King's Letter From Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44 KJV).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 57 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

This week we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

As we celebrate this week, culminating with the federal holiday on Monday, January 20, we have much for which to be thankful, much has been accomplished in race relations in America. Let us stop looking to others and ask, what more can I do to help?

An Education in Civics

(by David Barton – WallBuilders)

The Inauguration of Donald Trump was remarkable in many ways, not the least of which was that six different individuals offered prayers, with four of those prayers ending in Jesus’ name and the other two openly quoting from the Bible. Ministers were once again allowed to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience, as originally intended by the US Constitution.

Another unique feature of his Inauguration was the large number of protesters present. Most were Millennials, and while some focused on single subjects, others were still protesting the general election results. Among the latter group, a common protest sign was, “Trump is not my president.” But that statement says more about our education system than it does about those who held the signs. It affirms the failure of American education in four areas: American history, government, Constitution, and truth.

First, the sign was intended to express their outrage over the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes but lost the presidency—an outcome they believed was unprecedented in the history of American elections. Only it wasn’t. The identical thing has happened in several other presidential elections. Shame on schools for not teaching basic American history and why such outcomes occur.

Second, the message on the sign was rooted in the protestors’ mistaken belief that America is a democracy. But we are not. Those who formed our government hated democracies and wisely protected us from them. For example, James Madison affirmed that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

Founder Fisher Ames warned, “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction,” and John Adams lamented that democracies “never lasts long.” For thousands of years, democracies have consistently proved to be a source of lurking disaster—an unpredictable form of government where passions and selfishness can prevail over reason and deliberation.

America was therefore established as a constitutional republic—what John Adams described as “a government of laws and not of men.” Shame on schools for not teaching basic American government.

Third, the “Trump is not my president” sign affirmed their unawareness of how presidents are to be elected according to the Constitution—an election process that mirrors our federal bicameral system. For example, Wyoming has half-a-million citizens, but California has 39 million. So, in the US House, Wyoming gets only one Congressman while California gets fifty-three, and California will beat Wyoming on every vote in the House. 

But in the Senate, California gets only two Senators—the same as Wyoming; the representation is solely by state, and every state has equal voting strength with all others. This is a prominent feature in our federal system. A bill is not passed merely by the House, which reflects the popular vote; it also must be passed in the Senate, which reflects the vote by states.

The protesters believe that only the national popular vote matters. But even though Mrs. Clinton garnered the votes of most of the largest cities in America, she did not win the majority of the states, cities, or counties. In fact, Trump won 30 of the 50 states, more than 80% of America’s 3,141 counties, and an equally lop-sided percentage of its 35,000 cities. The protestors were unaware (as are most Americans) that the Constitution establishes an election system that balances diverse measurements.

Finally, the declaration that “Trump is not my president” establishes a personal opinion as the ultimate measure of right and wrong—that truth is whatever I believe or declare it to be. But the problem with this is that there are absolutes. Jump off the Empire State Building and see what happens. On the way down you may personally object to what is happening, or be offended by it, or even vehemently disagree with it, but none of that will change the results. There is no alternate reality - none.

It’s time that Americans demand that their schools once again teach American history (so students know that the popular vote winner does not always win the presidential election), American government (so they know we are a republic and not a democracy), the Constitution (so they understand our bicameral federal and election system), and absolute truth (that personal opinion must submit to truth and reality).

If we don’t make these changes, we will not want to imagine, much less experience, the horrifying results from Abraham Lincoln’s warning that “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.”

(My thanks to WallBuilders and David Barton for allowing me to publish this article.)

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: His Letter from Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 44 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

Today we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

This year’s celebrations coincide with the ending of two terms of service by the first black president of the United States – what a tribute to Dr. King.

Happy Thanksgiving!

My family observed our first American Thanksgiving in 1991. A few months earlier, we began our studies in a northern suburb of Chicago. We learned rather quickly that in America, Thanksgiving was a time for families to get together.

An American family invited us to join them for that first celebration. For five years, we celebrated with them in St. Louis. The joyous times made the 300-mile journey very tolerable. Now, twenty-five years later, the friendships we maintain are just as meaningful as in those early years.

When our family-group of twenty gather this week, I will be aware that our celebration would not be anything like the first American Thanksgiving. The first observance of Thanksgiving in America was entirely religious in nature and involved no form of feasting. On Wednesday, December 4, 1619, a group of 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation on the James River in Virginia. The charter of the group required that the day of arrival be observed as a Day of Thanksgiving to God.

