Don't Let the Empire Limit Our Movement's Imagination (by Zack Exley)
Over the last few years, I've gotten acquainted with a movement of Christians that is vibrant, enormous, and yet refuses to let itself be named or to take credit for any of its accomplishments. Some have named subsets or aspects of the movement -- for example, "The New Monastics," "The Emergent Church," "Ordinary Radicals," and even "Revolutionaries." But there are millions of people swept up into this movement who have never even heard those phrases.
I grew up an atheist and a left-wing activist/organizer. I got a view into this movement only when I married a Christian and started going to church (the only way it was ever going to happen) a few years ago. When I first saw thousands of upper-middle-class, white, Southern suburbanites respond passionately to a sermon titled "Two Fists in the Face of Empire," I knew that something incredible must be going on. Afterward, a minute of Googling revealed that the U.S. was already full of churches preaching that same "anti-empire" gospel -- both mega- and mini-churches, suburban, rural, and urban. The movement is invisible to people outside the church (and to liberal mainline Christians) because it is strongest among "born-again" Christians -- the kind who believe Jesus is really coming back, raise their hands in the air, weep in worship, and study the Bible every day because they believe it's true. These folks have learned that most of their coworkers and classmates think all that stuff is bizarre, and so they keep it to themselves. In some ways, born-again Christians are as different from mainstream America as the Amish, but there are 100 million of them and they're almost totally invisible.
I started weeping in worship services myself when I started to see what this movement was actually doing in people's lives. It was taking very isolated, individualistic middle-class suburban people like me and breaking them open in all kinds of ways. Even though I had spent a lot of time working as a community and union organizer, I had always been careful to keep my life totally unentangled by the immediate needs and troubles of the people I was organizing -- that's what I was most comfortable with, and it's also what I was taught to do by all my mentors.
I was organizing for "big" solutions and staying away from all the "little" stuff that to me just seemed too messy and complicated to ever solve anyway. But these young Christians I was meeting were "falling in love with each other across class and racial lines," and wrestling with demons of poverty, addiction, community violence, family violence, sexual abuse, depression, hopeless schools, and all the other troubles that plague American life. They were "making redemptive history" by healing wounds and repairing families and communities one at a time. It's really the most beautiful thing I've ever seen, and I've had the opportunity to witness it up close in a dozen states and scores of giant mega-churches and tiny house groups.
And so it is with great hesitation that I have been trying to make a suggestion for an amendment to this movement.
As this movement has radically embraced "relational" one-on-one or neighborhood-level social change, it has just as radically shunned any kind of big-picture national and global collective social change. I've been arguing in a series of posts at my blog Revolution in Jesusland that the movement should not limit its imagination to only small and local modes of change, but should allow God to work through them at a national and global level too.
A few days ago, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove answered me very graciously here, but, in effect, said, "No, I think we'll stay local for now":
For many of us young evangelicals, the Moral Majority and its demise unveiled for us the deceptions of power. We walked away from politics as we knew it because we didn't like who it made us. But we believe there is a better way, and we've tried to learn that Way from Jesus.
As I understand it, new monasticism is trying to learn what it means to live by the power of the Spirit in a world of competing powers. This means, first of all, that we give ourselves to prayer, trusting that there's time to listen in a world of urgent needs. The most radical thing we can do in a world wrecked by injustice is to open our imaginations to prayer. If we want to transform the world, we have to begin with our own conversions. As Gandhi said, "We must be the change we seek."
... New monasticism is not against political organizing, or, as Dr. King said in 1968, "taking the nonviolent movement international." ... But our witness there will only be credible if we've taken the time to be converted ourselves and to build communities of justice and peace where it is easier to be good. We won't end global poverty until we learn to care for the poor in our communities. Our cries for world peace will fall on deaf ears until we learn to live peaceably as Christians.
But when I read the story of the Way of Jesus in the Bible, I don't see him or his disciples limiting themselves only to prayer. I don't see them waiting to perfect themselves before engaging their national community politically. The Jesus movement as presented in the Bible did live differently, but it didn't set itself aside separately and neatly to live only as an example. Jesus didn't lead his followers to form an intentional community set apart; he sent waves of disciples strategically all around the country to deliberately ignite a national movement -- of highly imperfect people -- that shook the foundation of empire. He didn't only walk around saying profound things and hoping that people would get the point; he created intolerable confrontations with authority.
After Jesus, the Bible records the disciples organizing a networked movement of insurgent communities spanning the empire. In some ways, that movement was the inverse of the empire that it was trying to subvert: e.g., practicing enemy love in the face of state terror. But it also was a mirror image of the global reach of empire: e.g., it organized itself at lightning speed and on a global scale using the communication and transportation networks of the empire. (The New Testament itself is mostly made up of the equivalent of interoffice organizational e-mails written by first-century jet-set Christian organizers, constantly pushing, pulling, and teaching far-flung communities.)
On those points, the movement answers: "Okay, maybe, but Jesus never taught us to 'take power.' And so we must limit ourselves to witnessing from the 'bottom' and never try to put ourselves on 'top' in positions of power."
In college, I had friends who went off to join a weird little secretive Maoist party that was active on campus. It was a crazy thing to watch as they transported themselves back in time to the China of the 1940s. All their calculations about making social change here in America were messed up because their paradigm was based on the regime that Mao Zedong's communists lived under as young persecuted revolutionaries. I think there's a bit of that going on with this movement of Christian revolutionaries today. Too often, they're applying the Way of Jesus to our modern-day world as though nothing has changed since the first-century Roman Empire.
