Monday, May 28, 2012

Of Course I Don't Look Suspicious...I'm White

I have never once had a single concern for the Fourth Amendment. This section of the U.S. Constitution was put in place by our Founding Fathers to prevent arbitrary searches and seizures of civilians by authorities. I have never been "arbitrarily searched" nor have I ever had any of my property seized. At least some of the reason for this is that I am a white male.

After reading this next chapter of The New Jim Crow, I asked about ten of my African American friends if they had experienced such searches by the authorities. All but one had. Two of my closest friends were pulled over and thoroughly searched just the other day for "looking suspicious." The policeman claimed that they were looking down when he drove by.

If enough of these searches are conducted - and lawfully so given the Supreme Court ruling that the police are free to use minor traffic violations as a pretext to conduct drug investigations, even when there is no evidence of illegal drug activity - eventually drugs will be found. If these searches are conducted primarily on African Americans, mostly African Americans will be arrested. This, argues Alexander, is precisely the case in our nation today. One of the major problems with this is that African American drug use pales in comparison to White American drug use.

She sites a study conducted in 2000 by the National Institute on Drug Abuse that white students use cocaine at seven times the rate of black students, use crack cocaine at eight times the rate of black students, and use heroin at seven times the rate of black students. Other studies have been conducted and nearly all of their findings indicate that the majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white.

But three-fourths of all people imprisoned for drug offenses have been black or Latino.

To make matters even worse, most of those convicted for possession are never afforded proper legal representation. Yes, they should receive it, but they just don't. Most cases never reach trial. Alexander, and others, blame the threat of strict penalties for this. A large percentage of those convicted are persuaded to plead guilty (for a much lesser sentence) rather than take the risk of being found guilty (and receiving a much worse sentence). The author provides ample statistics and examples to support her claims.

I must admit that my inclination is to let the case go to trial if I am innocent. But I must remember that "my kind" has, for the most part, always been afforded justice. There are many stories of innocent African Americans pleading guilty simply because they do not believe the court system will offer them justice. Given their history in America, I am now more understanding of their fear.

Again, this book is an eye-opener. I am still struggling with some of Alexander's statements and implications. But I am also convicted and alarmed by the injustices and unfortunate circumstances I have been blinded to for so long simply because of my race.


Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Burn the Books: Knowing Does Not Mean Loving

The first commandment is profound in that it places love as the chief action of an image bearer's piety. Paul says it well too, a person may have just about all spiritual gifts, but if he does not have love he is essentially noise to everyone's ears. This is a relevant message to all times - especially to the "Greeks" of the culture who tend to elevate knowledge above love.

Looking back I am both amazed and convicted by the tireless efforts and endless resources I have spent in order to gain knowledge. I am not sure that I have spent a fraction of these efforts and resources to gain love. I understand that the two are related. Knowledge helps us to love. But knowledge also helps to puff up (1Cor 8:1).

The reasons why we focus on knowledge less than love are many. I would argue, however, the primary reason is that we have more control over knowledge. There is a direct correlation between effort and knowledge gained. We can read a book to increase understanding - love is a bit more complex. We may actively succeed in gaining an understanding of how we ought to love, but we are not in control of actually loving that way. Knowing and desiring are two very different things.

I need little help to know, I need supernatural help to love. To know I need solitude, time and a book. To love I need repentance, faith, and humility. To merely know, I need only me. To follow the greatest commandments to love, I need only Christ.

Because we have subordinated love to knowledge, we are misleading and being mislead. As James Smith proposes in his book Desiring the Kingdom, on the heals of the Enlightenment we have adopted rationalism and wrapped it in Christian clothes. Those who know are accepted as members of our seminaries and churches, while those who love...well, we need to make sure they know more.

Books just aren't changing my heart. I think part of my exhaustion is due to my unwillingness to accept my own premise. The fact that I must rest and surrender immediately confronts my faithlessness - my lack of trust that Jesus can and will actually change me. I have have trusted books far too long. And while the knowledge I have gained may be orthodox and good, it is not what will ultimately save.