The celebration was probably derived from the harvest-home ceremonies originally held in England. Those were days reserved to thank God for plentiful crops and a bountiful harvest. Accordingly, this holiday still takes place late in the Fall Season, after crops have been gathered.

In 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first official Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.”

Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level. Much of the credit for the adoption of a later annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For 30 years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting president after president until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving.

Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. In 1941, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.

It is believed that the English idea of giving thanks for crops had its genesis among the Jews. In Leviticus 23:15-16, God commanded the Jews to count seven full weeks (49 days), beginning on the second day of Passover. The celebration was known by different names throughout the Bible. Among them were The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of the Fiftieth Day and the Day of Pentecost – from the Greek word pentecostes, meaning fiftieth.

Even with a cursory study of the Jewish, British and American practices of thanksgiving, a few common threads seem obvious. Each celebration was in keeping with harvest festivals and acknowledged God’s faithful provision.

In June Jews celebrate Shavuot – the biblical harvest festival. Normally, they spend hours studying the Torah, chant the Ten Commandments, read from the book of Ruth and decorate their homes and synagogues with roses and spices.

In America, it would seem as though the tradition of thanking God has been replaced by the eating of turkey. Some historians believe when colonists sat down to eat with native Indians, beef and fowl were on the menu. A letter written by pilgrim Edward Winslow confirmed this belief when he mentioned a turkey hunting trip before the meal.

Within modern times, the annual "pardoning" of White House turkeys is an interesting tradition that has captured the imagination of the public. It is often stated that President Lincoln’s 1863 clemency to a turkey was the origin for the pardoning ceremony. It is a rather trivial American tradition that the poultry industry looks forward to.

On a more serious note though, for what will you be giving thanks this week? As the patriarch at our Thanksgiving table, I will encourage my family to reflect on something within the last year. My list would very likely include my faith, health, family, church, career and upcoming retirement from pastoral ministry.

What would your list look like? What about saying thanks to at least five persons who had a positive impact on your life within the last year? Have fun. Happy Thanksgiving!

“We the People?”

The phrase “WE THE PEOPLE” is in the very first sentence of the United States Constitution. The entire phrase reads, “We the people of the United States...”. It would seem obvious that the phrase was referring to citizens of the United States.

To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”

What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.

In America, the power to govern comes from the people. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.

Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.

If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.

Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.

In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.

The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."

The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

When interviewed, a student demonstrator at Arvada High School, said that “the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built upon."

That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.

The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.

Two Slivers of Hope

I am among the 82% of Americans who are disgusted with the current presidential campaign. Yes, I am eager for the campaign to end. I am sick of hearing quips like, “Clinton is a crook”, and “Trump is a creep”. One seasoned journalist described the campaign as “the most negative and ‘issue-less’ one of my career.”

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most unpopular presidential candidates in more than 30 years of ABC News/Washington Post polling. Among US adults, Hillary Clinton has a 56% unfavourability rating while Donald Trump has 63%. According to Gallup, Trump and Clinton are currently among the worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades.

Amid my political despair, I came across two slivers of hope. The first was my introduction to The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program – I wish it were mandatory for all political candidates to graduate from this great six-month program.

According to the program’s website, “The Presidential Leadership Scholars program is designed for leaders from diverse backgrounds who share a commitment to facing society’s greatest challenges.

The program looks for participants who have the desire and capacity to take their leadership strengths to a higher level in order to help their communities and emboldens them with the practical skills needed to drive solution-oriented action.”

The program draws on the strengths and leadership initiatives of four affiliated presidential centers. By including a bipartisan roster of presidential centers – two Republican and two Democratic – and by enjoying the engagement of former presidents from both parties, the program creates a rare opportunity to instill in students a brand of principled leadership that transcends diverse backgrounds.

This executive-style education series creates a life-long network for Scholars from the business, public service, nonprofit, and military sectors and fosters opportunities for leaders to emerge ready to offer solutions to pressing national problems.

The Presidential Leadership Scholars program aims to build a strong and diverse alumni network that can put the lessons of cooperation and collaborative problem-solving to use in a variety of sectors and inspire a new kind of leadership.

I would hope that with this non-partisan professional program, America would never again have to nominate the cadre of political candidates we see in this 2016 cycle. Among alumni from this program, it is most unlikely to hear descriptions like crook and creep.

