Author: nixontp

Donald Trump is the worst candidate for the 2024 Presidential election. His former Defense Secretary Mark Esper called him a “threat to democracy.” His former national security advisor John Bolton declared him “unfit to be president” and his former Vice President Mike Pence has failed to endorse him, citing “profound differences.” Other former aids testified against him before the Congressional January 6 committee warning of the threat he posed to the nation if he is re-elected to the White House. 

Yet, Trump is not the one that is being abandoned by his supporters, after telling over 28 lies during the Presidential debate with Biden on Thursday, June 27, 2024. It is President Joe Biden, the embattled democratic nominee running for re-election because of his lack luster performance that caused Americans to wondering about his mental acuity and intellectual fitness to continue as President of the United States. It appears that the robust distortions inflicted by FOX News and its conservative cohorts for the past three and half years has done much to stifle his stellar record of accomplishments during his presidency by insinuating that he is too old and mentally challenged. It is truly difficult to understand but these days perception IS reality.

But let’s consider some real facts for a moment. Do debates really measure the true test of a president? Do they in any way assess what a president does when making decisions and how a president functions in his/her regular duties and responsibilities in the White house. When a crisis occurs and when serious challenges arise and decisions are made, do presidents swing into debate mode to arrive at a solution? The plain realistic answer is no. This kind of banter has no semblance with reality.

Reality would follow a much more measured, ordered, sensible process. The modern president functions with a host of support staff with seasoned government professionals, personal advisors, aids, experts, intelligence personnel and experienced counselors that would give him/her the most exhaustive and specialized analysis and information from all sides and all angles of any situation that they would need to address when he/she is challenged to make a decision. The president would not be involved or required to make some split second, off the cuff, two minute debate answer.

The real issue is, why are debates used to determine ones fitness for the office of the presidency when it does not properly measure ones fitness for the office? A president is not a debater, a president is a decision-maker. A president is a coalition-builder. A president is someone that is called to make generation-changing decisions for the future destiny of the world. Someone whose philosophies, ideologies and decisions can be responsible for sending America’s children and grandchildren into harms way to defend our nation and its allies.

What we need to know is, does the person that is called to assess, process, analyze, and assimilate that information as president have the moral fitness, the character, the principles, the ethics, the experience, the mental fortitude, the will, the competence, the courage and the decency of his/her convictions to be trusted to make these ultimate decisions in the best interests of the United States of America and not themselves. Can and will that person put America first and not themselves or their own best interests. Do you believe that when that person makes the ultimate life and death decisions that can change the course of human history for generations to come, they can be trusted with such responsibilities. Will they remember that if they must send our sons and daughters into harms way to defend and protect the interests of our nation and/or our allies they will view our children as precious as their own. These are the real questions that one must weigh in evaluating the person they are selecting to be President of the United States of America.

As you examine the choice between the two candidates, who do you trust to make that decision? And that is the discussion that the democratic party should have the nation engaged in.

The great flaw and failure of the democrats is their inability to shape and control the narrative. Too often they allow the media, the MAGA Republicans and Donald Trump, a convicted felon, to control the narrative. What is wrong with them? Why are they so fickled and so weak—kneed. 

They must seize the opportunity, change the narrative, unite behind their candidate Joe Biden and explain that debates do not determine or define the office of the presidency; decision—making does. They should argue, who is the best decision maker between the two candidates, Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

Joe Biden, the one that was able to build bipartisan coalitions and pass all of the legislation he has enacted in the past 3 1/2 years or Donald Trump, the divider, the adulterer, the convicted felon, the January 6 insurrectionist, and the twice impeached president, which?

The democrats need to wake up and change the narrative before the nation forgets what presidents really do and what presidential elections are really about. And you need to wake up as well.

“Never Forget,” what does it mean. Many have associated this phrase with the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, when six million Jews were senselessly slaughtered by the Nazis for no known reason other than the fact that they were Jews. The phrase itself was first used as part of Allied de—Nazification efforts, when an exhibition entitled “Never Forget” opened on September 14, 1946, in Vienna to memorialize the tragic crime against humanity administered by Nazi Germany against the Jewish people. 

