman army "for its role in the upheaval that was devastating the social fabric of Israel (pg. 146)." I am in no way a biblical scholar or theologian, nor do I claim to be. I am simply saying that to me, it seems like these conclusions appear to be somewhat of a stretch. Although it is possible that his interpretations of these passages are correct, I think it is more likely that both interpretations are correct. In other words, the passages are more likely demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature and concern for "the least of these" though their illustrations of the equal access to God's kingdom (Matthew 20:1-16) and Jesus healing a possessed man (Mark 5: 1-10), than only demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature.

In the next couple of days, I will discuss my thoughts as to why I think Hendricks chose to put forth his argument in this way. Until then, stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...

Labels: contexts, economic, Israel, Jesus, leaders, Mark, Matthew, oppression, political, Politics of Jesus, power, religious, revolutionary, scriptures, spiritual

Peace and blessings,


The following image is of an Iraq man carrying his brother away after being hit with an explosion. The title of the piece is "He's not heavy, he's my brother," by

Holly Wong

I figure I don't have to remind people about how controversal of a thinker Sigmund Freud (1961) was. From thoughts on the pleasure principle, a child's relationship with their parents, and gender differences, it is safe to say that Freud did not make too many people's "liked" lists. While recently reading his book "Civilization and its Discontents (1961), I came across one of his ideas that struck me. Now I am not co-signing on his theory or its implications, but I do think that he may have been on to something when he addressed what he believed to be the most difficult goal for humans to attain. In discussing what he believes to be civilization's attempts to prevent humans from acting on their true nature, which is to wreak on fellow humans, he states,

"Hence, therefore, the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibited relaitonships of love, hence the restriction upon sexual life, and hence too the ideal's commandment to love one's neighbour as oneself--a commandment which is really justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to the original nature of man..." (p.70)

Although I disagree with his theory on how civilization is always in contention with humans because it prevents us from acting out our brutally violent nature towards one another (e.g. through rules, laws, and social relationships), I think that he has a point when he says that the "love your neighbour" commandment is in conflict with human nature (although I disagree with his conception of human nature). The fact of the matter is, it is extremely difficult to adhere to this commandment, not only because of our nature which revolves around self-preservation, but also because of the "go and get yours" ideology that pervades just about every aspect of our lives. We are often told to think of ourselves first, even at the expense of others. We are conditioned to build legacies based on what we've acquired instead of who we can assist. So in that respect, I think Freud was on to something.

Why is this commandment so diffult to uphold on a consistent basis? Maybe because Jesus considered it to be one of the most important of the commandments. In Mark 12:29-31 it reads,



Pic courtesy of

Microcinemascene

"Jesus answered, 'the first is...you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."

Despite its difficulty, the fact that these are commandments means that we must continually strive to uphold these commandments. Jesus knew that it was impossible for use to uphold the commandments on our own, which is why He taught us how and why to walk with Him and His Father.

Before I end, I couldn't talk about having concern for and loving others without highlighting this quote by Dr. King:





"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgement. Life's most most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'"

This is something that I struggle with everyday, wondering if there's something more I could be doing for those who lack the things that I take for granted. Even though there are times when I act selfishly, I am beginning to understand that sometimes God uses our struggles to strengthen us. I realize that like Talib Kweli said, some struggles are beautiful. Have a blessed weekend, and speekonit...

Labels: beautiful struggle, civilization, commandments, God, JC, Jesus, Mark, MLK, relationships, Sigmund Freud