My second sliver of hope came during my studies, in preparation for preaching this weekend. I will be unpacking one of the key verses from the Old Testament book of Daniel. Daniel and his people were in captivity in Babylon. Unlike America, Babylon was a despotic autocracy. 

It was in that ungodly and cruel context the theme of the book of Daniel emerged – “the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone He wishes” (Daniel 5:21). It was in that context some of the clearest biblical statements of courage and fortitude emerged.

The prophet Jeremiah was addressing exiles in that context when he wrote, “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).

Like Babylon, America is religiously diverse, but not committed to the God of Abraham. We are becoming more interested in eclectic spirituality than in pursuing a biblical worldview – a system that affirms God as sovereign. Or, as expressed in my sermon topic for this weekend: “God Is In Charge Here”! Looking at America today through these lenses, gives me hope.

In his book, The Handwriting on the Wall, David Jeremiah contends, “Christians should be the calmest people on earth. We have no right to run around this world in frenzied activity, staying up and walking the floor at night, wondering what is going to happen. God in heaven rules the kingdoms of men.”

So be calm. By Tuesday, November 8, 2016 we will know who will be in the White House in January. However, prior to and after that time, our God will still be reigning “over the kingdoms of men...”.

I Intend to Vote!

Upon becoming a citizen of the United States, I knew I would earn the right to vote - that right I cherish. Especially now, considering that some 70% of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. My vote might just make the difference to stem this downward trend.

Agreed, the political climate is toxic. However, that toxicity is because of the personalities in the presidential race and not because of the issues at stake. To ignore the issues and focus almost exclusively on leadership traits is a distraction. From a recent survey, the American Psychological Association concluded that more than 50% of American adults view the 2016 election cycle as “a very or somewhat” significant source of stress.

Interestingly, the stress is not only among Americans. Stress and curiosity go beyond foreign policy and security. American policies on trade, immigration, the environment and even health care often carry implications for other nations.

I can make a difference and I intend to do so on Tuesday, November 8. However, as I prayerfully prepare myself to vote, I know that I cannot limit my thinking to the two presidential candidates. As far as I am concerned, both candidates lack the moral authority to lead America. To date, the variety of salacious disclosures will make it very difficult for either candidate to lead with integrity.

However, as I prepare to vote, I will be forced to vote for the candidate who best represents the positions which are important to me. I will vote for the candidate who supports the appointment of justices and judges who respect constitutional limits and the authority of states.

I am aware that the next president may select as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. These justices will decide on cultural issues that will affect me, my children and my grandchildren. Both presidential candidates have indicated the kind of persons they would like to serve on the Supreme Court – there is a stark ideological difference. In addition, the next president will appoint district and appellate judges throughout the nation.

As a person of color, I am very concerned that on average, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. Did you know that, annually, abortion among black Americans causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Regardless of color, every life is sacred, and I will be voting for a presidential candidate that is sensitive to this concern.
My faith defines me and the Bill of Rights protects my right to practice my faith. I want to live according to the dictates of my conscience. I have no problem living in a religiously diverse culture. I want to be sure that all faith-based institutions are protected from government discrimination. Whichever presidential candidate protects these rights will get my vote.

The institution of marriage, defined as a union between a man and a woman, has served every culture for millennia. Both social scientists and theologians will agree that “the institution of marriage is the relationship that best provides for the most favorable exercise of human sexuality, the overall well-being of adults, and the proper socialization of children.” Agreed, other familial relationships meet similar needs. However, lifelong, monogamous marriage is the best option.

If the above is true, then why demonize this option? Researcher Glen Stanton is correct, “Marriage has no close rival. It stands independently above any other option: singleness, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage.” I am eager to vote for a candidate who shares my passion.

When my family and I came to this country 25 years ago, our privileges were limited by our overseas student status. I was determined to live within the immigration limits placed on us. I had a moral obligation to model to my children that we were a law-abiding family. In addition, I had a biblical obligation to display consistency in all areas of my life. We were deprived of luxuries, but maintained our integrity.

I want other immigrants to have a similar appreciation for the laws of the land. It was good to hear the officer say at my citizenship interview, “We are sorry it took so long, but welcome to America.” I plan to vote for a presidential candidate who respects the process of law and order when it comes to immigration. Everyone wins when we play clean. You now know why I intend to vote on November 8.