Since that time the Jewish people have ensured that no one on the earth would ever forget what was done to them, while all the world watched and did nothing to stop the atrocities inflicted upon them in plain sight by Hitler and Nazi Germany. And the result of the Jews dogged determination to ensure that the world would never allow such inhumane treatment to ever be inflicted upon them again, caused the U.S. Congress to summon several presidents from some of the most prestigious universities in America to address the public protests that students have engaged in on their campuses. The reason has been because of the rhetoric some protesters have used mentioning things like “genocide” directed toward Israel and/or the Jewish community. 

Academic freedom and free speech became an issue, as each president attempted to traverse the fine line between intellectual freedom and the moral standards of civility and human decency on their campuses. When the presidents were asked about the calls by some for the genocide of Jews in their protests and how they would characterize such speech, for some reason the presidents found it difficult to denounce such speech as out of bounds and beyond the pale of moral civility or free speech. One of the presidents has already resigned and apologized for her hesitance and equivocation on the matter. It is clear that such ambiguity on an issue that in any way threatens the safety, security and welfare of the Jewish community or the nation of Israel is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the United States of America by anyone, even though America has played no direct role in causing any of the harm that has been imposed upon the Jews in the past.

As I reflected on this chain of events and how definitive and exacting the entire society is on any issue that in anyway threatens the dignity, integrity, honor or safety of the Jewish community. When I think of how quickly and unequivocally any attempt that is made to dismiss, deny or reinvent the factual history of what happened to the Jewish people during their holocaust is immediately denounced and negated by all quarters of society. When I realize how much no one would allow or tolerate such things to ever happen or be done to the the nation of Israel or the Jewish people by anyone in America. As an African American, I am amazed that in recent days, similar attacks directed toward the African American Community seem to be not only tolerated but encouraged; by a nation that is directly responsible for atrocities they have exacted upon African Americans that far exceed what was done to the Jews during the holocaust.

Let me be very clear, I wholeheartedly stand shoulder—to—shoulder with my Jewish Brothers and Sisters against any and all attempts by any and all systems or people that would attempt to belittle, denigrate or dismiss the tragic and heinous genocide that was imposed upon them by Nazi Germany. I am equally horrified by anyone that attempts to claim that the holocaust never happened or that claim, the Jewish people themselves were responsible for the holocaust inflicted upon them. Such ideology or thinking is evil and demonic. It represents an inability to admit the wrong that has been committed by one group of people upon another and represents an unwillingness to take responsibility for one’s actions. There is never an excuse for such a response for the wrongs one has done to someone else and such thinking and behavior reveals a deep moral lapse and social disorder that needs serious attention to those who hold such views.

Having said that, I find the manner in which America collectively and publicly has related to the African American community in recents days, and the way it has attempted to dismiss, negate, invalidate or reinvent the African American past to not only vicious, vindictive, cowardly, intellectually vacuous, historically mendacious and shamefully unChristian; but unAmerican and morally wrong.

My specific reference relates to the recent national movement that has been mounted to nullify and erase anything that in some way truthfully and accurately presents the history of the African American experience that reveals and exposes the atrocities and sins of America’s past. To pass state legislation that refuses to teach “African American” history and specifically single out a particular ethnic community, the same community that you as a nation held in legal slavery for 245 years and legal segregation for an additional 100 years is depraved, profane and morally bankrupt. And the reason given for refusing to teach African American history, no matter how true and accurate it may be, as stated in the legislation is because teaching African American history may cause: “A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin to…feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.”[Florida Legislation Against teaching that Cause Ill Feelings from Wrong Acts]

So if a student may feel guilt, anguish or distress when they learn about the past acts of racism, genocide, slavery, lynching, rape, Jim Crow Segregation and other heinous incidents of inhumanity that America imposed upon African Americans, because those responsible for administering the oppressive injustices against African Americans is of the same race as the students they should not learn the truth about the past. And Americans have wholeheartedly embraced this as an acceptable means of dealing with its past history of racism, genocide, exploitation, inhumanity and other immoral atrocities administered by white Americans corporately and individually against African Americans and refusing to have the history taught. Really… 

Let me ask some opened questions to everyone. Where do we get the idea that hiding, rewriting or denying the facts of history is good for any society or people? Since when is refusing to face the truth about oneself and the truth about their past a healthy way for an individual or a community to become healthy and well adjusted. When has denial ever been a healthy means of dealing with any situation in life no matter how painful it may be. Denial never resolves the reality of facing the truth and only delays the inevitable. And the result of such a path only leads to feelings of isolation, anxiety and sadness; the very emotions that the legislation which forbids the teaching of African American history claims it is trying to help students avoid experiencing.

