Sitting in the chemotherapy clinic you see many things. A wide range of emotions from the glee of finishing a final treatment to the anxiety of getting set up for a first treatment are on display. The families of cancer patients sit anxiously while the treatments are administered behind a heavy wooden door. Hard times have chiseled the faces of the patients and their caretakers. Many look worn out and ragged but there is something else going on here- the healing power of God.
Cancer in various stages can take a huge toll on its victims- but even something as aggressive and destructive as cancer has a remedy...hope. I had a thought driving to the clinic with my mother and my sister that was astonishing. God, in his infinite wisdom placed the cures for some of the world's most dangerous diseases within plants, trees, sea sponges and other natural sources. One of the drugs prescribed to my mother, Taxol, comes from the pacific Yew tree- a tree that, if harvested, takes 100 years to grow back. But God gave wisdom to men like K.C. Nicolaou, E.J. Corey and Robert Holton to isolate, characterize and synthesize this compound in their laboratories at their respective universities. Countless numbers of scientists are committed to the area of medicinal chemistry and biotechnology. In the words of Paul Erlich, there is the constant search for the "magic bullet" in the war against infectious disease.
Looking into the faces of the many people there to take treatments and there for moral support, it's quite possible that they do not care about the science behind their cure. Truthfully, it is not supremely important to me because I know the Scientist that lies behind the science. The Great Creator whom, although the outward man perishes and grief shows on our faces, has the power to strengthen and renew the inner man on a daily basis.
Many of the patients have no clue what to expect, but God says to us through His Word that faith without doubt allows us to pray to the Father and be answered by the Great Physician. I wrote this on a notepad before I typed it and as I wrote it I had to hide my tears. The tears were not from grief or anxiety but from God's Spirit giving me hope that I can hold onto. The Holy Spirit has shown me that in our darkest hours, there is yet hope because God can do ANYTHING!!
Some of these patients may not survive their bout with cancer- but death does not always equal death, especially for those that know Christ. Cancer may just be the facilitator of the glorious transition from corruptible to incorruptible. From Pain to Glory. For those that survive, and I fully expect my mom to survive, the testimony to God's healing power will be great and His name will be proclaimed in all the earth. This is not a storm to be weathered alone, but with God all things are possible.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Preparation for the Facebook Onslaught
This is the time of year where "super" seniors muster up their last bit of energy (energy they have been conserving all semester as the have not done much more than complain and try to use "senior" status to get by) to get those last few points for a passing grade. Students that have basically lagged ALL semester are now in beastmode trying to "get'r done" as Larry the Cable Guy would say. All for what? In hopes of passing a class that you've had all semester to pass? Why the sudden burst of energy? Why the sudden "need" to speak to the professor who has been waiting patiently in their office all semester for you to show up, who has been sitting in study sessions alone for the better part of 3 months waiting for some student to take the initiative to come in and get some help. But in this 11th hour attempt to look like a student, students end up falling short and blaming their failures on the instructor.
At this point in my academic career, I am no longer interested in being the "friend" of my students. I've come to realize that it is my job to preapare students for the real world AND teach them as much organic chemistry as possible while doing so. "Friendly" teachers quickly lose the respect of their students and the students feel like they can bring any bootleg excuse to you and you will accept it because "you're cool". I'm not out to be a jerk, but the line has to be drawn in the sand such that students respect the student/teacher interface and the student/teacher relationship. "Friendly" teachers are like "Player's coaches" in the NFL- things look good for a while but eventually the inmates will run the asylum leaving the "coach/teacher" hapless and with zero control of the situation. While we converse on many levels outside of class, when in class the relationship is professor/student and business. I often wonder how students can have the mentality of "I will work harder once I get in the real world." when college is preparation for the real world. You don't start training when you get in the fight, you train before the fight. Students that are lazy, disorganized and cannot maintain deadlines carry those bad habits over to the workplace and soon find themselves shuffling from job to job. How can you expect someone to make a huge monetary investment in you when you won't even invest the time that it takes to come to class and get every ounce of knowledge that is possible out of the professor? The litany of excuses has become so boring to me until I almost want to just walk away in mid-sentence. As my old basketball coach, coach Larry Bowman, would say- "it's not about excuses, it's about results!" We live in a results driven society and those that do not produce results get left by the wayside. Lesson 1 for every student that reads this, never make an excuse for something that you are clearly the blame for. Take responsibility for your own actions and in doing so, you will become a better person and learn to make better decisions.
With that being said, I am fully prepared for the Facebook onslaught of sly remarks, complaints and other drivel that people resort to when the blame is on them but they refuse to accept it. Here's to you, o whiny ones. If there ever was a time to suck it up and say, "I screwed up.", this would be that time. Post away and rememeber that I don't have an account anymore, lol.
In all seriousness, take your education seriously. Never commend into someone else's hands that which you should take responsibility for yourself. Stop blaming instructors and start taking the initiative to do what it takes OUTSIDE of class so that the performance INSIDE the class shows. God bless and Godspeed on all of your final exams.
At this point in my academic career, I am no longer interested in being the "friend" of my students. I've come to realize that it is my job to preapare students for the real world AND teach them as much organic chemistry as possible while doing so. "Friendly" teachers quickly lose the respect of their students and the students feel like they can bring any bootleg excuse to you and you will accept it because "you're cool". I'm not out to be a jerk, but the line has to be drawn in the sand such that students respect the student/teacher interface and the student/teacher relationship. "Friendly" teachers are like "Player's coaches" in the NFL- things look good for a while but eventually the inmates will run the asylum leaving the "coach/teacher" hapless and with zero control of the situation. While we converse on many levels outside of class, when in class the relationship is professor/student and business. I often wonder how students can have the mentality of "I will work harder once I get in the real world." when college is preparation for the real world. You don't start training when you get in the fight, you train before the fight. Students that are lazy, disorganized and cannot maintain deadlines carry those bad habits over to the workplace and soon find themselves shuffling from job to job. How can you expect someone to make a huge monetary investment in you when you won't even invest the time that it takes to come to class and get every ounce of knowledge that is possible out of the professor? The litany of excuses has become so boring to me until I almost want to just walk away in mid-sentence. As my old basketball coach, coach Larry Bowman, would say- "it's not about excuses, it's about results!" We live in a results driven society and those that do not produce results get left by the wayside. Lesson 1 for every student that reads this, never make an excuse for something that you are clearly the blame for. Take responsibility for your own actions and in doing so, you will become a better person and learn to make better decisions.
With that being said, I am fully prepared for the Facebook onslaught of sly remarks, complaints and other drivel that people resort to when the blame is on them but they refuse to accept it. Here's to you, o whiny ones. If there ever was a time to suck it up and say, "I screwed up.", this would be that time. Post away and rememeber that I don't have an account anymore, lol.
