Thursday, June 4, 2015

2016 RE-ELECTION ANNOUNCEMENT

JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN
Circuit Judge, Sixth Judicial District, Fifth Division
Little Rock, Arkansas

June 4, 2015

Friends,

Arkansas will hold its 2016 primary election on March 1, 2016.  I am writing to let you know I will seek re-election as Circuit Judge for the Sixth Judicial District, Fifth Division, during the non-partisan judicial primary on that date and to ask for your votes.

I became a lawyer because I believe in justice.  Dedication to justice has been the hallmark of my work as a lawyer in private practice at the Wright, Lindsey and Jennings law firm, as Chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, as a judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals, as a visiting professor of law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s Bowen School of Law, and as a Circuit Judge.  My life and legal career has been devoted to upholding the values of liberty, equality, and respect for the dignity of all persons.  As I said the day I took office in 2011, “justice is a verb!”

I’m asking now for you to vote for my re-election as Circuit Judge next year.  In the meantime, I need your help spreading the news that I am seeking re-election, that I am asking for your votes, and that my re-election campaign will continue during the coming months.

My re-election campaign, led by my friends Graham Catlett, Valerie Pruitt, and Donell Meadows, will begin accepting contributions in September of this year.  However, we are already doing other re-election work and welcome your help.  Please email us at gcatlett@catlaw.com, vjpruitt@hotmail.com, donellmeadows@yahoo.com, or Judggriff@aol.com to become part of the re-election team.   We’ll also be posting campaign updates on the Wendell Griffen for Circuit Judge Facebook page that was set up for my 2010 election.

Thanks for reading this message.  Please pass the word.

                                                  Sincerely



                                                  Judge Wendell Griffen

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

POLICE, RIOTS, AND RIOT GEAR

POLICE, RIOTS, AND RIOT-GEAR
Justice Is A Verb!
©Wendell Griffen, 2015

In the latest exercise of cultural incompetence and pandering to the storm-trooper mentality involving police interactions with communities of color nationwide, city directors in Little Rock, Arkansas voted last night by a 7-1 margin to purchase riot gear for most of the 551 members of the Little Rock police force. 

The vote to purchase the riot gear occurred despite pleas from members of the Little Rock black community who urged that directors study the issue further to determine whether riot gear is even needed in Little Rock.  As Mrs. Annie Abrams, a long-time resident of Little Rock told the directors, “We didn’t even have a riot in 1957 and didn’t have a riot when we had HBO [referring to the 1957 Central High School desegregation crisis and the mid-1990s Home Box Office documentaries about gang violence in Little Rock].” 

The Little Rock Police Department has what can charitably be called an “image problem” with communities of color. 

A former Little Rock police officer, Joshua Hastings, shot and killed a teenaged black youth, Bobby Moore III, less than three years ago.  Although Hastings was fired and later charged with manslaughter for killing Bobby Moore III, his prosecution was abandoned after two trials resulted in hung juries.  There was no riot.  There was no threatened riot.  There was no rumored riot. 

Eugene Ellison, a middle-aged black man and father of two police officers (one who yet works for the police department), was gunned down in his apartment by Little Rock police officers.  Mr. Ellison was unarmed when the police killed him.  The officers who killed him were not prosecuted.  They are still on the police force.  There was no riot.  There was no threatened riot.  There was no rumored riot. 

Little Rock’s Police Department, led by Chief Kenton Buckner, doesn’t need riot gear. It needs better cultural competence training, community relations, and better recruiting, screening, selection, and evaluation policies and practices.  Little Rock needs an independent civilian review panel with authority to investigate and issue findings regarding allegations of abusive and excessive force by police officers. 

Chief Buckner and Little Rock City Manager Bruce Moore, both black men, could have been instrumental in advocating for those changes.  They chose otherwise.

So a mid-sized Southern city with a long history of strained race relations generally (albeit masked by the traditional notions of Southern “cordiality”) and clear recent evidence of tension between its police officers and people of color will now spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on riot gear for the agency of city government with, arguably, the worse relationship with persons of color to make that agency more culturally competent, accountable, responsible, or competent in the use of force?  Nonsense!
Bobby Moore III and Eugene Ellison are dead.  Little Rock police killed them.  No Little Rock police officer has been injured, let alone slain, because of a riot.  One would have hoped that Chief Buckner, Manager Moore, and the seven city directors who voted for purchasing riot gear would recognize that glaring reality. 

One would have hoped that the political leadership in Little Rock would understand that riot gear doesn’t prevent or solve police-community tensions. 

One would have hoped that Little Rock learned from the deaths of Michael Brown, Jr. in Ferguson, Missouri, Rekia Boyd in Chicago, Illinois, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland, and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York, that communities don’t need police to have riot gear to avoid civilians being killed by people sworn to protect and serve them.  The police need cultural competence.  They need better oversight, training, and understanding about human relations and justice. 

One would have hoped that several other members of the Little Rock Board of Directors besides Director Erma Hendrix would have bluntly spoken this truth to City Manager Moore and Chief Buckner and rejected this latest exercise in militarization of local police agencies. 

But as my father often said, “that would be too much like right.”

When another tragic (and avoidable) incident of excessive force/homicidal conduct by a Little Rock police officer happens, community tensions will intensify.  The police will turn out in their new riot gear as a “precautionary measure.”  We may expect the agency that demands riot gear without any historical justification to deploy with riot gear, riot or not.    