And where does the notion come from that feeling guilt or anguish for doing wrong, a negative reaction or response to immoral or wrong acts of behavior against other people. Guilt is an important response that every normal human needs whenever they do something wrong. It is what every normal humans inner restraining system does to control their actions and tell them that something they’ve done is wrong, or that they’ve gone too far. It is their inner warning signal, their stop light that tells them to press the brake and stop.

When a person feels guilt for doing something wrong or recognizes wrong when it is done by someone else, even someone they know and love, it’s called having a moral conscience. That is a good thing that we should all encourage and celebrate in ourselves and others. When a person has no conscience or feels no guilt or shame for the wrongs they do, we call that kind of person a sociopath. People without a conscience that feel no guilt or shame when doing wrong or inflicting pain upon others can become mass murderers and a danger to society. Is this the intent behind the legislation being passed across the nation in many states in America that is outlawing the teaching of African American history because it may cause some students to feel guilt or shame for the past wrongs that have been done in America. Are we trying to breed a generation of vacuous, conscienceless sociopaths who feel no guilt or shame for exploiting, demeaning or discriminating against other people that are unlike them?   

And to be clear, the Bible says facing the truth about ourselves and feeling remorse and guilt when a person does wrong is needed to cause a person to seek God’s grace and mercy. It says in Proverbs 28:13–14 NLT—“People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy. Blessed are those who fear to do wrong, but the stubborn are headed for serious trouble.” When Cain tried to ignore the wrong he did when he murdered of his brother Abel, it was God that told him in Genesis 4:10—Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!” The idea of living a thoughtless, guiltless life, ignoring the wrongs that we or that others do does not come from God or the scriptures.

So the question is, who are we really protecting when we attempt to ignore the egregious past of African Americans by dismissing the teaching of African American history. And why is America extending its attack and alienation further by discontinuing, dissecting or dismantling any corrective that in any way promotes or addresses the issue of diversity. These acts are so unlike the way America views and treats the Jewish community that finds everyone in support of everything that affirms its history promotes their existence and serves as a corrective for its community. While several presidents from prestigious secular Ivy league universities were summoned by congress and challenged for allowing the Jewish community to be threatened by hate speech against them on their campuses; on Christian Campuses, some Christian Presidents are dismantling diversity positions and siding with the most conservative elements in the community that have been indifferent and hostile toward the African American Community. How does Christian civilized America explain this kind of duplicity and indifference towards African Americans, the people they are directly responsible for imposing their most egregious acts of harm, oppression and discrimination. Why are all negative acts and behavior toward the Jewish community denounced while at the same time negative pronouncements, legislation and actions toward the African American community being welcomed and embraced in some circles.

Right now on one particular Christian Campus the University President has decided, as one of his first administrative acts, to dismantle the V.P. for Diversity position, a position created as a corrective for a history of past acts of racial insensitivity and discrimination practiced by the institution. However, the president says this dismemberment of the position is to “align” the department with the university’s mission. What mission could that possibly be when one examines the university’s racial past. A past filled with a history of racial bias and discrimination. If the president carefully investigated the institutions past before he made this ill—advised decision he would have realized how desperately the institution needs to buttress the diversity position not dismantle it. Why are some conservative Christians so anti-diversity and anti any attempts to correct past ills of racial bias and discrimination and instead push to dismantle anything that requires them to face and/or confront the sins or moral failings of the past? Where do they get this proclivity from? It certainly is not Biblical or Christian. 

It should be noted that those who agree with the decisions to dismantle the diversity program of the university have never been seen to champion any correctives to address the past discriminatory practices of the institution. They have been narrow in their views, have espoused, agreed or practiced biased and discriminatory positions and have falsely attacked diversity programs with slanderous and misleading information. This is not the kind of community that any president should have as an ally or proponent in promoting any new initiative he is presenting on a Christian university campus. This alone should raise a red flag when making such a decision.