White Privilege

When we migrated to America twenty-five years ago, we were often told that we were not seen as being black. We understood then, that that was a statement of acceptance. Acceptance by others who determined that our conduct was not a threat to their way of living.

I believe those who affirmed us were genuine. They were unconscious of assuming and displaying a posture of privilege. On one occasion, I was visiting a woman who was dying in hospital. During that visit, my presence was questioned by a white nurse. The white husband of the dying woman sensed the racist tone in the nurse’s question. Although he was not being addressed, the husband answered – “He is our pastor.” With that, the nurse left the room.

In coming to my defense, that husband and two other white friends who were present, were utilizing their inherited privilege. Simply put, they were raised in a society that attached significance to their ethnicity. They tapped into that inherited right and defended me.

Those memories of life in Midwest America returned while watching a video someone sent me a few days ago. The story in the video was told by a black woman. She and her sister-in-law grew up together. Her sister-in-law was half white and half black with blue eyes, “whiter than most white folks.” Along with their spouses and children, they shared wonderful, multicultural family times. 

Both women were in the check-out line at a neighborhood supermarket. Kathleen, the sister-in-law, checked her groceries first. The cashier who was a strawberry blond, freckled and extremely warm, engaged Kathleen in pleasant small talk. During the friendly exchange, Kathleen prepared and submitted a personal check for her groceries. “She picked up her groceries and waited for me a few feet away.”

“It was now my turn to be served. The pleasant demeanor that Kathleen got was gone. My groceries were checked and I got my check book ready to pay.” On submitting my check I was told that I needed two pieces of identification.”

My ten-year old daughter who was witnessing this ordeal began to cry. “Mommy, why is she doing this to us?” I am now trying to figure-out how best to react to this ordeal. Behind me are two elderly white women – I know I had to avoid becoming the typical “angry black woman.”

I chose to avoid conflict and submitted the two pieces of identification that the cashier requested. I could not imagine that this situation could get worse until the cashier pulled out the “bad checks book.” She wanted to see if I was listed among customers with a bounced-check record.

By this time, I am thoroughly humiliated and my daughter is sobbing with embarrassment. My sister-in-law Kathleen had seen enough. She intervened.

“Excuse me! Why are you doing this?” “What do you mean?” replied the cashier. “Why are you taking her through all of these procedures, why are you doing this?” “Well, this is our policy.” “This is not your policy - you did not do this to me.”

“Well, I know you,” said the cashier. “No! No! She has been living here for years. I have only lived here for three months,” said Kathleen. At this point the two white elderly ladies exclaimed, “Oh, we can’t believe what this cashier has done with this woman – this is totally unacceptable.”

On hearing the commotion, the manager walked over – “Is there a problem here?” “Oh yes,” replied Kathleen. “There is a problem here and this is what happened.”

Although Kathleen was half black and half white, she used her white privilege to point out an injustice. Her stand for justice influenced others around her. Kathleen knew, that because of her color, she inherited rights from society – in other words, white privilege. She used that right to educate and correct an injustice.

Like me, had this black woman reacted, she would have been perceived to be another angry black. It was the person with the assumed privilege to make the difference. However, to make such a difference, requires courage and an awareness that one's pigmentation does not make one superior.

Not until we continue to have authentic conversations and apply biblical truth to our discourse, would we begin to see things differently. When non-Jewish Christians were being treated as second-class believers, Paul insisted, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Agreed, white privilege can be destructive, and more so among Christians. In Christ, Christians should celebrate ethnic differences and not use such differences as badges of privilege.

EVERY Black Life Matters

The fact that black leaders have served as President, Attorneys General, Secretaries of State and other cabinet positions does not make a difference – there are voices in America that contend, the lives of some black people do not matter. The issue concerns an ethnic group – black skinned people. People in this category are often of African descent.

As a member of this ethnic group, I am very concerned about specific behaviors in our society that suggest, black-skinned people do not matter. In response to that attitude, I contend, “Every Black Life Matters.” Here are some situations that help to shape my concerns. 

ABORTION
In the United States, more black babies are killed by abortion than any other ethnic group. Black children are aborted at nearly four times the rate as white children. A black abortion rate that for years has vastly surpassed that of every other racial group. Thirty out of every 1,000 black women obtained an abortion in 2011. That rate is nearly triple that of white women and double that of Hispanic women. Put succinctly, while about 13 percent of Americans are black, more than one-third of all abortions are administered to black women. (source)

FAMILY LIFE
In black communities, more babies are born out of wedlock than any other ethnic group - preliminary data indicate that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, which is appalling, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders. (source)

CRIME
Black people in the United States are more likely to be victims of violent confrontations with police officers than whites because blacks commit more violent crimes than whites per capita.