Police-community relations in Little Rock sank to a new low last night.  Thanks, Manager Moore, Chief Buckner, and the seven city directors who voted for the riot gear, for making bad matters worse. 

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

LESSONS FROM CHOOSING MATTHIAS

LESSONS FROM CHOOSING MATTHIAS
©Wendell Griffen, 2015
May 17, 2015 (Seventh Sunday of Easter)


Acts 1:15-17, 21-26
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons) and said, 16“Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus—17for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” …
21So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” 23So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”26And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

        The only thing we know about Matthias, the person chosen to round out the 12 apostles in place of the deceased Judas Iscariot, is that he was chosen by the 120 persons who gathered in the Upper Room after the Ascension of Jesus.  Matthias was chosen, by lot and following prayer, over another follower of Jesus named Justus. 

Neither Matthias nor Justus is mentioned in any of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.  What qualified them as candidates to round out the apostles?

Presumably, Matthias and Justus were associated with Jesus during his ministry in Galilee. Presumably, Matthias and Justus encountered the resurrected Jesus of Easter.  Presumably, Matthias and Justus were associated with the community that followed Jesus and heard Jesus teach after the resurrection. 

But neither Matthias nor Justus are mentioned in the Gospels as having stood near the cross of the crucified Jesus. 

Neither Matthias nor Justus are named among the followers of Jesus who found the tomb of Jesus empty. 

Neither Matthias nor Justus were with the women who went to the tomb on the first Easter.

Neither Matthias nor Justus heard the angels declare that Jesus had risen from the grave.

How did Matthias and Justus become the top candidates to round out the apostles?  How were they elevated over Mary Magdalene (identified in John’s Gospel as being the first person to speak with the resurrected Jesus)? 

How is it that none of the women who were at the tomb on the first Easter, who found the tomb empty, who were addressed by angels, and who were commissioned by Jesus to go tell the men (presumably including Matthias) that he was alive was considered a worthy candidate? 

It appears that Matthias became an apostle because the selection process was set up to favor males.  The text says that the 120 prayed, cast lots, and selected Matthias.  But the text also says that Peter defined the selection criteria for candidacy to succeed Judas Iscariot based on gender.  Despite the fact that the women stayed to witness the crucifixion and death of Jesus while Peter, the other apostles (except for John), and (apparently) Matthias deserted him, Matthias was considered more deserving of consideration than Mary Magdalene or any of the other women.

One lesson we should glean from the selection of Matthias is that we import our biases onto our notion of faith.  Sexism and male privilege, not piety or familiarity with the resurrection of Jesus, were the factors that influenced Peter and the other early leaders. 

In choosing Matthias Peter and the older apostles made maleness equal to having witnessed the resurrected Jesus.  They made maleness equal to having learned from Jesus, trusted Jesus, and followed Jesus. 

Beyond that, they made maleness more important than the fact that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who were first heralds of the resurrection.  They made maleness more important than the people who were the first eye witnesses to the resurrection, more important than the people who were first to believe Jesus had risen from the grave, and more important even than the commission Jesus gave the women who were the first to proclaim his resurrection to the yet unbelieving male disciples.

Another lesson is that because we import our biases onto our notions of faith, we incorporate those biases into how we live that faith.  In doing so, we cause ministry efforts and actions, meaning our living, to deviate from the life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus.  When ministry efforts, practices, and perspectives perpetuate our biases rather than the example of Jesus, we distance ourselves from the power of the resurrection. 

When the first witnesses to the resurrection (women) were passed over in favor of Matthias, the resurrection didn’t lose its power.  The apostles lessened their outreach!  They chose not to include the witness of Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the mother of James, or one of the other women among the apostles! 

God only knows what might have been accomplished if Peter, James, John, Thomas, Phillip, Nathaniel, Andrew, or some of the remaining eleven had championed one of the women to succeed Judas Iscariot and be counted an apostle of the resurrection of Jesus!  The resurrection wasn’t diminished by their failure to do that!  Their effectiveness was limited.

The choice of Matthias also exposes our tendency to favor what we have always done even in the face of clear evidence that God has revealed something new and better, something only God can inspire us to achieve.  God raised Jesus! 

God made women rather than men the first messengers of the resurrection.  The resurrection of Jesus reveals the power of God to do new things in the human experience. 

The resurrection reveals the power of God to open doors!  The resurrection reveals the power of to God tear down walls!  The resurrection reveals the power of God to “make a way out of no way” as my elders often told me during my childhood.  The resurrection of Jesus reveals the power of God to accomplish “abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine” as we read in the third chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 3:20-21). 

None of this—not any of that wonderful, liberating, radical, and subversive power—of God is apparent from the choice of Matthias. 

In our haste to be about God’s business let us not move away from what God has done in the resurrection of Jesus. 

·      God re-defined what it means to be alive.
·      God made those who are considered least (in this instance it was the women) first messengers of the gospel that Jesus LIVES!
·      God rejected our time-honored notions about who can do what, and even our best thinking about what can be done.
·      And God invited us, through the resurrection of Jesus, to become representatives of that liberating, overcoming, oppression conquering, and loving power, not only for ourselves, but also for people who have traditionally been excluded, marginalized, oppressed, ignored, discounted, and vilified.