In all seriousness, take your education seriously. Never commend into someone else's hands that which you should take responsibility for yourself. Stop blaming instructors and start taking the initiative to do what it takes OUTSIDE of class so that the performance INSIDE the class shows. God bless and Godspeed on all of your final exams.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Free Will
There is a common belief among those in the camp of election that there is no such thing as "Free Will" or the ability of man to actually choose. According to this camp, man can never choose anything good. Man is totally depraved and has no good intentions nor does he have the ability to make a morally correct decision. In their view of man, it is utterly impossible for man, by his own free will, to choose God at all. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no such thing as "free will". It does not exist. So, they adopt the doctrine of monergism which simply means that man does not do anything and has no responsibility in the process of salvation and God does everything. According to the doctrine of predestination, which most monergists follow, God specially elects a few for salvation, God compels those that are specially elected to accept Him and God makes all the decisions. The doctrine of predestination (tied in with special election) says that God has predestined who will be saved and who will go to hell which I see as one of the most cruel and unforgiving ideas that Christianity has to offer. Yes, God is sovereign and can do whatever he pleases but God is also love and love doesn't send people to hell without, at least, the opportunity for salvation which resides in one making a decision to follow Christ as Lord and Savior. That is the subject of another blog post however.
While I agree that man will not (I chose not to say can not because there are atheists that live "morally upstanding" lives although they reject the Son of God and God altogether) choose anything good (John 3:19) and I agree that because of sin, man is depraved and has serious moral defects- I do not agree that there is not a such thing as man having "free will". Man is created in God's image. This doesn't mean that we are "little gods", it means that we take on God's transitive properties and one of those properties is the ability to choose or having volition. God gave us the ability to love, to show compassion, to feel empathy etc. If we have the ability to choose, that would be indicative that man has a will and man can exercise that will. Man, when prompted and guided by the Spirit of God will, at some point, see that it is his responsibility to follow God. That's why the gospel is preached- so that man would hear of the goodness of God AND hear of the error in his ways (SIN) which will ultimately lead to death. God's mercy through Christ's sacrifice, when preached to sinful man causes conviction of those that hear it. However, some make the choice to reject the gospel. Joshua gave the directive, "choose this day whom you will serve". Elijah asked the people on Mt. Carmel, "how long will you limp between two opinons?" These statements indicate that there is a responsibility on the part of man to follow God.
Let's go back to Eden where the whole issue of free will originates in the minds of both sides of this argument. In the garden of Eden, Eve was presented with a question from the serpent regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. While Eve answered by telling the serpent exactly what Adam told her, she also did something else. She doubted God, took the serpent's word over God's Word and finally rebelled against God's command and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In doing so, Eve became complicit with the rebellion of the serpent who was already an outcast and she subsequently placed her will above that of the Father's will. She chose to gratify a desire that the serpent intensified by making her believe that God was withholding something from her. Had there been no free will, not only would Eve not have disobeyed God, the serpent would not have rebelled nor would he have been in a position to cause man to rebel. Martin Luther in his treatise, "On the Bondage of the Will" takes the following position: "If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as—"Free-will!" I would counter this by simply saying that Eve was not ensared by sin because prior to this event in the garden of Eden, there was no sin nor was there enslavement of man to sin. Unless we say that man was created sinful, which we know is not the case, then we cannot rightly say that Eve did not exercise her "will" in the garden. What we can say is that her "will" was easily swayed to rebel against God which is where I wholeheartedly agree with Luther and others that say that the "will" of man will choose evil if given the opportunity and therefore must be pressed upon by God's Spirit to be LED in the direction of God (Added 12/30/11).
Forced love, forced devotion and forced worship is not really worship at all. William Dembski, author of The End of Christianity, makes a very pointed and concise statement about what true worship is: forsaking all else and placing God as head of everything. Worship is a choice and to place God as the head and all other things as secondary is a choice made by those that truly worship Him. The most beautiful thing about the Christian life is the restoration of the fellowship between God and man that was lost because of sin. God does not become less than Almighty by actually having a relationship with man. He is still holy, sovereign and magnificent- even if He chooses to fellowship with man and give man (not force upon man) the opportunity to return that fellowship.
Another question to ponder is this, if there were no such thing as free will , why would God have to call man? If we were forced to serve and worship God, there would be no need to call man out of darkness at all. God would simply force man to serve Him and darkness would not be an option. Actually, there would be no darkness because there would be no sin because there would have been no rebellion in Eden. God calls and gives man the ability to accept that call because of His love. A loving God would not allow man to stay in darkness. Here is where free will is so critical because when God calls, the faith to hear the call and believe is a gift from God (1 Cor 12:9) that man can choose to use or not to use. Once a gift is imparted it becomes the possesion of the one to whom it was granted. The position that I take here is that of synergism. Not in the classical Arminian sense but in the sense that man has a responsibiltiy, albeit minimal, in the fellowship with God. A synergistic relationship is one where two parties are involved and the outcome of the relationship is based on the actions of both parties. Now, the relationship is still synergistic even if God does ALL of the work because as much as God calls, man must hear and take heed. An argument against this point would be to say that I am insinuating that God "needs" man. I am not saying that at all. God does not need anything or anyone, but he desires the fellowship. The bible says in John 4:23 that God SEEKS worshipers that worship Him in Spirit and in truth [added 12/30/12]. Why were we created in the first place? To fellowship with God and to Worship God [added 12/30/11]. One example of this synergistic relationship is the call to repentence in 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says simply "IF (emphasis added) my people who are called by my name WOULD (emphasis added) humble themselves and pray and SEEK MY FACE and turn from their wicked ways- THEN I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land. God calls on man to "seek his face" and he showed himself to man through the the Law, the prophets and eventually through Jesus.
God calls men out of darkness, God gives man the ability to believe however, it is man's decision and responsibility to accept the call. Some would accuse me of minimizing God in favor of man- but I see it as quite the contrary. This is far from a "seeker friendly" gospel. The only responsibility of man is to accept the call of God and even that cannot be done without God endowing man with the ability to believe. Faith is a gift from God, but every gift must be exercised by the one that it was granted to. While God can give man the ability to believe unto salvation(believing faith), He cannot and will not believe for man.