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites. More up to date FBI statistics tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. 

UNEMPLOYMENT
The unemployment rates among blacks are higher than any other ethnic group in America. In February, the unemployment rate for African-Americans was 10.4 percent, while the comparable rates for whites, Hispanics and Asians were 4.7 percent, 6.6 percent and 4.0 percent, in that order, according to data recently released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

MARRIAGE
The black divorcee rate has increased nearly five-fold over the last thirty years, and is double the rate of the general population. The result, according to The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans, is a greater share of family responsibilities being borne by women, an increased vulnerability to poverty and violence, and an erosion of community ties. 

Were it not so painful, I could go on to provide statistics on incarceration, education and drugs. Honestly, we need a campaign where politicians, educators, religious leaders and everyone committed to human development would engage in civil conversation. We need a non-partisan approach to bring about healing within black communities.

I beg to disagree with those who argue that because of slavery the situation is hopeless. As a nation, and since slavery, America has benefited greatly from the contributions of blacks. There are many blacks who have invented a multitude of items or made discoveries in the course of their lives. These have ranged from practical everyday devices to applications and scientific discoveries in diverse fields, including physics, biology, mathematics, plus the medical, nuclear and space sciences. 

I sincerely believe a big part of the solution is in the family. Stable families provide the foundation for stable communities. It is in the family we learn to respect authority structures. It is in the family we learn the value of faith and appreciate social graces. 

Social experiments have invited parents to explore career opportunities, thus limiting the time parents spend nurturing their children. Electronic devices and social services cannot and should not be expected to replace parents. 

Let us stop the posturing and get to the heart of the matter. Let us begin to educate and reward healthy families. We cannot continue to empower single mothers and allow irresponsible fathers to abscond. If every black life matters, we must be intentional and address the family, the nursery for stable communities.  

Christian Jailed in US

I like Kim Davis. Last week a federal judge ordered Davis to jail following her refusal to comply with a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The county clerk has sought a religious liberty exemption, stating that it would violate her Christian beliefs to affix her name to a license for same-sex couples.

Davis’s lawyer, Roger Gannam with the Liberty Counsel, said following Judge David Bunning’s decision to imprison his client: “Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what that belief is. This is unprecedented in American law.”

According to Kim Davis, “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. I’m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place.” She added: “I’m no different than any other Christian. It was my appointed time to stand, and their time will come.”

Judge David Bunning, who ruled against Davis, argued his case compellingly. He said: "Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the US Supreme Court's decisions regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."

In addition, Judge Bunning contends, "Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to 'authorize' same-sex marriage. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."

In other words, Davis was not asked to solemnize something with which she disagreed – she was not employed as a Minister of Religion. What if her job required her to certify legal entities like gambling establishments or night clubs? Would certifying such activities violate her Christian beliefs or conscience?

However, according to Davis, “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties.” The clerk currently has a case in federal court seeking a religious liberty exemption, allowing her not to have to affix her name to same-sex marriage licenses. 

The First Amendment to our US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In America, the citizen has the freedom of religion; the state should not institute an atmosphere of freedom from religion.

For me, some questions must be answered, was Kim Davis imprisoned for the exercise of her religious views? Did the government create an atmosphere that would limit or prohibit Davis from practicing her religion?

The Religious Freedom Restoration ACT (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993, establishes the principle that when someone complains that a federal law burdens his religious conscience, the government has an obligation to demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in applying the law.

Could “a compelling interest” be determined in Davis’ case? For Davis, this is a matter of religious liberty which is protected under the First Amendment. America’s history is filled with accommodations for people's religious freedom and conscience.

For example, the Supreme Court's much-debated Hobby Lobby ruling exempts private businesses from issuing health insurance that offers contraception services to employees if that violates the religious conscience of their owners. 

Was Davis offered exemptions that accommodated her First Amendment rights? According to Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “Kentucky accommodates conscientious objectors for other types of licensing.” Why weren’t these “other types of licensing” extended to Davis?

Mat Staver, Head of the Liberty Counsel said “Davis has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done.

Furthermore, I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.”