But haven't 2,000 years of redemptive history taken place since then? Yes, many places in our societies still look a lot like Rome and many people still suffer violence at the hands of the state on a regular basis -- and we can't forget that. But thousands of years of resistance and subversion has borne fruit. There is something new. Most Christians today live in societies where we can remove, replace, and even become our own political leaders in peaceful elections. Is that an accident? Is it to be ignored? How tragic would it be if the body of Christ opened up new ways for humanity to work together, but Christians were too discouraged to try them? Yes, our democracies are flawed. But maybe the biggest problem with them is our lack of imagination in using them, and our lack of faith in ourselves as leaders. What if the disciples had approached Rome with a similar lack of imagination and faith in themselves? Reading the story of Jesus and the disciples, how often do you hear God telling us, "Hold back! Watch out! Be careful!" I don't hear that at all. I hear instead, "Have faith in me, allow me to work through you, and go for it!"
Jesus lived under an empire that ruled primarily by the cross and the sword. Today we live under an empire that also tortures and kills -- but that is not its primary mode. Our empire neutralizes its citizens with an idea -- one so fundamental to our thinking that we often mistake it for a law of nature: that any attempt by humanity to determine its future intentionally and collectively will always result in failure. Of all people, Christians should not allow that modern ideology of empire to limit their imagination.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
History also shows that any time the Church has tried to align itself with the State, or take over the State, or serve the State, or even be in the majority, she has failed. Yes, the Church should have the power to change events, and change the globe- but it is the power that comes through service, the power that comes through the kenosis of the cross. Jesus' model was not that of the zealots whom he explicitely rejected, but rather emptying himself, and through that emptying being seated on the right hand of the throne of God. We should do no less.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | May 23, 2008 5:56 PM
You are right Zack 9and i have to admit that Jedidiah Palosaai is also right about failed expereiments of the church taking voer the state.
However the movement you speak of Zack amoungst evangelsicals stands in the shadow of great historical characters like (sorry being new Zealander my history points to the UK not the USA) William Willberforce and the clapham sect who both lived a life of seeing justice and change on a personal local level (there are grear scenes in the film Amazing grace of Wilberforces house full of the poor and beggars being feed at the door) and a social level (when England was the empire).
In my whakapapa (a Maori name for family tree) stands Granville Shrap who with Clarkson was the co founder of the movement for the abolishion of slavery.
The movement sprang from his encounter with a slave who had been beaten nearly to death (Johnathan Strong) and from their moved to them addressing a socail evil. Sharp fought in the courts to prove that people could not be seen as chattles and the law lords came to quake when he came into the court.They then went and recruited William Wilberforce whose two great aims in life were to 'reform society and abolish the slave trade' perhaps the movement you see is in the process of looking for and brithing the William Wilberforces they need.
I was encouraged to read in Jim Wallis's book people responding to his preaching by saying yes they wanted to be the Wilberforces and Martin Luther King Jr's of their generation.from memory in the incident that Wallis mentions it was two young women.
Posted by: howard | May 23, 2008 6:48 PM
THE US CONGRESS IS HOLDING 100,000 INNOCENT AMERICAN PRISON INMATES HOSTAGE.
WILL THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HELP RESCUE THESE THOUSANDS OF POORER ENSLAVED AMERICANS ??
NO $$$ NO JUSTICE ** NO LOBBY, NO US SENATE ASSISTANCE ** NO $$ NO LOBBY == 100,000 INNOCENT AMERICANS FALSELY IMPRISONED IN US.
****TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT POORER AMERICAN PRISON INMATES NEED INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR LEGAL FEES IN HELPING THEM ATTEMPT TO EXONERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE US PENAL COLONIES !!
Most Americans are well aware that there are plenty of innocent poorer US citizens in our prison systems nationwide,but very few of us have ever heard about our US Congressional representatives who are mostly lawyers themselves, denying our Middle Class and Working Poor Americans proper legal counsel for their federal appeals.
When any poorer American is charged with a Federal crime all legal costs and appeals are paid for,but when one is charged in the various 50 states and run out of higher court state appeal opportunities and need to appeal to the Federal courts,it appears that these poorer and mostly uneducated prison inmates are left to their own best lawyering skills to attempt to write a federal appeal that could sway a US Federal judge to grant them a new retrial.
Our US Congressional Representatives sleep soundly every night knowing there are reported to be an estimated 100,000 innocent Americans (some residing for decades even on death row) in our US Prisons who have been denied proper legal counsel to help them attempt to exonerate themselves with their Federal Appeals? (lawyersforpooramericans@uahoo.com)
Posted by: Douglas Field | May 23, 2008 8:03 PM
Douglas,
Why isn't Lawyers for Poor Americans focusing on representing poor Americans who are being forced out of their jobs, so wealthy corporate fatcats can gut wages to fatten their profits? Sueing corporations and business for violating Davis Bacon laws that protect wage standards.
Why isn't Lawyers for Poor Americans actually representing poor citizens whose civil and human rights are violated on a daily basis? Perhaps 'cause you're not really interested in helping poor Americans?
Posted by: J Perrry | May 23, 2008 9:34 PM
I think you may want to take a closer look at mainline denominations before you make such a blatant statement. In fact, I think a lot of the movement in Christianity you are describing is happening quietly within many of our mainline "liberal" denominations.
Posted by: Andy | May 23, 2008 9:51 PM
I FIND THIS ARTICAL VERY INTERESTING, THE LAST PART REALLY GOT ME.I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT LETTING THE PERSON THAT I'M TALKING TO ABOUT GOD, TO TELL ME WHAT THERE PROBLEMS WERE FIRST,THIS WOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO,LET ME TELL THEM THE THINGS THAT GOD CAN DO TO HELP WITH THERE PROBLEMS.THEN THE HOLY HEASPIRIT CAN TAKE OVER AND THEN THEY WOULD FEEL IT IN THERE HEARTS. ANYWAY I THINK I WILL TRY THIS. I ALWAYS ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT TO SPEAK THOUGH ME TO HELP OTHERS. WITH MUCH RESPECT, DONNA THOMPSON
Posted by: DONNA THOMPSON | May 23, 2008 9:55 PM
Zack Exley writes:
Jesus lived under an empire that ruled primarily by the cross and the sword. Today we live under an empire that also tortures and kills -- but that is not its primary mode. Our empire neutralizes its citizens with an idea -- one so fundamental to our thinking that we often mistake it for a law of nature: that any attempt by humanity to determine its future intentionally and collectively will always result in failure. Of all people, Christians should not allow that modern ideology of empire to limit their imagination.