The bible says in John 6:44 that no one can come to Christ except he be "drawn" by the Father. In 1 Peter 2:9 the bible says that those that believe have been "called out" of darkness and into the marvelous light. The fact that a person has to be called to follow Jesus is not something to be taken lightly. It actually answered a lot of questions for me when I thought about it in this way. We all have relatives, friends, co-workers and others that we know and we always wonder "when are they going to 'get their life together?'" They will get their life together when God calls them out of darkness. When will that be? That's not for us to decide but that doesn't mean that we shouldnt' be a living epistle before them nor does it mean that we should not pray for them and share the gospel whenever possible. God is revealed to man through His Word and whenever we proclaim His word, we reveal Him to those that do not yet "know" Him. We who have already been called and have accepted the call are to be salt and light in the world. Paul said in 1 Tim 1:15-16 that he was shown mercy so that in him and his life and conversion, Christ could display His unlimited patience and so that Paul could be an example to others who might see and believe.
Free will is a topic of serious debate. Many speak of the "irresistible will" of God and that it is impossible for man to resist God but the truth is that God calls but there are some that reject that call. If it was impossible to reject the call, why is there scriptural reference to the "grieving" of the Holy Spirit [Ephesians 4:30] or the "trampling under foot of the Son of God" [Hebrews 6] or "profaning of the blood and outraging the Spirit of grace" [Hebrews 10]? These point to the ability of man to accept or reject God's offer of salvation or even, as in the case of Ephesians 4:30, His process of sanctification [Ephesians 4:30 is addressed to believers]. Compare it to God leading us to the waters of grace, showing us flowing streams of mercy and once we get there we decide that we do not want to drink. God is not going to drink for us, however He is merciful enough to lead us to the source which is Christ.
There are countless biblical examples of rebellion of man against God. There are even examples of God hardening the heart of men that rebelled against him so that they were unable to believe, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. According to Jesus in Luke 8:10, and in Matthew 13:11, the people (Jews) that He preached to were unable believe in order to fulfill prophecy [Isaiah 6:9] that said "though seeing they will not see and hearing they will not hear." When the people rebelled and chose something other than God, their punishment was that their hearts were hardened. God called but they did not choose Him, they chose something else and He did not force them to follow Him. He was upset and angry with the people but even in that, he did not force anyone to do anything- the ones that followed God were the ones that saw the evidence (i.e. the Red Sea experience, the waters at Meribah etc.) and believed God. The consequence of choosing anything other than God is death. Jesus said in John 8:24 that unless man believes that he is the Living God he will "die in his sins".
Are there times when free will is suspended? I believe so. There are times when God has a purpose to fulfill and He does so regardless of the feelings or reluctance of those involved. When God called Moses to speak for Him, Moses made a few remarks regarding his inability to speak and his lack of qualifications for the job of spokesperson for Israel. While Moses did not want to go, Moses really had no choice. Jonah is another good example. Jonah was supposed to go to Nineveh but instead boarded a ship to Tarshish. Jonah's free will chose to disobey God and for a while it looked as if Jonah got out of his assignment. But the storm that came up and great fish that came to transport Jonah back to Nineveh would say otherwise. The fish and the storm were both sent by God to let Jonah know that his choice in the matter of prophesying to the Ninevites was suspended.
While there are times when free will is suspended, there is ample evidence for the ability of man to accept responsibility when it comes to worshipping God. God chose man however, man, once chosen must accept that choice/calling. There are those that believe in special election which, in my estimation, gives an elitist and supremacist air to Christianity. Where is the card that goes in your wallet that says that you've been elected? Why would God only choose certain people or give them the option of heaven whereas others are just doomed for hell? Why would God, who is love, not open the doors for all who would believe to come to Him thereby placing the burden of heaven or hell on the one that rejected him? I am not a believer in "election" in the sense of "God has chosen me to go to heaven but you have to stay here" but I do believe that God elects some believers to different places/functions within the kingdom. Herbert Lockyer said it this way, "election is always inclusive, never exclusive. He (God, emphais mine) chooses a few in order that ALL (emphasis mine) may be blessed." All all are called but only certain ones are elected to "offices" to fulfill specific duties within the kingdom of God. God's call to salvation is general in that ALL who would come to believe have the ability and the opportunity for salvation. When John the Baptist preached repentance, everyone in the crowd had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. When Jesus preached the same message, the same scenario was presented- everyone that heard his voice had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. It is not a specific call but a call to all men to be saved. Rejection of that call comes at the peril of the hearer. God's call becomes specific as in the case of Samuel- although Eli was a priest, he did not hear God's voice when God called out to Samuel those three times. That call was meant for Samuel and it was for a special purpose.
Is there a call from God to follow Christ, yes. Does man have a responsibility to accept that call or reject it? If we use the analogy of a phone ringing- if you know it's God on the other end and don't answer, the results could be quite disastrous. When God calls us to repentance and salvation (for those that are unsaved), accept his calling. His kindness leads us to repentance and God has been more that merciful with us all. The bible says that it is God's desire that ALL men be saved [1 Tim 2:4]. His calling to accept the ransom that has been paid on our behalf is the most loving and gracious act in the history of mankind. If God is calling you, pick up the phone, it's your responbility.
While I agree that man will not (I chose not to say can not because there are atheists that live "morally upstanding" lives although they reject the Son of God and God altogether) choose anything good (John 3:19) and I agree that because of sin, man is depraved and has serious moral defects- I do not agree that there is not a such thing as man having "free will". Man is created in God's image. This doesn't mean that we are "little gods", it means that we take on God's transitive properties and one of those properties is the ability to choose or having volition. God gave us the ability to love, to show compassion, to feel empathy etc. If we have the ability to choose, that would be indicative that man has a will and man can exercise that will. Man, when prompted and guided by the Spirit of God will, at some point, see that it is his responsibility to follow God. That's why the gospel is preached- so that man would hear of the goodness of God AND hear of the error in his ways (SIN) which will ultimately lead to death. God's mercy through Christ's sacrifice, when preached to sinful man causes conviction of those that hear it. However, some make the choice to reject the gospel. Joshua gave the directive, "choose this day whom you will serve". Elijah asked the people on Mt. Carmel, "how long will you limp between two opinons?" These statements indicate that there is a responsibility on the part of man to follow God.
Let's go back to Eden where the whole issue of free will originates in the minds of both sides of this argument. In the garden of Eden, Eve was presented with a question from the serpent regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. While Eve answered by telling the serpent exactly what Adam told her, she also did something else. She doubted God, took the serpent's word over God's Word and finally rebelled against God's command and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In doing so, Eve became complicit with the rebellion of the serpent who was already an outcast and she subsequently placed her will above that of the Father's will. She chose to gratify a desire that the serpent intensified by making her believe that God was withholding something from her. Had there been no free will, not only would Eve not have disobeyed God, the serpent would not have rebelled nor would he have been in a position to cause man to rebel. Martin Luther in his treatise, "On the Bondage of the Will" takes the following position: "If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as—"Free-will!" I would counter this by simply saying that Eve was not ensared by sin because prior to this event in the garden of Eden, there was no sin nor was there enslavement of man to sin. Unless we say that man was created sinful, which we know is not the case, then we cannot rightly say that Eve did not exercise her "will" in the garden. What we can say is that her "will" was easily swayed to rebel against God which is where I wholeheartedly agree with Luther and others that say that the "will" of man will choose evil if given the opportunity and therefore must be pressed upon by God's Spirit to be LED in the direction of God (Added 12/30/11).