Kentucky Govenor Steve Beshear could issue an executive order and correct the problem, but he would not. Also, the legislature could pass a law removing clerks' names from the licenses, but it won't be in session until January. In the meantime, Kim Davis is languishing in jail. 

This case reminds me of a few lines in Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail: “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him [or her] is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” 

Like Esther, Kim Davis believes she was elected as Clerk of Court “for such a time as this.” Esther requested of the Jews that they should fast while she prepared herself to stand before the king. In like fashion, we need to stand with Kim Davis. Rightly or wrongly, she is taking a stand for everyone who cherishes religious liberty against judicial tyranny.

Planned Parenthood

A new estimate published by the National Right to Life Committee indicates that there have been an estimated 55 million abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions. This number means that there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 140 abortions per hour, every hour in the United States.

Most of these abortions were done by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. According to its website, Planned Parenthood is “America's most trusted provider of reproductive health care.”

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s history is not as impressive as its website. The vision of Margaret Sanger, one of the two founders of the movement paints a picture of a racist with clear intentions to systematically exterminate black people in America.

In an interview with the New York Times (1923), Sanger said, “Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks – those human weeds (blacks) which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Sanger established her first full-service “clinic” in Harlem in 1929. Why Harlem, New York - that’s where a lot of the black people, she often referred to as “human weeds”, lived. Sanger described it as “an experimental clinic established for the benefit of the colored people.” In this case, she defined “benefit” as the overall reduction of the black population.

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions – 30% of abortions done.

Although this information is known by civil rights leaders and politicians, no one attempts to abort the largest abortion provider in this country. Instead, Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually from tax payers – that means it receives an average of $1.5 million a day to conduct its business.

In order to augment its income as a not-for-profit organization, Planned Parenthood now sells body parts from babies. 

Recently, Planned Parenthood was caught in a firestorm of well-deserved controversy after two undercover videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, seem to implicate them in horrific crimes against the unborn. The videos show two top Planned Parenthood executives discussing the best methods to extract baby body parts intact, and haggling with undercover investigators over the prices of these body parts – how disgusting.

Whereas Planned Parenthood calls the organs of murdered babies “fetal tissue,” they call unborn babies “clumps of cells” until labeling their organs as “human” helps their bottom line. And they call their murder of millions “quality family planning.”

Most the body parts are sold to Stem Express, a California-based biomedical company that provides “qualified research laboratories with human cells, fluids, blood and tissue products for the pursuit of disease detection and cure.” 

There are a number of things that upset me about the disgusting practices of Planned Parenthood. From its inception, the founder showed a disregard for a group of persons, seen as “defective stocks and human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” That racist premise was the foundation of the movement.

In responding to the recent sale of body parts, Planned Parenthood wants us to believe that this is a good business practice. No, this is repulsive, sickening and ghastly. After looking at the Consolidated Balance Sheets for 2014, Planned Parenthood does not need to sell body parts to augment income. The company is a victim of its gruesome practices.

Thankfully, the company’s attitude to abortion is not the same to a wide variety of human services. I would love to see many of those services retained, but under a different banner. The stench and the sigma of a sordid history must be removed. Until that happens, I will support the move to defund Planned Parenthood. 

In attempting to close the door on disgusting practices, Christians must ensure that we do not close our compassion to “the least of these”, to whom Jesus referred.

Immigrants!

Our first request to migrate to the United States was turned down. The immigration department feared, as graduate students, we would become a liability to America. It was a church that came to our rescue. Recently I reminded the New York congregation of their compassionate gesture almost 25 years ago.

For decades, churches have had to balance compassion and immigration - especially among illegal immigrants. Christians are expected to show care to everyone, especially to the less fortunate. The writer to the New Testament book of Hebrews stated clearly: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.”

Honestly, I have been blessed as an immigrant. Trinidad and Tobago first opened the doors to my grandparents from Barbados, later the country did the same for my mother as an infant from St. Vincent. Jamaica opened her borders to me as a student, and 42 years later I call a Jamaican my wife. 

One can therefore understand my sensitivities to immigration issues in the United States – possibly the most ethnically diverse country in the world. Agreed, for security and national identity, we must secure our borders and put equitable laws in place. 

The recent random, heartless murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a five-time illegal alien deportee, who benefited from the city’s sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.

Many are equally annoyed by churches across the country that are brazenly thumbing their noses at immigration laws. For instance, in Northeast Portland, Oregan, the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Franscisco Aguirre-Velasquez, after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation laws.