First of all, I'm not aware of any claim that collective action must end in failure. What I am certain of is that the left's vision of collective action, imposed top-down by governments, has a long history of hideous and oppressive failures. (For instance, Communist China's Cultural Revolution) By contrast, small, organic communities that start small and grow larger by a process of voluntary association have a reasonable chance of success.
I also think that, while the old Christian Right (that of Falwell and Robertson) suffered from some serious flaws, it was used by God to accomplish some useful things.
First off, evangelicals learned important lessons about the uses and limitations of political power. Second, it converted fundamentalist Christians, who had isolated themselves from the larger society, into evangelicals, who are much less afraid of engagement with the larger society. And third, while their political success was not total, they succeeded in checking the expansion of government social service programs, giving church groups of all stripes more room in which to act out the Great Commission.
At some point I'm pretty sure there will be a need for Christians to return to political activism. Hopefully when that time comes it will be with more understanding and subtlety than the original Moral Majority or Christian Coalition had. But I would not assume that in the future Christian political goals will be directly opposite those of the old religious right.
At any rate, I see no need for the new monastics to rush into taking power.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 23, 2008 10:17 PM
Jedidiah,
I think that is equating some things that are not the same. In our time, someone can empty themselves in service as a political leader. It's very hard to do well, but doesn't God sometimes call us to the most difficult things? It's also something that can't be done individually or locally. A single principled leader will be obliterated. Jesus said, "Be as shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves." We need to be strategic -- e.g. maybe go up in there a whole bunch of us at once.
I'm not suggesting that the Church try to "take over the state." When Christian teachers teach well, are they "taking over the schools?" Christians who are called to public office should just pour themselves out in service of others, just the same as people do in other professions. To live in service of others from public office was impossible in Rome because officeholders were required by that system to serve Caesar, not the people -- and in the most horrific ways.
Our system is different. It actually is. It's not perfect. But to say that it's the same as Rome is writing off the fruit of so many good people's redemptive work over the centuries. We see evil in the state and so we reject the state outright. But that doesn't make any sense. There is evil in the schools, in the health care system -- in the Church itself. Didn't Jesus teach us to dive right into the midst of evil?
Some of the Old Testament has echoes of a society that governed itself as a community, not as a kingdom or empire. Ever wonder who, in those times, who administered Jubilee? Some people had to take on the yoke of leadership. God clearly called his people to take on that responsibility, not to shirk it.
That didn't mean that some people lorded power over others. If all things are possible through God, then shouldn't it be possible to organize ourselves peacefully and beneficially -- even on a very large scale?
In the Old Testament we read about a people who found it difficult to maintain community, and eventually decided to take the easy way out: They went for a king. In America -- and in most countries -- we don't have a king. Could it be that 2000 years later, the gospel has had some effect on our societies?
Maybe when Israel was yearning for a king, there were some who said, "Let's just go live in the wilderness." Maybe those people should have said, instead, "Let's throw everything we have into making this big community work."
Posted by: Zack Exley | May 23, 2008 10:19 PM
Wolverine: "while their political success was not total, they succeeded in checking the expansion of government social service programs"
True enough, and there has always been plenty wrong with government social service programs. Specifically, they were never designed to benefit those who are most in need. If you don't believe me, try asking for help sometime.
You will find that you must spend countless hours going from one office to another with an armload of documentation proving that what you have been telling them over and over again is the truth. Once you become "certified", you must fill out the same form with the same information every few months to "recertify".
Medicaid? What a joke! Not that private insurance is much better these days.
And what did those evangelical supporters of "Conservatives" do with their influence besides supporting globalization and huge tax cuts for the haves to have it all. Those tax cuts were used to create jobs off-shore while burdening local and state governments with unfunded mandates. Consequently, conservatives have pushed for local tax cuts while our roads and bridges are falling apart.
Flat tax proposals are a smoke-screen to eliminate ALL taxes on the wealthy. Remember Steve Forbes' generous package that wouldn't tax a family of four on the first $30,000 of income? Mr. Forbes forgot to mention that ALL of his income would be exempt--as the rich learned a long time ago how to fashion a compensation package that shelters much of their income. Some of y'all may be old enough to remember the $1.00 salaries of executives when the top tax rate was over 90%. This would just be the next logical step in achieving total freedom from taxation for the favored few.
But some Evangelicals just keep on keeping on with their rants about "Liberals" who are giving away the store. Maybe they will finally realize that the government gave away the store a long time ago, and both liberals and conservatives of good conscience have been shamefully used and abused in (and by) the process.
We have been polarized by political involvement with the devil himself. Jesus did not organize a political movement or new religion. He inspired a spiritual awakening and gave hope to the helpless, hapless, hopeless souls at the mercy of those who think only of themselves. It is up to those who would follow Him to serve those in need wherever they can be useful without compromise.
If you got this far, I must say that your post was thoughtful and insightful. The enemy is neither liberal nor conservative, but more than willing to use those who are in tightening his grip on a dying world. Personally, I classify myself as moderately liberal on social policy and moderately conservative on fiscal policy. I guess that would make me moderately moderate.
Those who truly believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and wish to do the "right" thing must come to realize that there is no need for political power to be involved in meeting others' needs. All we need is an unshakable faith that God will never lead us astray and a willingness to go where He leads us. For some that will be government service, and I wish them well as they try to navigate the pitfalls of political machinations from both sides.