Forced love, forced devotion and forced worship is not really worship at all. William Dembski, author of The End of Christianity, makes a very pointed and concise statement about what true worship is: forsaking all else and placing God as head of everything. Worship is a choice and to place God as the head and all other things as secondary is a choice made by those that truly worship Him. The most beautiful thing about the Christian life is the restoration of the fellowship between God and man that was lost because of sin. God does not become less than Almighty by actually having a relationship with man. He is still holy, sovereign and magnificent- even if He chooses to fellowship with man and give man (not force upon man) the opportunity to return that fellowship.
Another question to ponder is this, if there were no such thing as free will , why would God have to call man? If we were forced to serve and worship God, there would be no need to call man out of darkness at all. God would simply force man to serve Him and darkness would not be an option. Actually, there would be no darkness because there would be no sin because there would have been no rebellion in Eden. God calls and gives man the ability to accept that call because of His love. A loving God would not allow man to stay in darkness. Here is where free will is so critical because when God calls, the faith to hear the call and believe is a gift from God (1 Cor 12:9) that man can choose to use or not to use. Once a gift is imparted it becomes the possesion of the one to whom it was granted. The position that I take here is that of synergism. Not in the classical Arminian sense but in the sense that man has a responsibiltiy, albeit minimal, in the fellowship with God. A synergistic relationship is one where two parties are involved and the outcome of the relationship is based on the actions of both parties. Now, the relationship is still synergistic even if God does ALL of the work because as much as God calls, man must hear and take heed. An argument against this point would be to say that I am insinuating that God "needs" man. I am not saying that at all. God does not need anything or anyone, but he desires the fellowship. The bible says in John 4:23 that God SEEKS worshipers that worship Him in Spirit and in truth [added 12/30/12]. Why were we created in the first place? To fellowship with God and to Worship God [added 12/30/11]. One example of this synergistic relationship is the call to repentence in 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says simply "IF (emphasis added) my people who are called by my name WOULD (emphasis added) humble themselves and pray and SEEK MY FACE and turn from their wicked ways- THEN I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land. God calls on man to "seek his face" and he showed himself to man through the the Law, the prophets and eventually through Jesus.
God calls men out of darkness, God gives man the ability to believe however, it is man's decision and responsibility to accept the call. Some would accuse me of minimizing God in favor of man- but I see it as quite the contrary. This is far from a "seeker friendly" gospel. The only responsibility of man is to accept the call of God and even that cannot be done without God endowing man with the ability to believe. Faith is a gift from God, but every gift must be exercised by the one that it was granted to. While God can give man the ability to believe unto salvation(believing faith), He cannot and will not believe for man.
The bible says in John 6:44 that no one can come to Christ except he be "drawn" by the Father. In 1 Peter 2:9 the bible says that those that believe have been "called out" of darkness and into the marvelous light. The fact that a person has to be called to follow Jesus is not something to be taken lightly. It actually answered a lot of questions for me when I thought about it in this way. We all have relatives, friends, co-workers and others that we know and we always wonder "when are they going to 'get their life together?'" They will get their life together when God calls them out of darkness. When will that be? That's not for us to decide but that doesn't mean that we shouldnt' be a living epistle before them nor does it mean that we should not pray for them and share the gospel whenever possible. God is revealed to man through His Word and whenever we proclaim His word, we reveal Him to those that do not yet "know" Him. We who have already been called and have accepted the call are to be salt and light in the world. Paul said in 1 Tim 1:15-16 that he was shown mercy so that in him and his life and conversion, Christ could display His unlimited patience and so that Paul could be an example to others who might see and believe.
Free will is a topic of serious debate. Many speak of the "irresistible will" of God and that it is impossible for man to resist God but the truth is that God calls but there are some that reject that call. If it was impossible to reject the call, why is there scriptural reference to the "grieving" of the Holy Spirit [Ephesians 4:30] or the "trampling under foot of the Son of God" [Hebrews 6] or "profaning of the blood and outraging the Spirit of grace" [Hebrews 10]? These point to the ability of man to accept or reject God's offer of salvation or even, as in the case of Ephesians 4:30, His process of sanctification [Ephesians 4:30 is addressed to believers]. Compare it to God leading us to the waters of grace, showing us flowing streams of mercy and once we get there we decide that we do not want to drink. God is not going to drink for us, however He is merciful enough to lead us to the source which is Christ.
There are countless biblical examples of rebellion of man against God. There are even examples of God hardening the heart of men that rebelled against him so that they were unable to believe, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. According to Jesus in Luke 8:10, and in Matthew 13:11, the people (Jews) that He preached to were unable believe in order to fulfill prophecy [Isaiah 6:9] that said "though seeing they will not see and hearing they will not hear." When the people rebelled and chose something other than God, their punishment was that their hearts were hardened. God called but they did not choose Him, they chose something else and He did not force them to follow Him. He was upset and angry with the people but even in that, he did not force anyone to do anything- the ones that followed God were the ones that saw the evidence (i.e. the Red Sea experience, the waters at Meribah etc.) and believed God. The consequence of choosing anything other than God is death. Jesus said in John 8:24 that unless man believes that he is the Living God he will "die in his sins".
Are there times when free will is suspended? I believe so. There are times when God has a purpose to fulfill and He does so regardless of the feelings or reluctance of those involved. When God called Moses to speak for Him, Moses made a few remarks regarding his inability to speak and his lack of qualifications for the job of spokesperson for Israel. While Moses did not want to go, Moses really had no choice. Jonah is another good example. Jonah was supposed to go to Nineveh but instead boarded a ship to Tarshish. Jonah's free will chose to disobey God and for a while it looked as if Jonah got out of his assignment. But the storm that came up and great fish that came to transport Jonah back to Nineveh would say otherwise. The fish and the storm were both sent by God to let Jonah know that his choice in the matter of prophesying to the Ninevites was suspended.