In Chicago, illegal alien Elvira Arellano settled at the United Methodist Church of Adalberto for a year before finally being ejected back to Mexico. Last year, the serial law-breaker somehow returned to the Windy City to protest her status “in the shadows.”

Like in my case, it is one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and to persons who were abused and mistreated. It is quite another matter to conspire against orderly immigration laws.

The mixture of compassion and politics leave the church confused. Is there another way to address unfair immigration laws? According to the Bible, compassion is not optional. Early in Jewish history, the Hebrews were reminded: "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).

Hundreds of years later, at the time of King Solomon, there were about 150,000 non-Jews in Israel (2 Chron. 2:17) or about a tenth of the country’s total population. As is usual today, most of these were unskilled workers (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 8:7-8).

However, the question remains, what should be the church’s attitude to illegal immigrants today? I have found Chawkat Moucarry’s volume, The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian’s Perspective on Islam and Christianity to be most helpful. In this volume, Dr. Moucarry suggests at least three things:

Watchfulness – we must always keep in mind the danger of nationalism, whose victims would be minority groups living within the borders of nations. The practice of “ethnic cleansing”, the rise of extreme right-wing theories and inter-tribal warfare remind us that this danger is real and current. 

At the global level the more powerful nations need to be on guard against exploiting poorer and weaker ones, and as Christians we should play our part in encouraging governments to develop international relations founded on principles of solidarity and equity.

Clear-mindedness and Tolerance - Christians should know better than others what really separates people from one another: the hardest barriers to break down are not geographic, political, economic or cultural, but spiritual. For instance, two Americans can be much more foreign to one another than a Mexican and an American who share the same faith in Jesus.

Evangelism - By sharing our lives and not just our words, immigrants will see that Jesus Christ really is unique: unique because of His life, His teaching, His love, His death and His resurrection. He is also unique because He alone can reconcile us to ourselves, to our neighbor and to our God: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Romans 10:12-13).

Freedom of Religion?

There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of worship implies the right to gather, pray and sing. In essence, it is the liberty to conduct religious activities within areas designated for such practices.

Worship at its core is essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could monitor and censor every citizen's thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding individuals to worship together in public cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private.

However, freedom of religion is quite different. The free exercise of religion under the American Constitution includes the freedom to openly express, follow and live out one’s faith - not just in private, but also in the public square - without government coercion, censorship or any other form of restriction.

The First Amendment of our Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.

The concept of religious liberty held by the Constitution's framers included not merely the freedom to worship, but also the free exercise of conscience - carrying out one's moral beliefs with conviction and action. 

James Madison expressed this understanding in his original amendment to the Constitution: “The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” Hence, because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. 

In addition, Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” 

Both the United States and the United Nations understand freedom of religion as the right to live according to one’s own faith, that is, to “manifest” one’s religion or belief in both “in public or private,” without interference from the state. 

Despite this understanding, a German trial judge recently outlawed the circumcision of children on the basis that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, to carry out their religious beliefs. The decision of the judge is part of a global ideological redefinition of religious rites. Some ideologues are now associating circumcision with mutilation or even child abuse.

For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). By prohibiting the rite of circumcision is to deprive Jewish and Muslim boys a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity. 

Opponents of freedom of religion may bring up the Aztecs, arguing that a robust view of religious liberty would require allowing children to be sacrificed to pagan gods. But that is not true in that fundamental liberties are not absolute. The law properly prohibits religious practice when there is a compelling government interest. For example, the state can force a child to be given life-saving blood transfusions even though doing so violates the restrictive religious beliefs of the parents of the child. 

This is much more than an intellectual discussion.
Attempts are already in place to restrict or outright violate religious liberty. Many are aware that the federal government has begun to gut the only federal conscience regulation protecting the conscience rights of American health care professionals.

In addition, through code enforcement and city planning, many cities are limiting the visibility of houses of worship. Property management firms are also limiting proselytizing in areas under their control. More and more, specific attempts are being made to restrict the freedom of religion as it relates to the public display of one’s faith.

Religious freedom is one of those unique rights that, to be fully enjoyed, other rights like association and speech must also be protected. Although critical, religious freedom provides more than religious liberties. Interestingly, whereas the freedom of religion guarantees the freedom of worship, it is not true to assume that the freedom of worship would guarantee the freedom of religion.