Posted by: JCinSunnyLA | May 23, 2008 11:32 PM
I describe the Great Schism in the church in the US by saying that he liberals, like the Congregational denomination I grew up in, gave up on the First Great Commandment, 'You shall love the very particular YHWH, your God with everything you've got', and ran with the Second, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' to the denial of the Lord Who'd bought them; whereupon the Fundamentalists, the name they made up for themselves, fell back on the First Great Commandment and abandoned the Second for an inward-turned pietism.
I personally came to know Jesus very young, and in the Congo denomination, I had to read the Bible on my own with no one but the Holy Spirit to tell me what it meant, so I grew up a pietist with a concern for Justice: I thought I was the last Christian; me and Elijah!
After trying for some decades to get along in 'bad-news'– as we said in the Hippie day' 'evangelical' churches, and finding my gifts shunned because of my 'liberal' politics, I wandered into an old friend's ELCA congregation, Bethel Lutheran, here in Madison. Amazing! The Lord had something to show me! I found a congregation and pastors who actually are committed to keeping the Two Great Commandments together.
The Gospel is preached, and…
Our pastor once stated from the pulpit 'Now I'm not talking politics, here, but if the US starts prosecuting churches who minister to illegals'– we have a parallel latino congregation, and we don't ask questions– we're just going to have to be prosecuted.'
Our church likes to undertake positive projects for Lent; we call it '40 Days of Renewal': this year, in the Spirit of our Lord's saying 'You're going to do greater works than I', we undertook to feed 50,000. The Lord must've liked the idea, because in a typical display of Bethel exuberance, we provided 100,000 meals here and in a sister mission-church in Milwaukee!
As we Lutherans say 'Thanks be to God!'
Marvelous to find a congregation that loves the Lord God and demonstrates it in service to our neighbors. And in the Lutheran tradition, it respects intelligent critical thinking, which leaves room for an élitist– that's someone who thinks, right?– like me. So don't sell the liturgical churches short, either!
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | May 23, 2008 11:38 PM
As a recovering Hauerwasian, and Yoderian, still strongly influenced and committed to both thinkers in many respects, I'd like to go on record saying that Zack Exley (who still very much needs to read Hauerwas's critique of liberalism) is taking our "emergent," "pacifist," "post-Constiantinian," "post-liberal" conversation in exaZACKly the direction it needs to go. We neo-Anabaptists need an approach that takes seriously Jesus as a political figure in the tradition of both Jeremiah and David. We need an approach that recognizes Jesus as the king and social critic in one package. We need to remember that Jesus did not eschew power, authority, and greatness, but rather showed us the only trajectory (suffering service) that actually leads to authentic power, authority, and greatness (Mark 10:43-44).
God cares more about systemic justice than he does about our (warranted) fear of power. And as Zack rightly points out, the problem is the consolidation of power into the hands of an elite class (Gen 11, 1 Sam 8), not power itself. This is why Jesus takes the language Caesar applies to himself (peacemaker, son of God) and applies it to the proletariat (Matt 5:9).
So let's take Jesus seriously, take advantage of our (mostly) democratic context, get organized, and make some peace. If the U.S. turns into Rome in retaliation, we neo-Anabaptists are already prepared for that eventuality. If it doesn't, and the marginalized get moved to the center of a new economy, do you really think God's going to shake his finger at us? At the center of the economy is precisely where God wants the marginalized!
Let's go back and read it all again.
Posted by: Thom Stark | May 24, 2008 1:06 AM
Since Zach reads the comments, I would be interested to see his response to our resident comment meanie.
"When Christian teachers teach well, are they "taking over the schools?""
The teachers unions would likely say so, moreso were said teachers deign to mention that they were Christians.
"But to say that it's the same as Rome is writing off the fruit of so many good people's redemptive work over the centuries."
On this, I agree.
"Ever wonder who, in those times, who administered Jubilee? "
Do you think the government should administer Jubilee?
"Maybe when Israel was yearning for a king, there were some who said, "Let's just go live in the wilderness." Maybe those people should have said, instead, "Let's throw everything we have into making this big community work.""
What is the scriptural basis for the idea that they should have made such an effort? The people wanted a king. They got a king.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 24, 2008 1:23 AM
Kevin S.,
You said, "What is the scriptural basis for the idea that they should have made such an effort? The people wanted a king. They got a king."
1 Samuel 8. God gave them a king as punishment for asking for one.
Posted by: Thom Stark | May 24, 2008 2:20 AM
Christ asked that we care for each other, he cared about our behavior and our motives. He derided those who sought to exploit others to gain power.
What I am reading here on Sojourners these days is not advocacy based on Christ's teachings, rather, the same that we saw from the so called moral majority.. it's a Christian in name only movement, and that means it's in no way Christian. It's an attempt to coopt progressive Christians, by some people who are regressive, calculating and oppressive.
Some research reveals a possible motive as to why these people have attached themselves to an online group of progressive Christians, check this out: Anarchist desperate for a movement to hijack
Perhaps they assume that like too many other affluent Americans, you'll be out of touch with reality, and are therefore more easily exploited and coopted.
If you read what Christ advocated, you know that it wasn't about helping to increase poverty and suffering. He would have had a big problem with any preacher forming an alliance with a man who has sought to increase poverty and suffering, all in the name of causing so much pain and privation that those people could be used as pawns. A man who has gotten wealthy working to rationalize selfishness, greed and hatred.
The same man who helped derail John Edwards' campaign, and John Kerry's campaign too. The information is out there, try using google.com to learn more about the author of this blog article.
Posted by: Marie | May 24, 2008 9:49 AM
Posted by: Wolverine | May 23, 2008 10:17 PM
"And third, while their political success was not total, they succeeded in checking the expansion of government social service programs, giving church groups of all stripes more room in which to act out the Great Commission."
So the creation of a society in which the gap between rich and poor has expanded to unprecedented levels, while over 40 million people don't have health insurance, constitutes a success for the Great Commission?