When asked very pointed questions about the reason for this drastic ill-advised change, the president has given no reasonable or Christian reason for his decision. Using “God—speak” and “religious rhetoric” does not make the secular or discriminatory spiritual. Calling something “missional,” does not mean it is mission—driven. No one person, entity or community of people own God, His position, His purposes or speak for God as His lone oracle. God does not work through some secret entity that alone has a sole connection with Him that no one else has access to. When Peter thought God’s spirit and anointing was only reserved for the Jews, God revealed He is “No respecter of persons.”  

However, It appears based on his actions, that the president feels he is accountable to no one but himself and/or some constituency that does not include the African American community or others that do not think as he does. What is most troubling is that it seems he feels he does not have to represent these constituencies. Of recent days, there seems to be a growing number of people in leadership that no longer believe they have a responsibility to represent certain communities or people groups that are not a part of their constituency. This attitude or thinking in the 21st Century is no longer acceptable, especially among Christian leaders. No President should be allowed to lead any institution, especially a Christian University, where young impressionable minds are being shaped, that believes he or she is not accountable to or does not represents the entire constituency of that institution. 

So, today, on December 12, 2023, I am specifically calling out the President of Andrews University who has displayed by his behavior, rhetoric and actions, that he is unresponsive to certain segments of the university constituency, that are unlike him in their appearance, thinking, philosophy and understanding. He has shown by his actions, exchanges, and decisions, an exclusivity toward the African American community specifically and other constituent groups, whose lives and experiences differ from his. This close-minded way of thinking and operating is not in keeping with Christian principles and moral values. It does not comport with the Christian precept of servant leadership that was practiced and modeled by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. I therefore am calling for an immediate investigation into his recent actions regarding the restructuring and or dismantling of the V.P. for Diversity Position of the Campus of Andrews University, a position that was created to address the past history of inequity that existed in the institution and his fitness to serve as President of Andrews University. No one that exhibits these characteristics, and ignores these important issues of inclusion and diversity, should serve as the president of a university with the second highest ethnic diversity index of 0.77 in the United States.

This is the first step in a process of investigation that I am calling to be initiated by the Board of Trustees. I will be sending a similar letter to the Chair and Vice Chair of the AU Board, asking for an immediate response to this request. As an alum of Andrews University, twice a graduate, a former employee of close to sixteen years and a present employee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of over 40 years I expect my request to be taken very seriously. If it is not I will take further steps with regard to this matter. 

The Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership in recent years has taken a direction that many have observed to be insensitive to a growing number of its membership. This insensitivity has been noticeably felt by the absence in our church of the millennial generation and others who feel disaffected, ignored and forgotten in growing numbers. This is a reality that I am pained to acknowledge. The leadership of our church seems to be drifting away from its people whom they are no longer accountable to when making decisions. But the insensitive detachment from the body of Christ must be called into question and challenged by those that love Jesus Christ and love His people, His church. 

There are some that may misinterpret or misunderstand the impetus behind this lengthy discourse. And there will be some who will be tempted to attribute it to bitterness, anger, hate or some personal attack against one or some individual; it is not. None of those things are the motivating factor behind this. After spending nearly sixteen years on the Campus of Andrews University and forty plus years of pastoral ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there is no issue more important and more critical for the Adventist church to address than the issue of diversity and inclusion. This is not a political or social issue. This is a moral Christian issue and the time has come for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to make a decision on this issue for Jesus Christ and what represents Him and the unconditional love, equality and acceptance of humanity. And on this issue I will neither apologize nor equivocate. The greatest, thorough, honest and most incisive analyses are always prompted by love. It was Martin King who said, “The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.”—MLK Jr. “Strength to Love”

When the Brown v Board of Education decision was handed down by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954, officially ending legal segregation in schools and American society, there was one legal scholar that had some misgivings about the decision. His name was Derrick Bell.

Why was Bell so skeptical about the enduring legacy of the ruling. While the devastating detrimental effects of racial segregation to African Americans was clearly and expertly argued by the NAACP legal defense team led by Thurgood Marshall, Bell believed the case had been built on a flawed foundation. Though 240 plus years of legal slavery and another 150 plus years of defacto slavery and second class citizenship called Jim Crow segregation had been legally inflicted upon African Americans and upheld by the judicial system, Bell believed no system of redress for African Americans would ever succeed that was not aligned with the best interests of the white majority.  