While there are times when free will is suspended, there is ample evidence for the ability of man to accept responsibility when it comes to worshipping God. God chose man however, man, once chosen must accept that choice/calling. There are those that believe in special election which, in my estimation, gives an elitist and supremacist air to Christianity. Where is the card that goes in your wallet that says that you've been elected? Why would God only choose certain people or give them the option of heaven whereas others are just doomed for hell? Why would God, who is love, not open the doors for all who would believe to come to Him thereby placing the burden of heaven or hell on the one that rejected him? I am not a believer in "election" in the sense of "God has chosen me to go to heaven but you have to stay here" but I do believe that God elects some believers to different places/functions within the kingdom. Herbert Lockyer said it this way, "election is always inclusive, never exclusive. He (God, emphais mine) chooses a few in order that ALL (emphasis mine) may be blessed." All all are called but only certain ones are elected to "offices" to fulfill specific duties within the kingdom of God. God's call to salvation is general in that ALL who would come to believe have the ability and the opportunity for salvation. When John the Baptist preached repentance, everyone in the crowd had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. When Jesus preached the same message, the same scenario was presented- everyone that heard his voice had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. It is not a specific call but a call to all men to be saved. Rejection of that call comes at the peril of the hearer. God's call becomes specific as in the case of Samuel- although Eli was a priest, he did not hear God's voice when God called out to Samuel those three times. That call was meant for Samuel and it was for a special purpose.
Is there a call from God to follow Christ, yes. Does man have a responsibility to accept that call or reject it? If we use the analogy of a phone ringing- if you know it's God on the other end and don't answer, the results could be quite disastrous. When God calls us to repentance and salvation (for those that are unsaved), accept his calling. His kindness leads us to repentance and God has been more that merciful with us all. The bible says that it is God's desire that ALL men be saved [1 Tim 2:4]. His calling to accept the ransom that has been paid on our behalf is the most loving and gracious act in the history of mankind. If God is calling you, pick up the phone, it's your responbility.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
What I am Most Thankful For
Galatians 3:19-20 "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one."
Galatians is one of those books of the bible where reading it is comparable to peeling an onion. It is just layers and layers of doctrine and knowledge. As was preparing to preach this Sunday at 8AM, I had been studying Galatians and Hebrews (especially Hebrews 7-10, another onion). The text that actually preached from was Job 33:23-24 and the premise was that we all owe a debt to God because of sin- but none of us are able to repay it. The scriptures read as follows:
"“If there is an angel as mediator for him,
One out of a thousand,
To remind a man what is right for him,
Then let him (the angel, emphasis mine) be gracious to him, and say,
‘Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom’;"
The whole idea of an angelic mediator "finding" a ransom for a man who is on the verge of tasting death quite in intriguing. First of all, I had to begin to search the scriptures to find evidence of "angelic mediation" on behalf of men which led me to several places, but Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2 in particular. Both scriptures talk about the giving of the Law and how the Law was "mediated" by angels. The scripture in Galatians says specifically that the Law was ordained by angels through a mediator, who scholars believe to be Moses. With evidence of angelic mediation in hand, I began to ask myself several questions, namely, "why angels?", which brought something else to my attention. The fact that angels acted as intermediaries between man and God points to something profound, that there was great distance between God and man. The distance was created by sin and idolatry. The whole notion of intimacy was lost because of sin. That's not to say that God did not have intimate relationships with men and women of the Old Testament, but they were very few and far between.
This brings me to my point. What I am most thankful for is that although the Law was given through angels, the promise to Abraham was given directly to him! The promise that the world would be blessed through his "Seed" and redeemed from the curse of the Law is something that we should all be thankful for. The "Seed", Immanuel, God with Us is a far cry from having to hear from angels through a mediator! That makes the name Immanuel even more special because God kept his promise from Leviticus 26:12 and walked among his people. What I am most thankful for is my relationship with God through Christ Jesus! Now the same intimacy that Adam and Eve once had, I can have too. I can talk to God without using a middle man because Jesus restored the fellowship that was lost because of sin. Having a personal, intimate relationship with God is more precious that silver and gold. Knowing God for ourselves is a greater privilege that any of us could ever imagine. Christ went behind the veil and now we have unprecedented access to God! That's what I am thankful for- not my "religion" which is based on formalities, but by "relationship" which is based on the blood of Christ! To add to this, my "ransom" was paid in full by Jesus! 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave his live as a ransom for many! So, I guess I am thankful for two things because I also thank God for seeing the need for a ransom, going through the mediators and the priests (which is what the angelic mediators foreshadowed) and coming down to the One that could pay the ransom in full, once and for all! Christ has "perfected (or is perfecting) for all time those that have been sanctifed" through one sacrifice, one act of ransoming us back from the clucthes of death! That's good news, or as we preachers like to call it, the gospel!
Give thanks to God in all things. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise. Be thankful unto Him and bless His name! For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting and his truth endures to all generations. Be blessed!
Galatians is one of those books of the bible where reading it is comparable to peeling an onion. It is just layers and layers of doctrine and knowledge. As was preparing to preach this Sunday at 8AM, I had been studying Galatians and Hebrews (especially Hebrews 7-10, another onion). The text that actually preached from was Job 33:23-24 and the premise was that we all owe a debt to God because of sin- but none of us are able to repay it. The scriptures read as follows:
"“If there is an angel as mediator for him,
One out of a thousand,
To remind a man what is right for him,
Then let him (the angel, emphasis mine) be gracious to him, and say,
‘Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom’;"
The whole idea of an angelic mediator "finding" a ransom for a man who is on the verge of tasting death quite in intriguing. First of all, I had to begin to search the scriptures to find evidence of "angelic mediation" on behalf of men which led me to several places, but Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2 in particular. Both scriptures talk about the giving of the Law and how the Law was "mediated" by angels. The scripture in Galatians says specifically that the Law was ordained by angels through a mediator, who scholars believe to be Moses. With evidence of angelic mediation in hand, I began to ask myself several questions, namely, "why angels?", which brought something else to my attention. The fact that angels acted as intermediaries between man and God points to something profound, that there was great distance between God and man. The distance was created by sin and idolatry. The whole notion of intimacy was lost because of sin. That's not to say that God did not have intimate relationships with men and women of the Old Testament, but they were very few and far between.
This brings me to my point. What I am most thankful for is that although the Law was given through angels, the promise to Abraham was given directly to him! The promise that the world would be blessed through his "Seed" and redeemed from the curse of the Law is something that we should all be thankful for. The "Seed", Immanuel, God with Us is a far cry from having to hear from angels through a mediator! That makes the name Immanuel even more special because God kept his promise from Leviticus 26:12 and walked among his people. What I am most thankful for is my relationship with God through Christ Jesus! Now the same intimacy that Adam and Eve once had, I can have too. I can talk to God without using a middle man because Jesus restored the fellowship that was lost because of sin. Having a personal, intimate relationship with God is more precious that silver and gold. Knowing God for ourselves is a greater privilege that any of us could ever imagine. Christ went behind the veil and now we have unprecedented access to God! That's what I am thankful for- not my "religion" which is based on formalities, but by "relationship" which is based on the blood of Christ! To add to this, my "ransom" was paid in full by Jesus! 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave his live as a ransom for many! So, I guess I am thankful for two things because I also thank God for seeing the need for a ransom, going through the mediators and the priests (which is what the angelic mediators foreshadowed) and coming down to the One that could pay the ransom in full, once and for all! Christ has "perfected (or is perfecting) for all time those that have been sanctifed" through one sacrifice, one act of ransoming us back from the clucthes of death! That's good news, or as we preachers like to call it, the gospel!