Knowledge is good and necessary, but only in its right redemptive place. The commandment is clear to love with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. Love is always primary. I must loose my hands from this golden cow and trust Christ alone. My love for self has thrown me into an occupation of mass learning. I pray that my love for Christ will throw me into an eternity of mass loving.




Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Waiting is Dying

For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation - Psalm 62:1

These types of verses I typically overlook. My goal for reading often trumps my need for reflecting and meditating. Today is a bit different. I am putting my 10 or so chapters on pause in order to pay special attention to this particular verse.

The reason is simple. I don't wait in silence. Sure my body may sit, but my soul jumps at anything that promises a few seconds of inner distraction or rest. Whether it be chess with friends, cleaning up the kitchen, turning on my iPhone just to see if there are any new notifications (knowing there aren't because I did the same thing just minutes before - if you have an iPhone, you probably know what I mean), and/or checking facebook, running through your mind who you could possibly call, or what you could possibly do right now...other than sit.

ANYTHING, yes, anything will do, just not sitting in silence. My soul is a spoiled infant with a relentless and constant need to consume or do whatever. Blind, patient sitting is not an option. Verses like this, when we take the time to notice them, often convict us of our disdain for the Lord's timing.

Waiting silently means surrendering wholly. It means we let go of our subjective definitions of what salvation really is. It has a tendency to rid us of all the laws we have in place that make us think we're not all that bad. Waiting, in a sense, is dying; which in a Biblical world is really living. Waiting silently for God alone brings salvation.

When you world slows down today, resist the temptation to pick up an electronic devise. Resist the temptation to think about your to-do list. Don't go to the pantry for a snack. Rather than sleep, try and restfully wait in silence, and like a child ask him for salvation.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Justifying Slavery - More on The New Jim Crow

The mass incarceration of significant percentages of the African American population is the "new Jim Crow." This is Alexander's foundational premise in her book The New Jim Crow. There is an inherent racial caste system in the United States that actively locks racial minorities (viz., African Americans) into inferior positions in society. Using racial language no longer works and therefore a new language must be adopted. Instead of using terms like "Negro," one must use terms like "criminal."

Before the civil rights movement innocent "Negros" were oppressed and enslaved. Alexander argues that things have not changed - oppression and slavery remains. The only difference is that we now use the criminal justice system to rename the target population. Innocent Negros are no longer enslaved, guilty criminals are. Alexander quotes Richard Nixon saying, "It's all about those damn Negro - Puerto Rican groups out there." This quote followed an election ad where Nixon pledged to establish order in the United States.

Since the Civil Rights movement, politicians and the those in public office have developed a strategy of exploiting racial hostility for political gain without making explicit reference to race. The author argues that this racial hostility lies not under the rhetoric of black and white (like it used to be), but under the rhetoric of those who "deserve" and "do not deserve" entitlement dollars. She writes, "The not-so-subtle message to working-class whites was that their tax dollars were going to support special programs for blacks who most certainly did not deserve them."

The inherent message of many political campaigns was not racial in nature but moral. Whites were not led to hate blacks, but they were encouraged to become embittered toward those who were taking and using their tax dollars unjustly. Blacks with food stamps were eating t-bones while struggling whites without food stamps where eating hamburger. You don't have to be a genius to see the natural effects of this portrait. And you certainly don't have to live in America long to see that this portrait is a reality in the American mind.

Michelle Alexander's statements almost seem hyperbolic and exaggerated. I have been taken back a number of times by certain allegations she makes, whether implicitly or explicitly. I will say, however, that she has made no arbitrary allegations thus far. Here work is well done. Her history is thorough and her logic, for the most part, consistent. Beginning with the pre-Civil War era and slowly combing through the racial dynamics of the following years of American history, Alexander points out clear oppressive and destructive patterns that have plagued African Americans for centuries.