The disconnect between the choice of Matthias and what the resurrection of Jesus reveals about the power and purposes of God continues for followers of Jesus, and the world at large, today! 

We witness that disconnect when followers of Jesus rally to champion the cause of Jews migrating to Israel and support wholesale land theft in the West Bank and Gaza while denying the right of return for Palestinians and ignoring flagrant human rights abuses by the government of Israel.  Choosing Matthias!

The disconnect confronts us in the way followers of Jesus genuflect before the captains of commerce.  At every level of government tax breaks are handed out to the wealthy by people who refuse to invest in social services aimed at opening doors for people who are poor, people of color, women, children, the disabled, and immigrants.  Choosing Matthias!

The disconnect stands before us when religious people throughout the world, including followers of Jesus, do nothing to challenge the conduct of wealthy nations that complain about providing help and refuge to immigrants fleeing war, hunger, oppression, and other hardships in their home nations.  We see Matthias being chosen when wealthy nations claim they can’t afford to help floundering immigrants while they pour billions of dollars into more military spending that benefits defense contractors and prop up private investment banks.

The disconnect stands before us locally.  Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson named Robert Dennis “Denny” Altes (a former state legislator from Fort Smith) to become the state drug director last week.  In 2007 Mr. Altes sent an email message to a former Fort Smith mayor in which Altes made the following comments:

"All politics are local and I am for sending the illegals back but we know that is impossible. We are where we were with the black folks after the revolutionary war. We can't send them back and the more we piss them off the worse it will be in the future. So what do we do. I say the governor needs to try to enforce the law and sign the letter of understanding with the INS and at least we can send the troublemakers back. Sure we are being overrun but we are being out populated by the blacks also. What is the answer. Only time will tell."

Mr. Altes later made what he considered an apology and said he didn’t consider his comments referring to immigrants and black people racist. 

         Denny Altes, a person with no proven education, experience, or insight concerning drug policy at any level, is the person Governor Hutchinson has chosen to direct drug policy for the entire state of Arkansas.  In 2015, followers of Jesus are still choosing Matthias!

God, who raised Jesus from the tomb, calls us to be more than modern versions of the decision to choose Matthias.  God, who loved the world so much that Jesus came to liberate us from notions of righteousness based on privilege and exclusion, calls us to see the people who remain outside our selection processes. 

God calls us to keep faith with the liberating and loving Jesus of resurrection, not the time-worn practices and prejudices of privilege and exclusion that are woven into so much of what we do and how we do it.  If the people who claim to be followers of Jesus are unwilling to do this, we should not be surprised when the rest of the world ignores our claim to be authentic messengers of the God who raised Jesus from the tomb.

Let the power of the resurrection of Jesus inspire us to see and question the ways we tend to choose Matthias in our time and place.  Let the people of Jesus lead the way in opening doors that have closed.  Let us lead the way in tearing down walls of bigotry and discrimination.  Let us lead the way in honoring those who have historically been marginalized.  We are followers of Jesus, the resurrected one!  Let us boldly act as agents of resurrection today, tomorrow, and always, to the glory of God! 


Amen. 

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

CIVIL UNREST AND SUBVERSIVE VISION


CIVIL UNREST AND SUBVERSIVE VISION
©Wendell Griffen, 2015
Justice Is A Verb!

As someone who has devoted my adult life to studying and working for social justice (politically, economically, culturally, and theologically) I am struck by the inability of pundits, politicians, and others within the dominant community to make sense of the rage, disgust, and disenchantment expressed by poor people and persons of color in various communities across the U.S. to instances of reported police misconduct that has resulted in the deaths of poor, black, and brown people. 

Television news personalities (they call themselves “journalists” but I question if that word is fair or accurate to describe what they do and the purpose of their work on behalf of the corporate entities to whom they are most loyal), politicians, and others act as if the civil unrest demonstrates a problem within communities of color.  One can almost hear people from the dominant society ask, “What’s wrong with these people?  Why can’t they respond calmly, peacefully, and by using the established processes for getting their grievances addressed?”

Let me try and “break it down.”  Let me “unpack” what politicians and pundits and other people who speak without empathy concerning the realities of social injustice and police misconduct so clearly cannot understand or refuse to admit. 

The conduct that has been called “civil unrest” is the response of people who have been wounded, cheated, robbed, beaten, slaughtered, and historically marginalized with the tacit, and often explicit, blessing of the dominant society. 

Children have been shot and killed: Trayvon Martin in Florida, Tamir Rice in Ohio, Michael Brown, Jr. in Missouri, Rekia Boyd in Illinois, Bobby Moore III in Arkansas, Walter Scott in South Carolina, Freddie Gray in Maryland, and many more).  The politicians, pundits, and “good people” within the dominant society have not denounced the immorality of those homicides, but have “appealed” for “calm and peaceful responses” while allowing killers to go unpunished in practically every instance.

Parents and other elders have been killed.  Eric Garner was choked to death in New York.  Monroe Isadore (107 years old) was shot to death while lying in his bed in Arkansas.  Eugene Ellison (father of two veteran black police officers) was shot to death in his apartment.  The politicians, pundits, and “good people” have not denounced the culture of violence within law enforcement and societal tolerance for abusive and homicidal police behavior.  Instead, they have denounced the people who have stolen and burned property, as if stealing and burning is somehow a greater moral and social wrong than killing people. 