It's statements like this that make good old-fashioned liberals like me think that conservatism is intellectually incoherent.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 24, 2008 2:05 PM
Lest my previous post seem a little too snide (and I honestly worried about that before posting it), let me elaborate a bit on what I mean.
The fact is, whether Christians, conservatives, or anybody else likes it or not, the New Deal dramatically improved the living standards of millions of Americans and made our society the envy of much of the world. When many of those people about whom Zack Exley writes, to whom evangelical Christianity is all but invisible, look at the political movement of which Wolverine speaks, what they see is a bunch of Christians trying to undo all that, with results that have seriously compromised the economic well-being of many, if not most, Americans.
I have enough contact with non-Christian Americans to know that this is often the only face of Christianity that they can see, and that the religious right made more enemies for the Gospel than most of its adherents probably think possible. As a Christian who, like Ted Voth, belongs to a mainline denomination but identifies strongly with the emerging church, I find this deeply worrying. Many people, furthermore, have told me that becoming aware of groups like Sojourners and their activities has made them see Christianity in an entirely different, and more positive, light. That's why, for the sake of the Great Commission, I don't think invisible is the best place for progressive Christianity to be.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 24, 2008 2:22 PM
"1 Samuel 8. God gave them a king as punishment for asking for one. "
Is this intended as a refutation of my point, or are you suggesting that God punished also those who sought alternatives? I'm not sure why you are referencing that passage.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 25, 2008 2:27 AM
"Since Zach reads the comments, I would be interested to see his response to our resident comment meanie."
I am not sure if Zach will respond to you or not.
Posted by: LuckyLoneStarRider | May 25, 2008 9:43 AM
"But our witness there will only be credible if we've taken the time to be converted ourselves and to build communities of justice and peace where it is easier to be good. We won't end global poverty until we learn to care for the poor in our communities. Our cries for world peace will fall on deaf ears until we learn to live peaceably as Christians."
I deeply agree with this perspective, but I think it is only one half of a much larger Gospel-based perspective. Without going into all the details, I don't think social problems can be successfully addressed with individual solutions. A recent blog posting from the Nonviolent Jesus puts it this way, "Apparently most Christians don't even suspect a connection between a society that promotes atomization and competition and the anti-Christian attitudes they profess to deplore. They accept and even bless the mystification of social relationships as the 'human nature', a state of mutual strife to which there can be no alternative. Or they promote a 'one soul at a time' solution in which as individual souls are saved, society will gradually (how gradually?) start to resemble the New Jerusalem." (http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=8111470&postID=1307718447331196125)
I believe that God has endowed us with the ability to effect social change by recreating power relationships. Somehow we must find enough faith to believe that even politics can be redeemed.
Posted by: Boyd Collins | May 25, 2008 4:59 PM
I will respond -- ! But I'm at a friend's wedding this weekend, so haven't been able to yet... Stay tuned...
Posted by: Zack Exley | May 25, 2008 6:03 PM
I got the link to Nonviolent Jesus wrong. The correct link is http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com/2008/05/people-of-resistance.html
Posted by: Boyd Collins | May 25, 2008 6:07 PM
"I believe that God has endowed us with the ability to effect social change by recreating power relationships. Somehow we must find enough faith to believe that even politics can be redeemed."
It doesn't take a lot of faith, just a lot of people with a little bit of faith. But, amen.
Posted by: Thom Stark | May 25, 2008 7:59 PM
I am a recovering religious right person and I admit i was wrong. But when all good works are done or not done do not forget it is not the Gospel. The Gospel is the objective message of the person and work of Christ and the commandment to repent and believe this message. With out the Gospel, all good works are ultimately meaningless.
Posted by: Joseph Grigoletti | May 25, 2008 9:57 PM
Dear Zack,
Working for a christian activist network in The Netherlands (www.timetoturn.nl/new/english.php) I agree we need to tackle structural problems, instead of only individual or local problems. The Old Testament is very clear: we should break the yoke of the oppression. But Jesus shows us that the oppression is inside us, too, and that we should completely give ourselves to God, first (even when paying taxes to Caesar...).
So why can't we choose for a third way: thinking globally, acting locally, as the French christianarchist thinker Ellul put it? We should fight for justice in the IMF, the WTO, the government, the EU, the US, but I think we will be corrupted when we try to join the system. We will be crushed. So we should take a prophetic stance and create new ways of activism. To translate structural injustice to the local level.
An example: there is a Christian, Van Buitenen, working as an accountant for the European Commission (the government here) who discovered mass fraud - the whole EC is a mess, he showed. However, he refused to join the powerplay, to do illegal research, to gossip about his bosses to journalists, etc. After many years it did come out and what happened... the complete government of Europe resigned in 1999 because of his findings.
He believes structures have to change. So he took part in the European elections with a new party: www.europatransparant.nl. He refused to campaign, to make nice posters, to promise the impossible to voters, etc, so he was ridiculed by the press. No ordinary person knew him... but he won 2 of 24 Dutch seats in the European Parliament.
We are not called to join the evil structures and try to change evil from inside. We should speak the truth - and do good - and present ourselves before God - he will use us to change the structures. But I agree with you: for that we definitely need to keep the structures in mind. Think globally, act locally.
Posted by: Frank Mulder, the Netherlands | May 26, 2008 4:45 AM
... and people like Van Buitenen keep their integrity because they find space in the political system without becoming politicians.
Posted by: Frank Mulder, the Netherlands | May 26, 2008 4:51 AM
No, the desire of Christian progressives is that the historical link between Christianity and liberal politics should be re-established.
Liberal as were the Apostles
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 26, 2008 11:33 AM
For the record, the Apostles were neither conservative, nor liberal, in any of the senses we use them today. Many progressives too quickly buy into Liberalism as a system (which includes both "conservatives" and so-called "liberals"), without critiquing at and pursuing a politics more faithful to the Gospel. But when "Conservative as were the Apostles" says that "the Gospel is not going to be altered for politics when all is said and done," he is completely and utterly naive. The Gospel has already been altered for politics, that's why he's comfortable calling the Apostles "conservative."