I will end this post with one of her post-emancipation examples. After the abolition of slavery in America, plantation owners in the South faced financial collapse. State governments were broke. Properties and families were completely destroyed by the war. The culture was demoralized by the effects of an unsuccessful war. And when you throw in millions of newly freed slaves, circumstances grow increasingly complex. Those in power in the South immediately sought to develop a new racial order. Blacks were the problem in their eyes, not part of the solution.

Therefore, taking advantage of their ability to make and enforce laws, Southern states adopted black codes - vagrancy laws being an example. These vagrancy laws made it a criminal offense not to work. These laws were selectively applied to blacks. And here is the rub: Eight southern states enacted convict laws allowing for the hiring-out of county prisoners to plantation owners and private companies. Prisoners were forced to work for little to no pay.

So as the federal government made strides to end slavery, those in power at the state level found ways to continue the practice under the new legal system. While it was illegal to force an innocent man into slavery, laws were made to force the innocent man into being a guilty man. And it is not criminal offense to force a guilty man to do the work slaves used to do - after all, he deserves it.

If Alexander's history is true, the mass incarceration movement of the 21st century may not be as simple as it seems. We just might have a new Jim Crow on our hands. For me, the picture is at least plausibly set. More color must be added. Given the nature of the first few chapters, I fully expect such strokes of the literary brush. I will keep you posted.


Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Incarceration Among Black America: A Review of "The New Jim Crow"

Being a white male with very little history with the police (when I was 15, I was arrested for possession of alcohol), I was a bit skeptical when I began reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Her premise is that, despite our efforts to end a racial caste system, where those of a single race or social group are marginalized, oppressed, and kept from making significant contributions to society, we have only redesigned it. Though we have elected an African American into office, we have fallen asleep to the tragic and immense incarceration of large percentages of the African American population.

Just as the black population before the civil rights movement was kept from voting, participating in juries, and relegated to a racially segregated and subordinated existence (hence the reference to Jim Crow in the title), so is a large portion of the same racial group kept from participating in those same significant social areas and activities today.

We can look back and see that the Jim Crow laws were unjust and wrong. But today, while the same end is taking place, we are less likely to see the injustice. The movement now works under the guise of criminal justice. Those who suffer its consequences deserve to suffer - right? We wish it were that easy.

So far, Michelle Alexander has at least argued that it is not. The criminal justice system and the laws that support and execute under its authority, is not so simple. There are laws that are commonly overlooked. There are less-than-right practices in the court rooms that have been adopted as commonplace and pragmatically necessary. And there are statistics, since the declaration of the War on Drugs, that are staggering only to those who currently constitute the substance of the statistical data.

The comment that demanded my attention was, "There is no doubt that if young white people were incarcerated at the same rates as young black people, the issue would be a national emergency." I had to agree.

Here are some statistics that Alexander lists - statistics that, at least for me, demand an open ear to what she has to say:

1. One in three young Africa American men will serve time in prison if current trends continue, and in some cities more than half of all young adult black men are currently under correctional control - in prison or jail, on probation or parole.

2. In two decades, between 1980 and 2000, the number of people incarcerated in our nation's prisons and jails soared from roughly 300,000 to more than 2 million.

3. By the end of 2007, more than 7 million Americans - or one in every 31 adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole.

4. There are more people in prisons and jails today just for drug offenses than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980.

5. Approximately 500,000 people are in prison or jail for a drug offense today, compared to an estimated 41,000 in 1980 - an increase of 1,100 percent.

In her book, Alexander argues that "mass incarceration is, metaphorically, the New Jim Crow and that all those who care about social justice should fully commit themselves to dismantling this new racial caste system...The widespread belief that race no longer matters - has blinded us to the realities of race in our society and facilitated the emergence of a new caste system."

She insists that, contrary to popular belief, "the fact that more than half of the young black men in many large American cities are currently under the control of the criminal justice system (or saddled with criminal records) is not just a symptom of poverty or poor choices, but rather evidence of a new racial caste system at work."