Good will and the Christian virtues of love, justice and restoration would never drive America to mete out justice and restore to African Americans what it had so viciously stolen from them mentally, physically, psychologically, economically, culturally and morally.  According to Bell, the only effective means of redress had to be based upon what he called, “interest—convergence.” Simply put, the interests and racial equality of African Americans specifically or minority groups in general, could only occur when those interests aligned or converged with the interests of the “white” majority. And it is that shared interests that could lead to the creation of new laws and policies for the oppressed or disenfranchised community.

Today we can clearly see that Derrick Bell’s analysis was right on target because while Affirmative Action has been an effective means of redress for the offended party, African Americans, it was never seen as aligning with the interests of the White majority. And no matter how successful it has been in bringing some semblance of equity and fairness for African Americans, it was always blamed for discriminating against other offended or disaffected groups, instead of the majority community that controlled all of the power positions and seats in the society. 

And the irony is the philosophical legal framework that was used in coming to this conclusion, is being legislatively outlawed by states across the nation. Critical Race Theory or CRT, as the extreme right wing magas are calling it, has been banned by 18 states already and 36 more have introduced laws or policies that restrict teaching about race and racism. Yet it is that legal analysis, which predicted this day would come over 60 years ago. 

So then, what does it really mean when states are outlawing the teaching of the only legal analysis that correctly predicted that the only acceptable legal way for a minority, oppressed group or community to receive justice is when it aligns that remedy with the best interests of your oppressor. Does such a legal opinion call into question how blind lady justice really is? 

Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion in favor of striking down Affirmative Action writes, “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and will not do so today.” Yet he fails to acknowledge the fact that for over 2 centuries America did have admissions programs that only permitted one race and one gender admission into its institutions of higher learning and continues to do so for legacy admits who do not have the necessary test scores to justify their admission into the prestigious colleges and universities that they attend.   

Next year would have marked the 70th anniversary of the Brown v Board of Education decision to end legal segregation in our schools across America, but on June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court’s decision ensured that there would be no Platinum Jubilee Celebration for Brown.

I recently returned to a place where I spent a significant amount of time in my life and ministry professionally and personally to be a part of a celebration for a colleague’s retirement.  I was a part of the pastoral staff that he led for four decades and my years there (16) were significant in my life and very career shaping for me as well as for my family. 

As I sat in the section designated for the former pastors watching the program that tracked the path of his professional pastoral journey at the church, that was quite significant and extremely impressive, I was struck by what was missing.  It was the lack of recognizing any significant impact that his ministry made to address the issue of racial diversity.  The one segment in the program that alluded to race, was done by another white male, a former administrator that mentioned a sermon that impressed him to make a public apology to a conference in his union for racial wrongs in the past.  But no mention was ever made or alluded to about anything that had ever been done in his ministry to effect any significant racial or cultural change during his 40 years of ministry where he served as pastor. 

If such was indeed the case, why was it omitted from the tribute?  Are such things so opaque or vacuous these days and so unpopular amidst a cancel culture that is outlawing the teaching of African American History and Critical Race Theory, that to mention a Christian Pastors attempts to effect racial change during his 40-year ministry out of place?  Really?

As I watched the female pastors, ushered to the podium to be recognized as hires by the pastor being honored, which is a significant achievement in a conservative conference that opposes women’s ordination, it also crossed my mind that at the same time, only one African American Male Pastor was hired during those same 40 years. I said only one.  And I am not the one.

To be fair to the honoree, the omission was not by his design.  He was not the orchestrator of the event, rather the recipient, therefore he had nothing to do with its choreography. During his ministry he made attempts to address the cultural and racial inequities that existed in the community.  He allowed non-anglo cultural groups to use percussion instruments, particularly drums, to accompany their musical performances in the worship service; something that was never questioned or challenged when anyone of European descent did the same.  He preached sermons on the issues of race and social justice and gradually broached the subject of “white privilege,” a third rail issue for some in his own community. Some of his public positions and stances on the issue were not popular, they were with risk and cost and as a result some of his members left the congregation and attended more conservative churches in the area. So again the oversight was not his, but those that planned the tribute and never carried the same concern for the issue. To them it was invisible and as such not worth mentioning or causing unnecessary discomfort.