The bigger problem is the unbiblical assumption that "the gospel" and "politics" are two different things, on two different planes. But we can't be offering hermeneutics class to the underinformed here in a blog thread. It just won't be effective. But this does, Zack, represent one of the biggest challenges to your (and my) desire to see Christians pursue revolutionary political change: for all the power of the Christian revolutionary movement you're trying to document, perspectives like Conservative's here are still a dime a dozen. Religion is the opium of the bourgeoisie.
Posted by: Thom Stark | May 26, 2008 1:31 PM
"For the record, the Apostles were neither conservative, nor liberal."
Hey, I was just trying to show that overstatement can work both ways. :-)
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 26, 2008 1:35 PM
It sure can. No harm, no foul.
Posted by: Thom Stark | May 26, 2008 5:18 PM
"If the desire for progressives, is that Christians should join them in spreading progressive ideology, then, they are in for a big disappointment." Posted by: Conservative as were the Apostles | May 26, 2008 7:52 AM
Despite a two thousand year history Christianity is quite indeed a progressive ideology in itself. Thusly, those that faithfully and inequitably deliver the Good News should be considered progressives themselves. As far as the pen name;(Conservative as were the Apostles) the first century apostles were anything but conservatives within the context of their own social borders. They were scared, ignorant, and confused right up until Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon them - then they became extremely radical, brave and daring disciples. Anything but conservative!
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 27, 2008 9:02 AM
Another Nonymous wrote:
Lest my previous post seem a little too snide (and I honestly worried about that before posting it), let me elaborate a bit on what I mean.
No problemo. I can be caustic too at times.
The fact is, whether Christians, conservatives, or anybody else likes it or not, the New Deal dramatically improved the living standards of millions of Americans and made our society the envy of much of the world.
I'm not so sure that's true: the fact is that unemployment rates remained high throughout the FDR administration until the breakout of WWII. (At which point a lot of young men gained employment, albeit in some very dangerous lines of work.) And the US was a wealthy nation before the New Deal took effect -- the Great Depression wasn't just an American event, it was a part of a global economic upheaval.
There is a case to be made for a lot of the New Deal programs, especially those that provided jobs for those who simply could not find work in the private sector, but at best the New Deal kept the symptoms in check, it didn't deal with the underlying causes (in particular the breakdown of international trade) and real prosperity did not return until the war was over.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 27, 2008 7:20 PM
...and just a bit earlier Another Nonymous wrote:
So the creation of a society in which the gap between rich and poor has expanded to unprecedented levels, while over 40 million people don't have health insurance, constitutes a success for the Great Commission?
Not exactly, but here we get back to the old argument: would government-run health care be any better?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 27, 2008 7:22 PM
"Not exactly, but here we get back to the old argument: would government-run health care be any better?"
I think it would, but the issue I was addressing was really one of perception. In his wonderful book "What's So Amazing About Grace?", Philip Yancey reported talking with a man who told him he thought Christianity posed a bigger threat to American democracy than the Soviet Union ever did. His comment was: "Can he really believe that?" To which, when I read it, I responded: "Yancey, you really need to get out of Colorado Springs more. Of course he believes that, and so do millions of other Americans."
My main point is that Christianity has an image problem, and that the religious right made it worse, not better. That fact is directly tied to the reality that many people's lives have also gotten worse, not better, over the last three decades. Whether the New Deal was responsible for their earlier success, and whether government-run health care would improve their lot, the fact is that many of them blame the religious right and its political allies for a whole host of ills. That's why I say that the political success of the religious right has been a disaster for the Great Commission, not a success.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 27, 2008 7:41 PM
Insurgent communities trying to subvert the empire by practicing love? You've certainly put your own spin on history and on what's recorded in the New Testament. After all, didn't Jesus point out that one should render to Caesar what is Caesar's? Don't think that subversion of the Roman Empire was a priority for those early Christians. They were searchers who became believers and, consequently, lived out their faith in love and community.
Posted by: judithod | May 27, 2008 9:54 PM
Frank, I think it's all just a case of Both+And, not either/or.
> The Old Testament is very clear: we should break the yoke of the
> oppression. But Jesus shows us that the oppression is inside us,
> too, and that we should completely give ourselves to God, first
> (even when paying taxes to Caesar...).
>
I don't see in the Bible where Jesus says we have to finish perfecting ourselves *first*. Instead, he sends his very imperfect disciples off to start the revolution and seemed to believe that they could only give themselves completely to God through local and global change.
> So why can't we choose for a third way: thinking globally, acting
> locally, as the French christianarchist thinker Ellul put it?
That's not a third way, that's one of the two currently acceptable ways empire is comfortable with. Think Globally, Act Locally. or... Think Locally (about only your community), Act Globally (to extract wealth from everyone else). Empire is OK with those two modes. Because the first is a harmless buzz in the background of the second.
The radical Third Way is simple:
Think Globally, Act Locally.
Think Locally, Act Globally. (i.e. base our global politics on a grounded local, real world practice and integrity.)
> We
> should fight for justice in the IMF, the WTO, the government, the
> EU, the US, but I think we will be corrupted when we try to join
> the system. We will be crushed.
That's what I don't get about this generation. Why are we worried about being crushed? Why don't we have faith that through God amazing things are possible? Why do we believe that *only* when it comes to a homeless shelter or a rehab clinic, and not a congress or parliament? Why do we think God can use us in only those kinds of local challenges, but not in national/global ones?
> So we should take a prophetic
> stance and create new ways of activism. To translate structural
> injustice to the local level.
>
Yes, we have to do that! But the Bible wasn't only about prophets. We are also called to lead, to build.