So let’s be clear.  The growing social “unrest” is not a statement about the character of the protestors, including those who engage in the unlawful behavior of stealing and burning the property of others.  It is evidence of a mounting resistance movement against a politically protected and socially endorsed regime of state-sanctioned and funded terrorism by rogue law enforcement agents.
 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned our society and world about the evils of racism, materialism, and militarism.  Politicians and pundits who profess to respect Dr. King have refused to heed his prophetic call to lead the world in undergoing a “radical revolution of values” away from placing concern about property over concern about people,

Dr. King warned that the absence of justice for black people will not be tolerated tranquilly.  In an essay published after his death, King wrote:  “When millions of people have been cheated for centuries, restitution is a costly process.  Inferior education, poor housing, unemployment, inadequate health care—each is a bitter component of the oppression that has been our heritage… White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society.”  The politicians and pundits engaged in televised head-scratching, hand-wringing, and task force convening have quoted the “I have a dream” words of King, but have remained deliberately ignorant about and dismissive of King’s warnings.

What the pundits and politicians now fail to recognize (or admit) is something Dr. King wrote in that 1968 essay published after he was murdered.  “… [T]o this day, black Americans have not life, liberty nor the privilege of pursuing happiness, and millions of poor white Americans are in economic bondage that is scarcely less oppressive.  Americans who genuinely treasure our national ideals, who know they are still elusive dreams for all too many, should welcome the stirring of Negro demands.  They are shattering the complacency that allowed a multitude of social evils to accumulate.  Negro agitation is requiring America to reexamine its comforting myths and may yet catalyze the drastic reforms that will save us from social catastrophe.”

To put it bluntly, what the politicians and pundits are denouncing as “civil unrest” are the sights, sounds, and other efforts of people engaged in a grass roots struggle against institutionalized and politically sanctioned injustice.  These struggling people are no longer willing to accept the lies of politicians and profiteers who talk about “economic development” that leaves their communities with the highest unemployment, the worst social services, the most impoverished schools, and the most people with law enforcement credentials who abuse and kill their neighbors and relatives. 

The “protestors” are denouncing the continued evidence of economic, social, and cultural apartheid in the United States.   Ferguson, Staten Island, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and other communities around the nation are beginning to look like Gaza in 2015 and like Newark, Detroit, Washington, Los Angeles, and other cities affected by “civil disorders” during the Sixties.  People who know what justice demands eventually will lose patience and refuse calls for calm when politicians and pundits allow their children, parents, and neighbors to be systematically and routinely abused, beaten,  slaughtered, and their communities to be politically and socially marginalized. 

A hint to the politicians and pundits:  If you want peace, do justice.  Until then, expect more “unrest.”  That “unrest” is what oppressed, wounded, and outraged people do in their quest for justice when they no longer trust or respect your “legitimate” processes and systems.  That isn’t something to denounce.  It is something to listen to, learn from, and use as impetus for the radical revolution of values Dr. King begged us to embrace before he was murdered for telling the truth.

Friday, April 10, 2015

CAMERAS AND CHARACTER


CAMERAS AND CHARACTER
©Wendell Griffen, 2015
April 10, 2015

Justice Is A Verb!

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out into the field.”  And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.  Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”  He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?  And the LORD said, “What have you done? Listen, your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!”  And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.  When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.  Genesis 4:8-13 (New Revised Standard Version)

…Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…  (Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States)

Walter Scott was shot to death last Saturday, the day after Good Friday and before Easter, in North Charleston, South Carolina.  He was a 50 year old son to his parents, brother to his siblings, father to his children, neighbor, co-worker, honorably discharged Coast Guard veteran, and child of God. 

Walter Scott was shot to death in the back by Michael T. Slager, a white North Charleston policeman.  Slager claimed that Scott tried to overpower him and take his Taser after Slager stopped Scott for allegedly having a broken tail light.  Slager claimed that he felt threatened. 

The North Charleston Police Department knew that Walter Scott had been shot in the back.  They knew that Slager killed Scott.  But they accepted Slager’s claim Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. 

From Saturday until Tuesday the North Charleston Police Department never treated Slager as a murder suspect. 

From Saturday until Tuesday the North Charleston Police Department never treated Walter Scott as a possible murder victim. 

From Saturday until Tuesday the North Charleston Police Department viewed Walter Scott as merely another dead black man killed by a fellow policeman who felt threatened and exercised lethal force to protect his own life.

From Saturday until Tuesday, the North Charleston Police Department didn’t treat Michael Slager as a liar and murderer despite the fact they knew Walter Scott had been shot multiple times in the back. 

But Feidin Santana was some distance away, but within view of the encounter between Slager and Scott.  Santana had a cell phone.  He videotaped the last moments of Walter Scott’s life.  His video shows that Michael Slager killed Walter Scott in cold blood as Scott was running for his life. 

Santana’s video shows that Slager fired eight shots as Scott was running, empty handed, away from Slager.  The video then shows Slager approach Scott’s fallen body and handcuff Scott.  The video shows Slager leave Scott, walk back to a spot several feet away, pick up an object from the ground, and take that object and place it near Scott’s body. 

Feidin Santana’s video shows that Michael Slager murdered Walter Scott in cold blood as Scott was running from him, unarmed.  Santana’s video shows that Slager planted something near Scott’s body.  The video shows that Michael Slager didn’t attend to Walter Scott’s wounds.  The same was true for a second police officer who arrived on scene.  