Give thanks to God in all things. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise. Be thankful unto Him and bless His name! For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting and his truth endures to all generations. Be blessed!
Saturday, November 26, 2011
A Gift from Above
God works in mysterious ways. That's an old adage that will never go stale. This weekend, I had a chance to see that firsthand. A patient of my wife's sent me an obscure message about a month ago regarding some books from his mother's library. He's an older gentleman, quite distinguished in his military service and one that likes to conversate on things that are intellectually stimulating. I was not taken aback by this offer from him to look through these books, but I almost forgot to respond.
I finally got a chance to respond and actually gave him a call this weekend. I didn't really know what was in store but when I got to his home, which was nestled back into a wooded area, I found something quite amazing. When I walked into his own home library, I found a mix of books ranging from the civil war to reptiles and amphibians. The collection that he brought back from his mother's library was astounding. There were all of these Christian books, some with notes written in them from his mother, others with little cards tucked into the pages. His offer was even more amazing...if I chose to, I could take ALL of the books home with me! His rationale was that because I was in ministry, the books would assist me more than they would assist him. We split a duplicate set of books on Hebrews and he allowed me to pick through volumes and volumes of Christian literature. It was not the books, but the content that was so amazing. His mother had to be very deep and very theological because these were heavyweight books.
As I looked through these books, and started filling paper bags with them- my friend revealed the true reason that he called me, of all people. He said that because I have spent my academic career doing something other than seminary, these books would be ideal for me to increase my theological wherewithal. My jaw dropped because I know that this was a moment directed by the Spirit of God. He didn't know of my desire to attend seminary, a desire that I have held for quite some time. He didn't know that I have always desired to increase my theological information base. All he knew was that he had to be obedient to the Spirit of God. I felt guilty taking so many books, but he reassured me that God had indeed asked him the question, "What are you going to do with the gifts that I gave you?".
All of that being said, I came home with at least $500.00 worth of books for the price of spending a few moments on a Saturday afternoon with a man that was being obedient to God. I gained so much from this experience. To listen to this man talk about God, I knew that he also was quite learned and that he spent a lot of time with God. This gave me a new found passion to know as much as possible about God- which he also intimated- at one point in the conversation, he said this: "There are going to be times when you have to answer very difficult questions and people are going to need detailed and precise information- it is possible that these things will help you with that." Another indication that this man had heard from God and was not simply doing this to get closer to his doctor, who happens to be my wife.
At the end of the day, I left enriched both spiritually and intellectually. This man added to my library and also added to my spirit. The scripture in Isaiah 55 has never been more true, when God says that His ways are not our ways. I always knew that, but Saturday confirmed it.
I finally got a chance to respond and actually gave him a call this weekend. I didn't really know what was in store but when I got to his home, which was nestled back into a wooded area, I found something quite amazing. When I walked into his own home library, I found a mix of books ranging from the civil war to reptiles and amphibians. The collection that he brought back from his mother's library was astounding. There were all of these Christian books, some with notes written in them from his mother, others with little cards tucked into the pages. His offer was even more amazing...if I chose to, I could take ALL of the books home with me! His rationale was that because I was in ministry, the books would assist me more than they would assist him. We split a duplicate set of books on Hebrews and he allowed me to pick through volumes and volumes of Christian literature. It was not the books, but the content that was so amazing. His mother had to be very deep and very theological because these were heavyweight books.
As I looked through these books, and started filling paper bags with them- my friend revealed the true reason that he called me, of all people. He said that because I have spent my academic career doing something other than seminary, these books would be ideal for me to increase my theological wherewithal. My jaw dropped because I know that this was a moment directed by the Spirit of God. He didn't know of my desire to attend seminary, a desire that I have held for quite some time. He didn't know that I have always desired to increase my theological information base. All he knew was that he had to be obedient to the Spirit of God. I felt guilty taking so many books, but he reassured me that God had indeed asked him the question, "What are you going to do with the gifts that I gave you?".
All of that being said, I came home with at least $500.00 worth of books for the price of spending a few moments on a Saturday afternoon with a man that was being obedient to God. I gained so much from this experience. To listen to this man talk about God, I knew that he also was quite learned and that he spent a lot of time with God. This gave me a new found passion to know as much as possible about God- which he also intimated- at one point in the conversation, he said this: "There are going to be times when you have to answer very difficult questions and people are going to need detailed and precise information- it is possible that these things will help you with that." Another indication that this man had heard from God and was not simply doing this to get closer to his doctor, who happens to be my wife.
At the end of the day, I left enriched both spiritually and intellectually. This man added to my library and also added to my spirit. The scripture in Isaiah 55 has never been more true, when God says that His ways are not our ways. I always knew that, but Saturday confirmed it.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Pacquiao Wants NONE of Floyd Maweather
Say what you will about Floyd Mayweather, but one thing is for certain, he is the BEST boxer in the sport, bar none. After watching Manny "Jesus in boxing boots" Pacquiao fight Juan Manuel Marquez on tonight, I can say with certainty that Manny wouldn't stand a chance against Floyd Mayweather. Marquez was robbed of that fight, however he could have changed the outcome had be been more aggressive in the later rounds. Marquez is 6 years older than Pacquiao but he did not show it at all. He was catching Pac-Man and timing his right hands perfectly- so much so that Pacquiao's corner felt that he was losing the fight.
As I watched, I know that Mayweather watched as well. He should be salivating after such a lackluster performance by Manny Pacquiao. Manny did not even sound confident at the post-fight interview about winning against Marquez or about fighting Floyd. Marquez gave Manny fits all night with his counter punching and head movement. He ducked at least 10 right hooks from Pacquiao which showed that he studied a ton of film and that he was well adjusted to Manny's speed.
Floyd Mayweather would not only beat Manny, I believe that he could even knock him out. Floyd is faster, bigger and stronger than both Pacquiao and Marquez. Couple all of those factors with this: he is an even better counter puncher than Marquez and you have a recipe for certain victory. If Marquez was able to catch Manny with hard overhand rights all night, how many will Pacquiao eat from Mayweather, who is blindingly fast, even at 34 years old? You don't have to worry about Floyd laying an egg either, this brother trains incessantly and he doesn't take any opponent lightly. Aside from the brashness and the bravado, Floyd Mayweather is a model that any athlete could learn from. His dedication in the gym is unmatched by any athlete in any sport. He often asks rhetorically, "who works harder than me?" He is the Michael Jordan of boxing just like Tom Brady is the Michael Jordan of football or like Tiger Woods WAS the Michael Jordan of golf.