> An example: there is a Christian, Van Buitenen, working as an
> accountant for the European Commission (the government here) who
> discovered mass fraud - the whole EC is a mess, he showed.
> However, he refused to join the powerplay, to do illegal
> research, to gossip about his bosses to journalists, etc. After
> many years it did come out and what happened... the complete
> government of Europe resigned in 1999 because of his findings.
>
> He believes structures have to change. So he took part in the
> European elections with a new party: www.europatransparant.nl. He
> refused to campaign, to make nice posters, to promise the
> impossible to voters, etc, so he was ridiculed by the press. No
> ordinary person knew him... but he won 2 of 24 Dutch seats in the
> European Parliament.
>
Hm...think how many more seats he would have won if he had campaigned (in a strictly principled way too). What if God was giving him an incredible opportunity, and he was leaving it on the ground?
I have no idea how to understand the switch from violence to non-violence from the Old to New Testaments. But what if Van Buitenen was being handed the non-violent equivalent of David's sling? And he was refusing to use it. One of the miracles of our age is that we have the mechanisms to govern ourselves non-violently. Van Buitenen was elected. Maybe he was meant to sweep the old parties out of power. I don't like to anthropomorphize God like that. But you get my meaning? i.e. This guy had an opportunity to help his community -- his global community -- but he passed it up so that he wouldn't be "forcing" anything on anyone. But what is being forced in a democratic election?
> We are not called to join the evil structures and try to change
> evil from inside. We should speak the truth - and do good - and
> present ourselves before God - he will use us to change the
> structures.
That just doesn't seem Biblical to me. I can, however, find that in any Econ 101 textbook here in the States.
Posted by: Zack Exley | May 27, 2008 10:57 PM
> Since Zack reads the comments, I would be interested to see his response to
> our resident comment meanie.
>
> "When Christian teachers teach well, are they "taking over the schools?""
>
> The teachers unions would likely say so, moreso were said teachers deign to
> mention that they were Christians.
>
HUH??? I think you're saying, "Teachers unions do in fact try to take over the schools." But without even getting into the truth or fiction about teachers unions, the analogy doesn't fit. The power-hungry teachers union you're imagining isn't trying to teach well, it's trying to look out for it's members interests. So you're just ignoring my analogy and replacing it with another. I stand by my original analogy! ;-)
>
> "Ever wonder who, in those times, who administered Jubilee? "
>
> Do you think the government should administer Jubilee?
>
I'm trying to remind us that SOME PEOPLE administered Jubilee. The leaders of the community (not dictators, not kings, not occupiers, etc...) had to work out some really difficult problems. Just imagine the pressure coming at them from the people who had gained the most in the period leading up to Jubilee. In fact, this is a problem that human communities have been solving since the beginning.
> "Maybe when Israel was yearning for a king, there were some who said,
> "Let's just go live in the wilderness." Maybe those people should have
> said, instead, "Let's throw everything we have into making this big
> community work.""
>
> What is the scriptural basis for the idea that they should have made such
> an effort? The people wanted a king. They got a king.
The scriptural basis is that God seems to hope that we will work together for a better way. He was intensely disappointed when our ancestors gave up on governing themselves to opt for a King. But you're right, he gave us one. What better proof could we have to show that It's Up To Us. God engages humanity, but he seems to be constantly leaving our fate largely in our own hands.
Now, in this new generation, we seem to be saying, "No Thanks God, we don't want to get our hands dirty with our own messy, fallen fate."
Posted by: Zack Exley | May 27, 2008 11:20 PM
Don't think that subversion of the Roman Empire was a priority for those early Christians. They were searchers who became believers and, consequently, lived out their faith in love and community.
Uh -- not quite. Saying that "Jesus is LORD" rather than "Caesar is Lord" was by definiton a subversive act. Besides, even Paul told the churches, "Obey Roman law, but here's how you can get around that and still glorify God." Properly understood, his commands were indeed subversive.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 27, 2008 11:25 PM
"...at best the New Deal kept the symptoms in check, it didn't deal with the underlying causes..."
That's exactly what the socialists and communists of the day said, that FDR was using the New Deal to give the kiss of life to capitalism when socialism was becoming increasingly popular. Those folks who would like to unravel all the New Deal/Great Society programs seem to forget that when people become disenfranchised with no relief, they revolt big time. And you'd all like that, wouldn't you?
Posted by: I and I | May 27, 2008 11:51 PM
Uh -- not quite. Saying that "Jesus is LORD" rather than "Caesar is Lord" was by definiton a subversive act. Besides, even Paul told the churches, "Obey Roman law, but here's how you can get around that and still glorify God." Properly understood, his commands were indeed subversive.
Rich, do you have an example of a situation where Paul advised the churches on ways to get around Roman law?
It wouldn't surprise me to discover that Paul did that sort of thing at times -- shrewd as serpants but innocent as lambs -- but finding ways to get around Roman government in order to teach the gospel is not the same thing as intentionally subverting the state.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 28, 2008 10:40 AM
Zack Exley wrote:
The radical Third Way is simple:
Think Globally, Act Locally.
Think Locally, Act Globally. (i.e. base our global politics on a grounded local, real world practice and integrity.)
Huh?
Lemme elaborate: this is all very airy and abstract here, and I am at a loss as to how the "Empire" (cue Darth Vader's theme) can adapt with both thinking locally and acting globally, or thinking globally and acting locally, but is overwhelmed when these abstractions are tied together. Maybe there's something like football strategy going on here: mix up the run and the pass and keep the defense off-balance, but I'm just guessing here as to what Exley's thinking. It might help if we had some specifics.
That's what I don't get about this generation. Why are we worried about being crushed? Why don't we have faith that through God amazing things are possible? Why do we believe that *only* when it comes to a homeless shelter or a rehab clinic, and not a congress or parliament? Why do we think God can use us in only those kinds of local challenges, but not in national/global ones?
Uh, because getting crushed hurts?
