Real Talk

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,

I pray everyone had a safe, blessed, and productive weekend. Below are a couple of links about rappers who are contributing to righteous causes domestically as well as internationally. Ahh, the power of the voice...


The first link is about rappers in the Bay Area, California who are tryiing to raise awareness of the struggling schools in the Bay Area, as well to raise money to improve those schoools. One of the rappers, Kontac, is also a teacher at a school in East Palo Alto.

http://www.allhiphop.com/hiphopnews/?ID=6597


On a similar note, 20 or so rappers are coming together for a "Save Darfur Tour," aimed at raising awareness of the past and current genocide going on in Sudan, and the plight of its refugees. Peep the website below for more info.


http://www.savedarfurtour.com/

Man, could you imagine a concert in the likes of like a summer jam, but whose sole purpose was to raise awareness about and pull resources together to address domestic and international injustices? Call me an idealist, but a pray that the actualization of such a vision is on that rear-view mirror steez: It may be closer than it appears! What do you think? Speekonit...

Labels: Bay Area, California, Darfur, domestic, education, Heart of Racial Justice: How Soul Change Leads to Social Change, hip-hop, international, revolutionary, teacher

Peace and blessings,

First off, I must apologize for the long hiatus, but this past month has been hectic with graduations and moving and all. But as always, I'm back like I left something. The focus of today's entry is something that has been on my mind for a little over a month during a course I was taking. In one of the required readings, Michael Resnick (1996) argues that people tend to view things from a centralized mindset, namely that massive or large-scale events/phenomena are caused by a "central" source. Common examples of this type of thinking include the belief that the productivity of hundreds of worker ants and bees is the result of their respective queens. He further contends that this way of thinking is misguided, because these and other phenomena are not the result of a central source, but of the combined choices and actions of individual agents. To illustrate this idea, Resnick (1996) and colleagues developed a computer program called StarLogo, which allows people to experience various ways in which individual agents work to create unintended phenomena. For example, high school students were able to alter the rules of different StarLogo environments (e.g. cars in traffic, turtles moving in particular directions, and termites picking up wood chips) and see how a series of individual actions can create massive results. To the students' surprise, they found that without a "central" cause, cars eventually formed a traffic jam, the turtles still organized in clusters, and termites still stacked wood chips in a pile. Although these activities may not seem that important, it is the idea behind these activities that we must consider: Individual choices and actions are important, and collectively they are powerful.
Once this idea was made clear to me, I started to think about a movie I recently saw, V for Vendetta. In a nutshell, the movie was about a man who sought to achieve justice on behalf of all the people who lost their lives in the past and are currently being deceived, due to the lives and cover ups of a corrupt government. Sounds familiar? Examples of such lies and cover-ups addressed in the movie include immoral medical experiments resulting in the deaths of many people, and government-fueled ideologies that elicit fear and compliance. Again, sound familiar? I don't know about you, but the syphilis experiments in Tuskegee and the "war on terror" comes to mind for me. Although the movie included good action scenes and the main character was very fascinating, the most significant scenes in the movie came not from the main character, but from the actions of the "community." by 'community" I am referring to the everyday citizens who realized they were being deceived and collectively did something about it non-violently. After discovering "the truth" about their government, huge multitudes of people marched to a central location (for the specific reason of the march and location, go peep the movie) and the government powers nor law enforcement could stop the because it too many people on one accord for a righteous cause. The most memorable line in the movie for me was the statement: "the people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people." While most of us would agree with the first part, we rarely focus on the second part. Governments should "govern" its citizens in a way that reflects not so much fear in terms of being scared of its citizens, but fear in the sense that the government respects its citizens enough to the point where it is afraid to deceive and disappoint them. There's all this propaganda and focus on how much love citizens don't have, have, or should have for their country (i.e. patriotism), but I pray that the hearts and minds of all governmental officials are oriented towards showing love, devotion, and allegiance to its citizens.
In sum, I wanted to draw-out a connection I made between the StarLogo program and "V for Vendetta." Although the former is a computer program and the latter a major motion picture, the common thread is that they both demonstrate the power of individual choices and actions. Further, they show how agents can create massive change by each playing their role in collective action. It doesn't happen often, but it puts a smile on my face when education and popular culture converge for a cause worth considering.

Source: Resnick, M. (1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 1-22

Labels: action, choices, community, government, movie, people, revolutionary, truth, unity, V for Vendetta