The killing of Walter Scott, preserved on video that has now been viewed around the world, has strengthened the rising demand that police officers wear body cameras to document their encounters with the public.  I do not oppose body cameras.  But Walter Scott wasn’t killed because Michael Slager didn’t have a body camera. 

Walter Scott was killed because Michael Slager is a sociopath.  Slager lacked the character to be trusted about whether to use lethal force.  That character deficit cannot be corrected by issuing a camera. 

Let’s stop pretending that body cameras will solve the problem of abusive and homicidal conduct by people in law enforcement.  The problem isn’t caused by lack of cameras, but lack of character.  The character problem should be thoroughly investigated, explored, and addressed before someone is given a police badge, firearm, and unfettered authority to mistreat and slay other people.  It says a lot about the culture of policing in the United States that more attention and emphasis is placed on how well someone can shoot and kill than how well they can relate with the people they are to protect and serve. 

But the character deficit doesn’t exist only within the police culture.  Judges, prosecutors, legislators, mayors, and the general public bear a lot of responsibility for enabling the police culture with the opportunity and authority to engage in abusive and homicidal conduct with impunity. 

There is abundant evidence that the police disproportionately mishandle and kill unarmed men and women who are persons of color and/or poor.  Despite what the Fourteenth Amendment declares about people not being deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, the police who mishandle and kill unarmed persons are almost never charged, prosecuted, tried, and convicted after doing so.  It says a lot about the character of prosecutors, investigators, judges, and jurors that the overwhelming majority of those tragic situations are deemed “justified.”   We seem unable to realize the moral and ethical contradiction in blithely accepting the abuse and death of unarmed people by others who are armed and sworn to protect and defend all persons.

The hard truth shown by the death of Walter Scott, as was shown by the deaths of Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio, Eugene Ellison and Monroe Isadore in Arkansas, Michael Brown, Jr. in Missouri, and so many other unarmed men and women of color, is that our nation has nurtured a culture that allows the law enforcement community to recruit, select, train, promote, and protect people who place little value on the lives of people who are black, brown, and poor. 

Judges and juries excuse these sociopaths.  Prosecutors and police leaders refuse to treat these killers as sociopaths.  The general public rushes to defend killers who carry badges even when they kill unarmed people.  That character deficit is widespread and deeply entrenched.  That may explain why Feidin Santana feared for his own life.  People who expose murderous law enforcement agents have good reason to be afraid in a society that enables law enforcement agents to mistreat and kill unarmed people with impunity.

Rather than admit that we have a sub-culture of sociopaths within law enforcement and address that disease, we talk about issuing body cameras.  Sociopaths who kill unarmed people will not be deterred by cameras they can disable and video footage they can alter or destroy.  We are fools to think otherwise.



Tuesday, March 31, 2015

REPENTANCE, RECONCILIATION, AND BAPTISTS: Re-Imagining and Embracing the Subversive Gospel of Jesus in the 21st Century


REPENTANCE, RECONCILIATION, AND BAPTISTS—
RE-IMAGINING AND EMBRACING THE SUBVERSIVE GOSPEL OF JESUS IN THE 21ST CENTURY
©Wendell Griffen, 2015
2015 T. B. MASTON LECTURE
LOGDSON SEMINARY
HARDIN-SIMMONS UNIVERSITY
ABILENE, TEXAS
MARCH 24, 2015

Spirit of the Living God, fall fresh on me,
Spirit of the Living God, fall fresh on me.
Break me, melt me, mold me, fill me.
Spirit of the Living God, fall fresh on me.[1]

Dean Williford, learned faculty, faithful staff members, and aspiring students of the learning community known as Logsdon Seminary, reverend clergy and laity, sisters and brothers.

          I dare not open this final submission in the two-part lecture series you have graciously allowed me to present without expressing my gratitude for the invitation you extended and the hospitality you have lavished on me. 

I was born September 23, 1952, and grew up in rural southwest Arkansas.  That history places me in the last generation of black people with firsthand experience of the version of racial apartheid in the United States known as Jim Crow segregation.  My now transcended parents and the other elders who nurtured my faith as I grew up in the Harrison Chapel Baptist Church of Antoine, Arkansas constantly told me and other children of our community that God would open doors and make a way.  They knew they could not spare us from the bitter taste and gnawing wounds of racism.  But they lived with and inspired in us a hope stronger than the oppression that threatened to wound and kill our bodies, enslave our minds, and cripple our spirits.  Your invitation and hospitality confirms that hope.  Thank you for confirming the hope Daddy, Momma, and my childhood elders faithfully affirmed and inspired me to claim as my own.  