I am currently on the second chapter. The verdict is still out, but my social senses are at least awakened and sympathetic toward her argument. When I read books like this I have to force myself to look hard into my racial blind spots. I have to try and see life, sin, injustice, and other important issues from different perspectives. I am glad for this book so far. I will be posting as I read.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Monday, May 14, 2012

Why We Must Love

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, or drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kin dome of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Those described above will not inherit the kingdom of God. They will not live for eternity in the redeemed creation, among the redeemed and glorified community. And this is precisely why we must love them. This is precisely why we must resist looking down our noses at those who "practice such things." Whatever their characterization, they all fit under the categorical umbrella of the "whosoevers" of John 3:16.

This passage should humble everyone who reads it - especially those who have been set free. The reason comes in the next verse: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus CHrist and by the Spirit of our God.
I am so thankful that someone saw through my immorality and idolatry. Lord, give us all the grace to love people today.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Why We Won't Love

In our efforts to become more practical, we tend to neglect the most profound. In thinking through who and how to love, we tend to neglect the profound (and simple) commandment to love in the first place. One of our greatest mistakes is making our love dependent upon the actions of the object of our love. Before taking that first step in their direction, certain stipulations have to be met. We must run their countenance, culture, behavior and character through our filtered "biblical" filter. If they pass, we love. If they don't, we keep our safe distance - and justifiably so!

But Jesus makes his commandment inconveniently simple - not dependent upon the object of love, but upon the God who is love itself. Jesus frees us from the slavery and complexity of other people by making us his slaves. We may not use another person's actions as an excuse as to why we should not follow his command to love them. He gives it independently of them. This is what makes love so glorious. It is also what makes love so impossible.

Too often our filters are based not on what the other needs, but on what we refuse to give. We don't like the surrender involved. We don't like not knowing what may be required. We don't like pouring our lives out for someone who could care less about us. And we are seemingly allergic to placing our schedules in the hands of irresponsible people. This is precisely the rub. Those Christ calls us to love - orphans, widows, foreigners, and the poor - are not particularly as "tidy" as we are. That's our definition of irresponsible right? - not as "tidy" as we are.

The poor don't base their life around iCal. Orphans don't typically have a gym membership, Netflix, or plans to go on vacation. And widows are typically too broken to be addicted to Starbucks. These people have probably never even thought of the top ten things we place on our most important list. Therefore, to love them would mean to forfeit those things. And this is why we won't love.

Paul Miller said it so well in his book Love Walked Among Us. "It is one thing to notice a blind man; it is quite another to stop and talk with him - that gets scary. He might ask for money or interrupt our schedule. It's as if we are afraid that his blindness might affect us. This fear is not irrational - when we pause to have compassion, something of the other person's problems comes on us. Some of his pain touches us. At the very least, slowing down and noticing someone takes time...Compassion affects us. Maybe that's why we judge so quickly - it keeps us from being infected by other people's problems. Passing judgment is just so efficient."

Love has become far too simple for me. Simplicity, however, should not be considered synonymous with easy. It is the simplicity of Christ's command that makes love so impossible. When we try to love, we are immediately confronted with our inability to do so. Temptations flood our minds to cover love up with practicality - with strategies on how to "help" others without surrendering ourselves. We want to cure without taking up a cross. We want to show mercy without becoming messy. This is my life anyway. And Jesus is jacking me up.

Our union with Christ is the only rescue. The gospel is our only hope. In order to love we must know what love is. To know what love is, we must look nowhere but Christ - the love who walked among us. And as we cling to him in faith, we are empowered by his Spirit to feel, surrender, repent and love. In union with him we trust that surrender is eternally safe, and that because of Christ, our enemy is not excluded from the category of those we are called to love.

Love is far from convenient. It is not, however, more inconvenient than that filter that we have been carrying around to see if others are convenient enough to love or not. Christ's words are true - he who loses his life will save it.