Real Talk

Peace and blessings,

I wanted to provide a brief outline of the events surrounding the case of the Jena 6, a case that is gaining much attention throughout the country, and duly so. I encourage everyone to seek out more info regarding the situation, and participate in any and every way that you can. The information below can be found at

Color of Change

and

Truthout.

As you read the outline, I urge you to keep the following scriptures in mind, as this case represents another instance of how we often distort and manipulate God's conception of "justice."



"The Lord works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed."

Psalms 103: 6

"It is well with those who deal generously and lend, who conduct their
affairs with justice."

Psalms 112: 5

"I know that the Lord maintains the cause of the needy, and executes justice for the poor."

Psalms 140: 12


1) after black students sat under the "white tree," nooses were hung from
the tree. In reaction, black students sat under the tree in protest,
prompting the superintendent and District Attorney to get involved. The
superintendent dismissed the nooses as a "prank," while the DA,
accompanied with Jena police, told the black students protesting that "I
can be your best friend or your worst enemy...I can take away your lives
with a stroke of the pen."

2) Racial tension escalated over the next couple of months, with the main
academic building of Jena high school getting burned down on Nov. 30th,
2006 in an unsolved fire. Later that same weekend, a black student was
beaten up by white students at a party. The next day, black students were
threatened by a young white man with a shotgon at a convenient store. They
restled the gun from him and ran away. No charges were filed against the
white man, but the students were arrested for gun-theft.

3) That Monday, a white student taunted the black student who as beaten up
at the party, and allegedly called several black students "nigger." After
lunch, he was knocked down, punched, and kicked by black students. He was
taken to the hosptial, released, and was well enough to attend a social
event that same evening. Six black Jena high students were arrested and
charged with second-degree attempted murder. Bail was set so high (between
70,000-138,000) that the students were in jail for months as families went
into debt to release them.

4) The local district attorney Reed Walters, who initially charged the six
with attempted murder, later reduced the charges to aggravated assault,
contending that Bell's tennis shoes constituted a dangerous weapon.The
first trial ended in June 2007, and Mychal Bell (16) was convicted of
aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated (both felonies)
battery by an all-white jury. In addition, Mychal's public defender did
not call a single witness to testify during th trial. During the trial,
Mychal's parents were ordered not to speak to the media and the court
prohibited protests from taking place near the courtroom or where the
judge could see them.

5) Louisiana's 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on an emergency
defense appeal, reversed the aggravated second-degree conviction of Mychal
Bell, ruling that the youth had been tried improperly as an adult in a
case. Last week, the judge who presided over Bell's trial in June, LaSalle
Parish District Judge J.P. Mauffray, vacated a conspiracy conviction
against the youth for the same reason, but inexplicably let the more
serious battery conviction stand. Now Walters must decide whether to
refile the entire case in juvenile court.

6) Walters said in a statement Friday, September 14th 2007 that he
intended to appeal the reversal of Bell's conviction to the Louisiana
Supreme Court

More on the conviction reversal can be found in an article by the

Chicago Tribune.

Rather you are aware of the situation or are just hearing about it for the first time. I'm interested in people's thoughts on the issue. What are your reactions? Who do you think plays a more significant role in how the events that have taekn place (Superintendent, local district attorney, the school for not addressing the tree issue sooner, etc...)? Do you see any difference between how justice is used in the Jena 6 case, and God's sense of justice as illustrated in the scriptures? From what i've heard about the case so far, the thing that gets me is how no attention (prior to these events taking place and while they were taking place) has been given to the tree-issue. The fact that there existed (for so long) a tree at Jena high school with this much racist, divisive power in itself speaks volumes as to the value the high school places on their students' worth, because racism and divisiveness is detrimental to all who are involved.

I am asking anyone who comes across more updates regarding this issue can sent it to me at info@speeklife.com, so that I can frequently update the blog regarding this matter. Also, make sure you check out the third video of fox news, and pay attention to the last minute of the clip, where Hannity "dodges" Rev. Sharpton's question about whether or not he supports the Jena 6. They have been talking for over six minutes, but as soon as Re. Sharpton asks this question, all of a sudden Hannity can't hear him. Even his partner on the show heard him clearly. Racism, like any sin, cannot stay "hidden." Eventually it's going to come out and get exposed. I'm not saying i'm perfect or anything, but Hannity's "true feelings" regarding U.S. race relations is extremely evident in this clip. Jesus help us... Please share your thoughts, continue to pray that God heals this situation, and as always, speekonit...

Labels: attention, God, Jena 6, justice, Lord, oppressed, Psalms, scriptures

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 is a scripture that I have been thinking about lateley. The pic is courtesy of

Suite 101

"15Therefore take good heed to yourselves, since you saw no form of Him on the day the Lord spoke to you on Horeb out of the midst of the fire,

16Beware lest you become corrupt by making for yourselves [to worship] a graven image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

17The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, or of any winged fowl that flies in the air,

18The likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, or of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth.

19And beware lest you lift up your eyes to the heavens, and when you see the sun, moon, and stars, even all the host of the heavens, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all nations under the whole heaven.

20But the Lord has taken you and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be to Him a people of His own possession, as you are this day."
Deuteronomy 4: 15-20


One of the things that I love about God is that He allows us to glorify Him through a wide variety of interests and activities. Whether it is freestyling, listening to music, playing ball, or engaging in my academic interests, I try to give God the glory in the process. However, I am also becoming aware of the risks that are present in everything that we commit our time, energy, and resources. The point is to treat those interests and activities as a MEANS to honor God, and not as an ENDS in themselves. Whether it is our professional careers, our hobbies, our artistic expressions and so forth, we must always make sure that God is at the center and everything else revolves around Him, not the other way around. As opportunities have been and will be give to me, I am constantly struggling to acknowledge that our opportunities and accomplishements are ONLY important insofar as they revolve around God's will and purpose for our lives. In a world where it's easy to view these things as "idols" and to take credit for the things God has given us, let's strive to remain humble and focused on doing God's will, because in the end that's all that matters. Holla back and speekonit...

Labels: academic, careers, Deuteronomy, God, hobbies, Idols, interests, music, purpose, scriptures

Peace and blessings,

The following scripture speaks to the power and necessity of prayer. Given the events that transpired in Peter's life after this conversation with Jesus (i.e. his betrayal of Jesus three times and Jesus returning to redeem Peter three times), Jesus' prayer for Peter speaks volumes. The pic is courtesy of

Suite 101

"31Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan has asked excessively that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain, 32But I have prayed especially for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, strengthen and establish your brethren."

Luke 22:31-32 (NKJ Amplified)

This scripture reminds me of the importance of praying for myself as well as others, because the devil stays on his grind. Since we already the victory through Christ, prayer to me is simply verbal confirmation between Jesus, God, and myself that the devil has no hold over us. Stay blessed and speekonit...

Labels: Christ, faith, Jesus, Luke, Peter, scriptures