          Today I will speak about Repentance, Reconciliation, and Baptists—Re-Imagining and Embracing the Subversive Gospel of Jesus in the 21st Century.  I intend to offer suggestions for Baptist engagement—denominationally, academically, congregationally, and personally, concerning social ethics drawing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s call for a “radical revolution of values.  And I will suggest that re-imagining and embracing the gospel of Jesus in this “subversive” way, Baptist followers of Jesus will be inspired and empowered to confront racism, sexism, classism, imperialism, militarism, and techno-centrism.  While I recognize these are prevalent and entrenched causes of oppression today, I will conclude by affirming agreement with South African theologian Allan Aubrey Boesak, my dear friend and brother, and “dare” to “speak of hope.”[2]

          A year to the day before he was assassinated Martin Luther King, a Baptist pastor, publicly defined the war in Vietnam as a civil rights issue on April 4, 1967 in an address titled Beyond Vietnam:  A Time to Break Silence to a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam at Riverside Church in New York City.  In doing so, Dr. King uttered the following prescient statement.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy-and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. … In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution.  … I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.  We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society.  When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.  On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act.  One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.  True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial.  It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.  A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.  With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say:  "This is not just."  It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say:  "This is not just."  … A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war:  "This way of settling differences is not just."  This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love.  A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. 
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values.  There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.  There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.[3]

Public reaction to King's message was swift and hostile.  A number of editorial writers attacked him for connecting Vietnam to the civil rights movement.  The New York Times issued an editorial claiming that King had damaged the peace movement as well as the civil rights movement.  Life magazine assailed the speech as "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi."  The Pittsburgh Courier, an African-American publication, charged King with "tragically misleading" black people.  And at the White House, President Lyndon Johnson was quoted as saying, "What is that goddamned nigger preacher doing to me?  We gave him the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we gave him the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we gave him the War on Poverty.  What more does he want?"[4] 

          Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee exactly one year after he delivered the speech written by Dr. Vincent Harding, a black historian and trusted friend.  Despite the hostile reaction to the speech, Martin King and Vincent Harding never disavowed it.  But Dr. Harding, who passed away last year, always believed the speech was the reason King was murdered.  “It was precisely one year to the day after this speech that that bullet which had been chasing him for a long time finally caught up with him,” Dr. Harding said in a 2010 interview. “And I am convinced that that bullet had something to do with that speech. And over the years, that’s been quite a struggle for me.”[5]
Nine years after his death Dr. King was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by another Baptist from Georgia, President Jimmy Carter.  A federal holiday has been established to honor his birthday.  His statue has been placed in Washington, DC.  Numerous cities and towns have re-named major traffic arteries for him in the United States, and he is revered throughout the world as one of the most prophetic souls of the twentieth century, if not the modern era.  When President Barack Obama took the oath of office to begin his second term, he placed his hand on a Bible that belonged to Dr. King and alluded to him during his inaugural address. 

          Yet the veneration of Dr. King has not included any significant or serious effort by U.S. policymakers, social commentators, and moral leaders—including Baptist clergy, laity, associations, denominations, and educational institutions—to embrace the "radical revolution of values" King called for in A Time to Break Silence.  The "giant triplets" of racism, militarism, and materialism have not been confronted.  The U.S. currently devotes more of its budget on national defense and homeland security than on educating children, fighting disease, feeding the hungry and alleviating poverty. 

          We may never learn the true financial cost of the tragic military misadventure known as the war in Iraq.  As the tenth anniversary of the war in Iraq approached Reuters reported on a study by a team of academicians which tallied the cost of the war at $1.7 trillion, a figure that did not include $490 billion owed to Iraqi war veterans for disability benefits.  The study projected that expenses related to the war in Iraq could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades.[6] 

          At the same time U.S. leaders—including Baptist and other religious leaders—are venerating King's memory they have ignored or rejected his call for the United States to use its wealth and prestige to lead the world in a radical revolution of values that rejects war as the preferred means of resolving differences.  President Barack Obama could not have been guided by the vision of the Baptist preacher whose Bible he used for his second inauguration.  Although President Obama could not persuade U.S. officials and global allies to embrace a military response to Syria the way President George W. Bush did concerning Iraq, U.S. militarism continues to cast an ominous cloud over the world and hinder efforts to address glaring problems at home. 

Jonathan Tran's 2012 essay about the war policies of the Obama administration reminds us that President Obama has articulated what Tran termed "a theology of war."[7]   It is more than sadly ironic that the first African-American to hold the office of President of the United States currently oversees a policy of killing American citizens by using armed drones.  The militarism King criticized is also evident in the virulent response by President Obama and other U.S. leaders to the disclosures by Edward Snowden that the U.S. engaged in wholesale spying on American citizens and others throughout the world—including the leaders of nations considered its allies.  

          Forty-four years after Dr. King was murdered by a gunman the nation witnessed the massacre of twenty children and six adult staff members of Sandy Hook Elementary School in New Town, Connecticut by a gunman who had already killed his mother and later killed himself.  The militarism that drives U.S. global policy seems to have turned on our own children.  The response to the Sandy Hook massacre has not been, however, to confront the giant of militarism.  Firearm manufacturers and their lobbyists, like defense contractors and their lobbyists, now hold more influence than ever before.  

          Sadly, devotion to corporate profit-making continues to hamstring efforts to make our society and the world safe.  Thus, militarism has joined forces with materialism so much that American schools run the serious risk of becoming fortresses.  We somehow are blind to the stark moral and ethical contradiction of singing Let There Be Peace on Earth while arming school teachers and cheering people who openly brandish handguns. 