Please do not misunderstand me, this was his retirement celebration of 40 years of distinguished and preeminent ministry and service to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the community where he labored. He was and is more than deserving of every accolade and commendation that he received. I have no issue with him, but rather with those that were charged with planning the celebration. Most who played a significant role in the planning of the afternoon tribute had little to no involvement in the ministry of the church community and knew little to nothing about the reality of ministry that happened in areas that did not concern them. Their knowledge represented a small slice of what the reality of his ministry was and they seemed disinterested in exploring beyond what they deemed as unimportant to them. Their vision could not see and did not extend beyond themselves; and that is the tragic reality of life. And while I was not surprised, I was still greatly disappointed.

“The Invisible Man,” Ralph Ellison’s classic novel from 1952, that was declared the greatest novel of the 20th century, tells the story of an African American male that lived in the subterranean cavities of New York City. He assumes this posture because of the way he is treated by the world that he encounters where he is constantly treated as ‘invisible’. No matter how much he tries to fit in and assimilate with the expectations of others, he is still treated as invisible, overlooked and bypassed, never able to measure up to others expectations. The novel is one of the most powerful metaphors for the reality of life in America for the African American Male.  And as we enter the third decade of the 21st century the invisibility of African Americans continues to obtain and in fact seems to extend.

In every segment of the American construct the African American’s visibility continues to recede. While other groups move forward and are becoming more prominent, they do so at the expense of African Americans, not by joining us at the table but by “replacing” us. As more Women, Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, African Caribbeans, Africans, and other immigrant groups assume more prominent and significant roles and positions in the American tapestry, they do so at the expense of African Americans, so that as they increase, African Americans decrease. Should this be the case? Should this be an either or construct among non-white groups; being pitted one against the other by the power structure to contend over the few seats left at the table?

It seems that the most comfortable position for someone like me to be placed in when associating with the larger society professionally or otherwise, is to remain visibly invisible. To be seen and not heard. To be a part of the photo opt but not deciding where the pictures should be placed in the scrap book.  To possibly read the script but not write the script or direct the screen play. To always make myself silent, uncomfortable and disadvantaged so that others can always remain comfortable, advantaged, happy, laughing, smiling and feeling self secure in their success. Like the African Americans of the Antebellum south, persons like me are still, best seen but not heard. We are the silent participants in the success of others, remaining in the background to smile and applaud their achievements.

I applaud the success and achievements of my friend with whom I hold in the highest regard and respect. Few have done the things that God has blessed him to accomplish. God has touched countless lives too numerous for any human to calculate or imagine. Only heaven can truly quantify the impact of his ministry and service. But, perhaps in this blog you were made aware of a few of the omissions in the program.

A few days ago I was in the Laundromat doing what most ordinary everyday people do, washing my clothes. In the place where I do laundry, it is usually empty and this day was no different, maybe one or two other people were there. Great I thought, no distractions, no fighting for the “hottest” dryers, I can get in and out with no problems. 

But sudden the uncomfortable occurred. Two women, one not there to wash clothes, began a very heated shouting match. The language was not something that can be repeated in polite company. I have no idea what the dispute was about, but it escalated until one of the women’s “man” joined the discussion.  This was not a good sign.  The volume increased and then one of them left.  A few minutes later, the one that left, returned with her “man” and a physical altercation ensued. This was not going to end well.  As I watched from a safe distance, I wondered when a weapon would appear, but to my relief that did not happen.  The two, that were not there to wash clothes, rushed out and later two officers came to get a statement from the victim that was left in the laundromat.

As I reflected upon the incident once things were calm, I wondered to myself, what issue could have possibly caused this altercation.  Some misunderstanding, that could have been easily resolved? Possibly some issue that was not a life or death matter, which was inconsequential? In other words, some “silly, stupid argument,” that could have resulted in a serious or deadly ending. But for many, this is a scenario that plays out all too often in many communities and neighborhoods around our country everyday.  Some end as this one did without serious incident, but others with more tragic results.

But, then another thought crossed my mind. How much different was this incident than those happening everyday in different settings by dissimilar groups from diverse backgrounds and stations in life. Those that we consider to be more educated, affluent, influential or distinguished; that we hold in higher esteem and regard.

We see similar discussions on television or podcasts between professional moderators that we give the title “expert,” arguing about matters that are not as complex as they make them sound.  We hear politicians in Washington D.C. shouting down the President of the United States as he speaks to the nation, during a nationally televised State of the Union Address.  Or we listen to those elected to represent us engage in endless debates on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives, and watch as they make no decisions and pass no legislation, blaming each other for their impotence and inactivity.