Christianity teaches the value of sacrifice, but it doesn't teach us to lay down our lives, treasure, or time willy-nilly. Jesus accepted suffering for a purpose, and for all the emotional turmoil of what is rightly called the Passion, if you read the gospel closely you will see there was a fair amount of calculation behind the whole thing too.
The bottom line is that nobody can be faulted for not making a sacrifice where little can be accomplished.
As any rate, working at a homeless shelter is a real sacrifice; the work is hard, the surroundings aren't pretty, and the pay is usually pretty crappy. Political life is more glamorous but the experience of the Christian Right shows that the temptation of corruption is real and so is the risk that the message of the gospel will be lost in the argument over this bill or that regulation -- and I write this as an avowed conservative.
I obviously disagree with the new monastics on a lot of things but I respect their witness, and I cannot fault them for keeping their distance from a field where they see serious risks and minimal likely rewards.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 28, 2008 11:33 AM
Right on, Wolverine. I have tried to understand just where Zach is coming from and going to. The only conclusion I can reach is that he is talking in circles. Christians cannot engage in chasing their tails if they hope to effective witnesses for the Gospel message.
Posted by: Hermes | May 29, 2008 7:50 AM
Thank you for provoking this conversation.
I have been a community organizer for the last twenty years and also a Jesus follower.
IMHO the way past these contradictions of local versus global is to find ways to bring people and organizations together (connecting the Good)--to build broad local grass-roots networks that can start to really transform communities (beyond just Christian activists).
Don't you think that if we could discover ways to make this happen locally (broad emerging networks dedicated to spiritual awakening and social renewal), that other communities could do the same thing in thier own local culture and dealing with local needs.
Imagine at first hundreds and then thousands of communities within America and then globally heading in the same direction with the same intention? From this would emerge people who would run for office, etc. and work for social justice--but that is just the by-product, not the main purpose. We have to get back to basics--we have got to shift the consciousness on the "outside" first--we have to figure out where we are going first--and on our own terms---beyond any man made political or religious division--even a "new and improved"
Christian one with a social activist flavor.
Here is what we are doing in Reno, NV of all places to nurture this kind of movement.
Community Weavers Group
http://www.itstimereno.org/goodwill.asp
rflyer2@yahoo.com
Posted by: Richard Flyer | May 30, 2008 11:52 AM
This is a great conversation and I would like to keep it going. Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove has just put up a response to Zack. If you would like to see an in-depth analysis of this response, take a look at A Reply to Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove
Posted by: Boyd Collins | June 1, 2008 4:34 PM
Which Americans are interested in protecting our innocent US prison inmates??
We have all been made publicly aware that Americas 100,000 innocent and falsely imprisoned American inmates nationwide,have no real assistance or protections afforded them by our US Congress concerning their federal retrial appeals!
How in the world can affluent guilty American defendants with proper federal appeal legal counsel,have the greater advantage of receiving new retrials being granted them from our US Federal Judges,then the tens of thousands of innocent poor American prison inmates who are being forced to represent their own federal appeal legal cases from prison??
Innocent but poor prison inmates who are being denied new federal appeal retrials in mass all across our nation,have never had anyone in America interested in focusing on their horror of being falsely imprisoned for decades in the wealthies nation in the world. Without proper legal assistance being afforded these innocent prison inmates,they will never really ever be capable of exonerating themselves through the federal appeal judicial process!
We ask every caring and loving American to just attempt to put yourself into this same exact situation for just one minute in your mind. Being falsely imprisoned in an American prison for 25 or 30 years without the US Congress affording you proper legal counsel to ever have the slightest opportunity to possibly exonerate yourself using the federal appeal process.
Lawyers for poor Americans has just recently begun our national educational plea for the hearts and souls of the American people concerning this injustice,and our mission of exposing this injustice and freeing all of our innocent fellow Americans from our national prisons, will not stop until our US Congress legislates the needed and proper funding to bring our innocent and missing American prison inmates back home !!!
Posted by: Douglas Field | June 3, 2008 8:23 PM
SENATOR OBAMA PLEASE LET AMERICA KNOW YOUR TRUE FEELINGS CONCERNING THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL INJUSTICE ???
WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESISENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRUELY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????
** SADLY THIS REPRESSIVE JUDICIAL INJUSTICE HAS BECOME AN AMERICAN ART FORM !!!
*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE::
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com
Posted by: DOUGLAS FIELD | August 27, 2008 4:37 PM
DO POORER AMERICANS NEED GOD TO LOBBY THE US CONGRESS SENATOR OBAMA ???
SURELY OUR US CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD & US SUPREME COURT BOTH KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WRONGFUL GEORGIA STATE MURDER OR A POSSIBLE EXECUTION IN GEORGIA NEXT WEEK ???
SADLY, OUR US CONGRESS CONTINUES TO DENY MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING POOR AMERICANS PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION EVEN THOUGH WRONGFUL EXECUTIONS & FALSE INCARCERATIONS CONTINUE ALL ACROSS AMERICA ???
*** 700 BILLION $$$ AVAILABLE FOR US BAILOUT,& NO $$$ FOR ALL POORER AMERICANS PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION OR RETRIALS WHEN NEEDED ???????
WHERE ARE AMERICA'S RELIGIOUS LEADERS ????????????
SENATOR OBAMA, THIS JUDICIAL INJUSTICE HAS BECOME AN AMERICAN ART FORM, AND NO LONGER CAN BE KEPT HIDDEN OR SECRET FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVEN IF CERTAIN (501c3) U$ RELIGIOU$ LEADER$ HAVE BEEN $ILENCED ??
LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS CONTINUE TO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA'S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????
WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL INJUSTICE CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK & LATINO AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????
*** WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus with our US FEDERAL COURTS and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com
(424-247-2013)
Posted by: DOUGLAS FIELD | October 2, 2008 8:59 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?