          The moral and ethical disconnect between the rhetoric used to venerate Dr. King and the persistence of entrenched racism in American life continues to afflict us.   Policymakers refuse to acknowledge the plain truth that the "law and order," and "war on drugs" mantra used by every U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson has actually produced the mass incarceration of millions of people who are disproportionately persons of color.  Thanks to the not always covert racism of “law and order” and “war on drugs” enthusiasts, more black people are politically and socially disenfranchised in the United States in 2015 than were enslaved in 1850, ten years before the Civil War began, a fact Professor Michelle Alexander has forcefully presented in her 2010 book titled The New Jim Crow:  Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color-Blindness.[8]

Oppressive law enforcement policies that gave rise to civil unrest during Dr. King's lifetime still operate against people who are black and brown.  Six years after President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder became the first black persons to hold their respective offices, the terrorism of racial profiling is as prevalent today as when Dr. King was assassinated, if not more so.     

Insensitivity to the insidious racism that poisoned the United States when Dr. King was killed has not changed.  Trayvon Martin,[9] Oscar Grant,[10] and Amadou Diallo,[11] like Martin Luther King, Jr., were black men shot to death by people who claimed the moral and legal right to take their lives.   The racism and militarism Dr. King deplored in 1967 were major factors in causing the August 9, 2014 death of Michael Brown, Jr., an 18-year old un-armed black teenager shot to death by Darren Wilson, formerly of the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department.  That racism and militarism also accounted for the killing of Eric Garner, who was choked to death on July 23, 2014 by Daniel Pantaleo while other New York Police Department officers pressed their knees on Garner’s torso despite his repeated statement “I can’t breathe!”  Plainly, the United States has not become more informed about or responsive to racial injustice since Dr. King died.  We have simply militarized the injustice in brazen ways.

          We have not confronted or corralled the giant triplets of militarism, materialism, and racism.  Rather, we have added sexism (including homophobia), classism, and techno-centrism to the mix.  The triplets are sextuplets now! 

The painful truth is that political, commercial, and even religious leaders are comfortable bestowing platitudes on Dr. King's life and ministry while actively and deliberately disregarding his warnings and call for repentance.  Our leaders play on (some would say pimp) Dr. King's moral authority for their own benefit at every opportunity.  However, they question the relevancy of his teachings and warnings for our time. 

          Such contradictory behavior amounts to what I have called “re-assassination” of Dr. King.  King’s ministry and message is being re-murdered by drone warfare, NSA surveillance, a militarized law enforcement culture, and our support for regimes that use military force to oppress minority populations in this society and elsewhere in the world (militarism), and by the half-truths and outright falsehoods uttered to defend those actions. 

Dr. King is re-murdered by fiscal policies that promote the corporate interests of investment bankers over the lives and fortunes of workers, homeowners, retirees, and needy people (materialism). 

King's dedication to attack and eliminate the causes of systemic poverty is currently being re-assassinated by policies that widen the glaring income inequality between the super-wealthy and the poor (classism). 

King's righteous indignation against injustice is murdered by proponents of the so-called "prosperity gospel" and those who use religion as a weapon to deny civil rights to people who are homosexuals, poor, immigrants, women, or otherwise vulnerable (racism and sexism). 
         
King’s call for a radical revolution of values is murdered when we profess to honor his memory while bowing to the techno-centrism responsible for poisoning community aquifers through fracking for natural gas. 

When we honestly assesses the mood and conduct of U.S. leaders and the public at large—including Baptist and other religious leaders—since Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis, it becomes clear that we have not chosen to embrace the "radical revolution of values" Dr. King articulated.  We have not weakened the giant triplets of racism, militarism, and materialism.  We have nourished, bred, and multiplied them.    Religious leaders such as Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. who have followed Dr. King's model of prophetic criticism and congregational leadership have been rejected and condemned in much the same way President Johnson responded to Dr. King. 
          Dr. King was correct when he observed, "America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values.  There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities…"  Sadly, we seem unable to realize that by rejecting his call to reorder our values and priorities—in other words to engage in the Biblical imperative of repentance—we not only "re-assassinate" King.  By rejecting his values while pretending to venerate King as our greatest prophet we are destroying ourselves and  risk forfeiting any moral authority we claim as agents for peace, justice, and truth in the world.  Sooner or later, those who feed a death wish find a way to destroy themselves. 

Baptists have a moral and ethical obligation to re-imagine and embrace the subversive gospel of Jesus Christ in the prophetic way King did.  Our pastors and Christian educators must lead the way.  Our congregations, associations, state conventions, and other fellowships must lovingly and honestly embrace our calling from God to be prophetic agents of divine love, truth, and justice about the wickedness of racism, sexism, materialism, classism, militarism, and techno-centrism. 

I am periodically moved to re-visit Ezekiel 2:1-7 and be reminded what God has called me to be and do.  I invite you to also ponder our ministry efforts as scholars, students, pastors, denominational leaders from that perspective.

He said to me:  “O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you.”  And when he spoke to me, a spirit entered into me and set me on my feet; and I heard him speaking to me.  He said to me, “Mortal, I am sending you to the people of Israel, a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have transgressed against me to this very day.  The descendants are impudent and stubborn.  I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD God.’  Whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that there has been a prophet among them.  And you, mortal, do not be afraid of them, and do not be afraid of their words, though briars and thorns surround you and you live among scorpions; do not be afraid of their words, and do not be dismayed by their looks, for they are a rebellious house.  You shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear; for they are a rebellious house.”