Even in religious settings, Christians endlessly argue among themselves, finding fault with each other; or debating about issues that have no salvific import, mission objective or kingdom value. And I dare say the same can be said of other faith communities, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

And then I thought of all the conflicts that have caused global strife and worldwide tumult. WWI was triggered by a group of Serbian extremist that wanted to increase Serbian power and challenge the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Their rhetoric and aggression raised tensions that led to the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 and by August of 1914 the war began. It led to 40 million casualties and cost about 20 billion dollars.

The antecedent to WWII was economic depression that swept across the world causing panic and uncertainty among the citizenry making them vulnerable to extreme arguments or positions that sounded like solutions to their problems. It led to the rise of nazism, insularity and the wave of intolerance that arose in Germany. And then Germany found a reasonable argument to invaded Poland, claiming that the Danzing corridor of Poland was inhabited by German people. And this unwarranted aggression led to global conflict. When the war ended between 70–85 million people died and the cost was over 296 billion dollars.

And now we have witnessed a similar path being taken by Vladimir Putin as his invasion of the Ukraine passes the one year mark, in February 2023.  He claimed his reasons were based on NATO’s expansion eastward, Ukraine’s genocide of ethnic Russians, his failure to recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation, the Ukrainian threat of nuclear weapons and who knows what else. The cost of the aggression, thus far has been 2.8 trillion dollars and the casualties have been between 175—200,000 on the Russian side and at least 100,000 on the Ukrainian side.

As I reflected on all of this, I thought to myself, how different are the arguments that precipitated all of these varied conflicts, from the one that I witnessed in the Laundromat that afternoon. Are we so naïve and condescending to believe that because someone is more educated, sophisticated, richer or more powerful; or because they have a more prestigious title that precedes their name like President, Chancellor, Senator, Bishop, Priest or Pastor; that their reasons for hostility or wars are more justified and less silly or stupid. And think about the enormous casualties and exorbitant costs that we have all suffered because of their gross stupidity. After all of the lessons of our past history with its tragic, costly and fatal results, will we ever learn?

Here are eleven (11) instructions to consider from the wise man the next time you are tempted to enter into another unnecessary, silly or stupid argument. You have my permission to pass them on to someone else…

Proverbs 10:11 NLT—“The words of the godly are a life-giving fountain; the words of the wicked conceal violent intentions.”

Proverbs 11:11 NIV—“Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed.”

Proverbs 12:18, 19 NLT 18—“Some people make cutting remarks, but the words of the wise bring healing. 19—Truthful words stand the test of time, but lies are soon exposed.”

Proverbs 13:3 NIV—“Those who guard their lips preserve their lives, but those who speak rashly will come to ruin.”

Proverbs 15:1, 2 NIV 1—“A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. 2—The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.”

Proverbs 15:18 NLT—“A hot-tempered person starts fights; a cool-tempered person stops them.”

Proverbs 16:32 NLT—“Better to be patient than powerful; better to have self-control than to conquer a city.”

Proverbs 17:19 NLT—“Anyone who loves to quarrel loves sin; 

Proverbs 18:6 NLT—“Fools’ words get them into constant quarrels; they are asking for a beating.”

Proverbs 18:21 NIV—“The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit.”

Proverbs 20:3 NLT—“Avoiding a fight is a mark of honor; only fools insist on quarreling.”

There are many things that I remember about my father.  Most of them were caught rather than taught.  He certainly was not perfect, but I could not think of anyone that was more consistent in my life than him.  He said what he meant and meant what he said.  To raise five children(2 girls & 3 boys) in New York City during the 60’s and 70’s; being consistent was a rare quality that was extremely important to possess and today is in short supply.

He set a good spiritual example for us that was sincere but not fanatical.  We had family worship but not every night, just on the weekends to open and close the Sabbath.  As I think back now, the schedules of my parents and our family would have made daily worship impractical and burdensome. He always went to Prayer Meeting but never required or forced us to join him and over time we (his three sons) all would go with him so we could travel together on the bus.