Steroids or no steroids, Manny Pacquiao is just Felix Trinidad with better footwork. Technically skilled fighters with good defense that do not get overwhelmed by his punch output can hang with him. He also has 3 losses on his record, something that Mayweather hasn't even conceived of yet. Pacquiao is a product of the American Hype Machine. Jim Lampley went on and on about his footwork yet was completely oblivious to the fact that Pac-Man was eating right hands as he darted in and out against Marquez. If Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao do fight, I don't see how anyone could pick Pacquiao to win. I don't even see how Marquez was a 9-1 underdog, which probably explained the scorecards- you know, Vegas will always be Vegas. I wonder if Floyd put money on the fight. If he and Pac-Man square off in May, he should probably lay a fat stack of cash on himself to win by knockout.
As I watched, I know that Mayweather watched as well. He should be salivating after such a lackluster performance by Manny Pacquiao. Manny did not even sound confident at the post-fight interview about winning against Marquez or about fighting Floyd. Marquez gave Manny fits all night with his counter punching and head movement. He ducked at least 10 right hooks from Pacquiao which showed that he studied a ton of film and that he was well adjusted to Manny's speed.
Floyd Mayweather would not only beat Manny, I believe that he could even knock him out. Floyd is faster, bigger and stronger than both Pacquiao and Marquez. Couple all of those factors with this: he is an even better counter puncher than Marquez and you have a recipe for certain victory. If Marquez was able to catch Manny with hard overhand rights all night, how many will Pacquiao eat from Mayweather, who is blindingly fast, even at 34 years old? You don't have to worry about Floyd laying an egg either, this brother trains incessantly and he doesn't take any opponent lightly. Aside from the brashness and the bravado, Floyd Mayweather is a model that any athlete could learn from. His dedication in the gym is unmatched by any athlete in any sport. He often asks rhetorically, "who works harder than me?" He is the Michael Jordan of boxing just like Tom Brady is the Michael Jordan of football or like Tiger Woods WAS the Michael Jordan of golf.
Steroids or no steroids, Manny Pacquiao is just Felix Trinidad with better footwork. Technically skilled fighters with good defense that do not get overwhelmed by his punch output can hang with him. He also has 3 losses on his record, something that Mayweather hasn't even conceived of yet. Pacquiao is a product of the American Hype Machine. Jim Lampley went on and on about his footwork yet was completely oblivious to the fact that Pac-Man was eating right hands as he darted in and out against Marquez. If Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao do fight, I don't see how anyone could pick Pacquiao to win. I don't even see how Marquez was a 9-1 underdog, which probably explained the scorecards- you know, Vegas will always be Vegas. I wonder if Floyd put money on the fight. If he and Pac-Man square off in May, he should probably lay a fat stack of cash on himself to win by knockout.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Is the Dope Game the new Jim Crow?
I was listening to the Joe Madison show this morning and Dr. Michelle Alexander was his guest. It was a previously recorded show, but the topic was her book, "The New Jim Crow". I listened to her and while I agreed with a lot of what she was saying, I disagreed with a few things. To be honest and fair, I have not read the book but I plan to order it this weekend- but what I gleaned from her interview is that she made excuses for bad choices rather than calling it what it is. At some point, it becomes less about the "man" and more about the "man in the mirror".
Dr. Alexander kept saying that there are scores of "non-violent" offenders that are locked up for drug crimes. If she means addicts- the fact that they are non-violent is partially true. Anyone that has ever seen a crack fiend with no money and no crack knows that they will do whatever it takes to get high- including robbing, stealing or even killing. I don't consider that non-violent, but they need treatment and not incarceration so we agree there. Where I do not agree is that drug dealers that get caught with crack or powder or weed should be considered non-violent offenders. The drug game is the most violent enterprise on the planet. If you are a drug dealer, street level, you have to carry a gun or at least have muscle that carries guns. You have to be willing to use that gun if someone messes with the money or the product. So the question is, is there really any such thing as a non-violent drug offender? I think not. If you want to find out how non-violent a drug dealer is, mess with the money or the product. Start selling dope on a corner in his territory and then you will find out first hand how non-violent these folks are. Houses get sprayed up with machine guns, brothers get murdered over drug debts and innocents fall in the crossfire- and this is all stuff that I have witnessed first hand. I have a hard time seeing anyone involved in the drug game as "non-violent". It is an ugly, nasty and cut throat enterprise. As a scenario, let's say that you are delivering 10 kilos. The person with the money is trying to figure out how to get the product as well as keep the money. The person delivering the dope may or may not have the same intentions. How does it all end? Either the transaction goes smoothly and no one pulls out guns, or a robbery/rip-off happens and someone winds up dead. Either way, the potential for violence is very high in these situations.
She went on to say that there are scores of young men being rounded up and it is racial and political rather than criminal. I have an issue with that as well. Is the justice system skewed to disproportionately lock up African-Americans? I would say, yes. The drug laws of the 90's were horrifically designed and politically motivated to create a panic in white America. The stereotypical thug with an assault weapon was promulgulated and believed to exist on every urban block in America. However, there were some folks that just lived in these areas and had nothing to do with anything criminal- but they were caught in the crossfire. Iran-Contra and the flooding of inner-city streets with high-grade cocaine was a detriment to black America and America as a whole! But having said that, drugs are a choice- not a mandate. Is the system designed to keep African-Americans down in some aspects of society? I would again answer, yes. So, is the high number of drug arrests in poor and depressed neighborhoods directly connected to race- I would say, no. Neighborhoods that are econmically depressed are that way because they are normally high in crime already or crime gradually increased driving businesses out. If the streets are lined with droves of criminals and drug dealers, businesses are not going to come there. The amount of criminal activity that occurs, in my opinion, is directly proportional to the dearth of jobs in a particular area.
So, are these young black men being forced to sell drugs? Again, I would say NO. People that sell drugs do it for the money. The love of money is a root of all types of evil. I know people that have sold drugs to make ends meet, and not one of them has gone to prison. The ones that DID go to prison are the ones that were trying to be "ghetto superstars". They love the money, the cars, the women, the jewelry, the parties, the power and the "respect" which is really fear from others. By the same token, people that get high do so, not because they are forced to, but rather because they enjoy getting high. A life lived for pleasure will end abruptly, that is for real.