The issue now is whether we will be prophets of God’s love, truth, and justice to the “rebellious house” where racism, sexism, materialism, militarism, classism, and techno-centrism rule with oppressive force.  Are the men and women who answer to the name of Jesus prophets calling “the rebellious house” to repentance?  Are we, like King, pleading with our society and world to embrace “a radical revolution of values” away from what now are giant sextuplets of injustice?  Are we nurturing this prophetic consciousness and determination in congregations, associations, and other Baptist fellowships?  Or are we unwilling to take up the prophetic cross of Jesus Christ because we’re afraid doing so means we must somehow suffer and die? 

We have been sent to a “rebellious house” to be prophets for God, not counselors to or cheerleaders for the principalities and powers responsible for sextuplets of racism, sexism, materialism, militarism, classism, and techno-centrism. 

We are called by God to be prophets to the “rebellious house” of principalities and powers that believe in profit regardless to the cost to the creation or the health and safety of workers and communities.

We called by God to be prophets to the “rebellious house” where capitalism is worshipped above God and the mindset of Walmart is preferred to the Spirit of Jesus.

Yet, prophets are not only God’s voices of holy protest to “the rebellious house.”  Prophets are God’s agents of hope!  To borrow from South African theologian Allan Boesak I now ask if we dare to speak of hope in the face of the principalities and powers responsible for racism, materialism, militarism, sexism, classism, and techno-centrism. 

Yes!  We must dare to speak of Hope even while engaging in prophetic protest about the systemic causes of injustice and suffering because of the gospel of Jesus. 

We must dare to speak of Hope, but only while confronting and suffering, with God, the wounds of racism, materialism, militarism, sexism, classism, and techno-centrism. 

Allan Boesak calls us to dare to speak of Hope, but only if we speak of Anger and Courage, what Saint Augustine of Hippo called the beautiful daughters of Hope.  “Anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the same.”[12]

We must dare to speak of Hope and struggle and grieve with God against the principalities and powers responsible for the giant sextuplets.[13] 

We must dare to speak of Hope, but not without prophetically calling our society and the rest of the world to turn from our addiction to violence and war by embracing peace.[14] 

We must dare to speak of Hope, audaciously, despite the fragility of our faith.[15]

We must dare to speak of Hope and dream, to borrow from the words of Nelson Mandela, “that there has emerged a cadre of leaders in my country and region, on my continent and in the world, which will not allow that any should be denied their freedom, as we were; that any should be turned into refugees, as we were; that any should be condemned to go hungry, as we were; that any should be stripped of their human dignity, as we were.[16]

We are prophets called by God to confront our “rebellious house” with the moral necessity and ethical imperative of repentance.  But we are not doomsayers.  We are prophets of the gospel of Jesus, a gospel that does not stop with Calvary and Good Friday. 

We are prophets of the gospel of Jesus, a gospel that does not pretend to be blind about evil yet will not flinch when confronting it.  We are prophets of Jesus, the Resurrected One. 

We are prophets of Resurrection Hope!  We are prophets of Resurrection Joy!  We are prophets of the way-making and empire shaking God!  We are prophets of the extravagantly merciful God!  We are prophets of Hope because God loved us, saved us, and called us through the life of Jesus Christ. 

We are prophets of Hope.  Shameless Hope!  Audacious Hope!  Fragile Hope!  Angry Hope!  Courageous Hope!  Wounded Hope!  Dreaming Hope! 

God has called us.  God sends us.  God is counting on us to make a prophetic and hopeful difference in God’s world as followers of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit! 

Amen.


[1] Daniel Iverson (1890-1977), Spirit of the Living God, African American Heritage Hymnal, #320 (Chicago:  GIA Publications, 2001).
[2] Allan Aubrey Boesak, Dare We Speak of Hope?  Searching for a Language of Life in Faith and Politics, (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2014). 
[3] Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Beyond Vietnam:  A Time to Break Silence is among the writings of Dr. King compiled by James Melvin Washington and published under the title A Testament of Hope:  The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1986).
[4] For reactions to Beyond Vietnam:  A Time to Break Silence see http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/martin-luther-king-jr-beyond-vietnam-a-time-to-break-silence/impact.
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/us/vincent-harding-civil-rights-author-and-associate-of-dr-king-dies-at-82.html?_r=0
[6] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314.
[7] JONATHAN TRAN, Obama, War, and Christianity:  The Audacity of Hope and the Violence of Peace (Christian Ethics Today, Spring 2012).
[8] Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow:  Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color-Blindness, (New York: The New Press, 2010).
[9] Trayvon Martin was a seventeen year-old black male who was shot to death by George Zimmerman as Martin was returning to his father's residence from a convenience store in Sanford, Florida the night of February 26, 2012.  Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury on the charge of manslaughter.
[10] Oscar Grant III was fatally shot in the back at point blank range by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer Johannes Mehserle during the early hours of New Year’s Day of 2009 in Oakland, California.  Mehserle was eventually convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter, served two years in the Los Angeles County Jail, minus time served.
[11] Amadou Diallo was a twenty-three year old Guinean immigrant who was shot and killed by four New York City Police officers who fired 41 bullets, 19 of which struck Diallo, outside his apartment in the Bronx.  All four police officers were later acquitted of criminal charges related to Diallo's death. 
[12] See Allan Boesak, Dare We Speak of Hope?  Chapter 2.
[13] Dare We Speak of Hope? Chapter 3.
[14] Dare We Speak of Hope?  Chapter 4.
[15] Dare We Speak of Hope? Chapter 5.
[16] Dare We Speak of Hope?  Chapter 6.