I wouldn't really call this Jim Crow because Jim Crow of the 50's and 60's was inescapable. The social and political barriers that African-Americans faced during the Civil Rights movement were phenomenal. Education was limited, access to equal and adequate resources was limited and people were genuinely oppressed by the government. With the advances that have been made, [particularly in the area of education] we have no excuse now. Racism is alive and well, but there are choices to be made as it relates to what occupation we undertake. Selling drugs is an easy way out but it is a trap. The ones at the top never go to prison, only the ones at the bottom. The drug game is set up just like the economy- the top 1% takes in all the profit and the 99% at the bottom give it to them. In the drug game, it is designed for the mid level and bottom feeding players to lose while the ones at the top (including corrupt politicians and government officials that work conjunction with cartel leaders, etc.) never spend a day in prison and never have to show their face.
The way to level the playing field is through education- at least in my opinion. Sure, the school may be crumbling- my high school was, at least- but what's on the pages of the book is the same at every school. The way to escape the trap is to never enter it in the first place. Interview 100 drug dealers or offenders and 95 of them will tell you that they did not complete high school. What we have to do a better job of is prevention. We need to teach our babies at an early age that education is power in America. You want respect, earn a Ph.D. and watch the respect flow down like a mighty rushing river. If you want to live comfortably, manage your income well and avoid going into debt via credit cards etc. We need to start training our youth how to be self sufficient, how to milk this rotten education system for all it's worth and how to find different avenues to channel their energies into. We need more prevention, more teaching at home and more encouragement of our young people. We also need to help them see that an education, while it may not ensure a job, it will make you more competitive. It is something that no one can take away from you and it something that everyone has to respect. We need to develop a spirit of economic empowerment such that we don't need to grovel and beg for employment because we are the employer.
So, is the drug game or the "war on drugs" the new Jim Crow? Only if you choose to play that game.
Dr. Alexander kept saying that there are scores of "non-violent" offenders that are locked up for drug crimes. If she means addicts- the fact that they are non-violent is partially true. Anyone that has ever seen a crack fiend with no money and no crack knows that they will do whatever it takes to get high- including robbing, stealing or even killing. I don't consider that non-violent, but they need treatment and not incarceration so we agree there. Where I do not agree is that drug dealers that get caught with crack or powder or weed should be considered non-violent offenders. The drug game is the most violent enterprise on the planet. If you are a drug dealer, street level, you have to carry a gun or at least have muscle that carries guns. You have to be willing to use that gun if someone messes with the money or the product. So the question is, is there really any such thing as a non-violent drug offender? I think not. If you want to find out how non-violent a drug dealer is, mess with the money or the product. Start selling dope on a corner in his territory and then you will find out first hand how non-violent these folks are. Houses get sprayed up with machine guns, brothers get murdered over drug debts and innocents fall in the crossfire- and this is all stuff that I have witnessed first hand. I have a hard time seeing anyone involved in the drug game as "non-violent". It is an ugly, nasty and cut throat enterprise. As a scenario, let's say that you are delivering 10 kilos. The person with the money is trying to figure out how to get the product as well as keep the money. The person delivering the dope may or may not have the same intentions. How does it all end? Either the transaction goes smoothly and no one pulls out guns, or a robbery/rip-off happens and someone winds up dead. Either way, the potential for violence is very high in these situations.
She went on to say that there are scores of young men being rounded up and it is racial and political rather than criminal. I have an issue with that as well. Is the justice system skewed to disproportionately lock up African-Americans? I would say, yes. The drug laws of the 90's were horrifically designed and politically motivated to create a panic in white America. The stereotypical thug with an assault weapon was promulgulated and believed to exist on every urban block in America. However, there were some folks that just lived in these areas and had nothing to do with anything criminal- but they were caught in the crossfire. Iran-Contra and the flooding of inner-city streets with high-grade cocaine was a detriment to black America and America as a whole! But having said that, drugs are a choice- not a mandate. Is the system designed to keep African-Americans down in some aspects of society? I would again answer, yes. So, is the high number of drug arrests in poor and depressed neighborhoods directly connected to race- I would say, no. Neighborhoods that are econmically depressed are that way because they are normally high in crime already or crime gradually increased driving businesses out. If the streets are lined with droves of criminals and drug dealers, businesses are not going to come there. The amount of criminal activity that occurs, in my opinion, is directly proportional to the dearth of jobs in a particular area.
So, are these young black men being forced to sell drugs? Again, I would say NO. People that sell drugs do it for the money. The love of money is a root of all types of evil. I know people that have sold drugs to make ends meet, and not one of them has gone to prison. The ones that DID go to prison are the ones that were trying to be "ghetto superstars". They love the money, the cars, the women, the jewelry, the parties, the power and the "respect" which is really fear from others. By the same token, people that get high do so, not because they are forced to, but rather because they enjoy getting high. A life lived for pleasure will end abruptly, that is for real.
I wouldn't really call this Jim Crow because Jim Crow of the 50's and 60's was inescapable. The social and political barriers that African-Americans faced during the Civil Rights movement were phenomenal. Education was limited, access to equal and adequate resources was limited and people were genuinely oppressed by the government. With the advances that have been made, [particularly in the area of education] we have no excuse now. Racism is alive and well, but there are choices to be made as it relates to what occupation we undertake. Selling drugs is an easy way out but it is a trap. The ones at the top never go to prison, only the ones at the bottom. The drug game is set up just like the economy- the top 1% takes in all the profit and the 99% at the bottom give it to them. In the drug game, it is designed for the mid level and bottom feeding players to lose while the ones at the top (including corrupt politicians and government officials that work conjunction with cartel leaders, etc.) never spend a day in prison and never have to show their face.
The way to level the playing field is through education- at least in my opinion. Sure, the school may be crumbling- my high school was, at least- but what's on the pages of the book is the same at every school. The way to escape the trap is to never enter it in the first place. Interview 100 drug dealers or offenders and 95 of them will tell you that they did not complete high school. What we have to do a better job of is prevention. We need to teach our babies at an early age that education is power in America. You want respect, earn a Ph.D. and watch the respect flow down like a mighty rushing river. If you want to live comfortably, manage your income well and avoid going into debt via credit cards etc. We need to start training our youth how to be self sufficient, how to milk this rotten education system for all it's worth and how to find different avenues to channel their energies into. We need more prevention, more teaching at home and more encouragement of our young people. We also need to help them see that an education, while it may not ensure a job, it will make you more competitive. It is something that no one can take away from you and it something that everyone has to respect. We need to develop a spirit of economic empowerment such that we don't need to grovel and beg for employment because we are the employer.
So, is the drug game or the "war on drugs" the new Jim Crow? Only if you choose to play that game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)