We never owned a car, impractical and unnecessary living in Brooklyn with the extensive NYC transit system, along with the burdensome daily alternate side of the street parking.  We spent a great deal of time traveling as a family on public transportation, which always was an adventure.  It’s a lifestyle that one cannot understand or appreciate if you’ve lived your entire life driving from place to place. But you learned lessons of survival in the jungles of New York, constantly interacting with strangers each day.  And those lessons were taught by my father.  It is amazing to me now that none of us were ever lost or snatched when you consider how things are today.

He served as an elder in the church and would regularly be on the rostrum while I sat in the congregation with my friends.  Often when I was playing or acting up in church, I could suddenly feel his eyes and when I looked up he would be staring at me from his seat on the rostrum.  That was all I needed to see in order to straighten up and stop playing in church.  

He taught an adult Sabbath School class but one year for some reason they could not find a teacher for my earliteen class.  In the middle of the year our teacher left and there was no replacement.  For some unknown reason, my father volunteered to be the teacher and for the rest of the year he taught our class.  I never got the chance to ask him why he volunteered to do it. And while it can sometimes be awkward for your father to be your teacher, especially with your friends, he never made me feel that way.

He also led the church’s prison ministry.  He led a group that regularly ministered at the Brooklyn House of Detention and presented a Bible Study.  I remember one Sabbath my brother’s and I went to the prison to sing for their program before the study.  We sang in a quartet.  What I remember most, was what happened after the short program.  When my father was teaching the class, I was amazed at how disciplined and in control he was of all the men in the class.  While I was intimidated being behind bars with inmates he was not, and the men were all very respectful and followed his orders explicitly, just as we did.

A few weeks ago, as I was doing some cleaning and going through some old notes and material, I came across a letter my father wrote me while I pastored in Southeastern California.  As I read it, I was reminded that at very important moments in my adult life, out of the blue, I would receive a letter from my father.  This was one of those moments.

It was a handwritten letter, and in my father’s way of precision and accuracy, he placed in the top righthand corner the day, date, time and place where he wrote the letter; Mon. Aug. 22, ’94; 6:55PM (On the Job).

I will share some excerpts of the letter:

“Dear Tim;

I am on my job alone and quiet…But I decided to drop you a line.

I was thinking about the racial climate in California and our world-wide church in general. It’s too bad we have to waste time; valuable time, in race wars…I wonder if the quality of your preaching has been affected by this controversy?

I’m fully aware of the injustices that the non-caucasian, especially Afro-Americans, have been subjected to, But is this struggle consuming quality time that should be devoted to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and leading men and women out of darkness into this marvelous light?

I think you all should continue speaking against prejudice and injustice, but shouldn’t you also continue preaching, holding evangelistic campaigns; teaching your members to go out and do missionary work and win more souls? Shouldn’t you work on bringing your membership up? Also, combine together and build an area church school, centrally located with non-white teachers and administrators.  We need more schools for our young people who are majoring in education…You won’t have to complain about your children being victims of racial slurs.

Tim, SDA’s are racist; Not All, But Many of them. It’s been like that from the very beginning. If you are not suffering financial hardship or unequal salaries, then work together to win respect.

But don’t forget to pray without ceasing and unite and never, never forget your primary job, which is preaching the gospel.  Let nothing turn you aside from that job.

If the Apostle Paul could write the Philippians from prison and tell them to rejoice, then you must have something to rejoice about in sunny California.  Thank God for His blessings.

The time of trouble hasn’t come yet! Work for equality, But let nothing deter you from the job that God called you to do.

Love to All, Dad”

The letter is almost as relevant today as it was close to 27 years ago.  And on weekends like this, with all of the great memories I have of my father, a letter from him is what I miss the most. 

There have been many attempts to question the unchallenged narrative of European dominance in human civilization by many scholars of color, who have chronicled their findings in papers, professional journals, magazines and books.  And for the most part, many of these works have gained little to no attention in the academy and have done even less to change the accepted narrative that continues to be taught and universally believed that advances the erroneous tale of the superior achievements and discoveries of Europeans.

When Dr. Ivan Van Sertima released his landmark book, “They Came Before Columbus,” forever putting to rest the long held lie that Christopher Columbus “discovered” America, it still did little to change the fictitious European portrayal or cause the academy to do corrective historiography.  When Van Sertima testified before a congressional committee in 1987 to share his evidence of the hundreds of years of Africans who had regularly traveled to and from the Americas and engaged in trade and commerce with the indigenous Americans long before Columbus landed on the shores of Caribbean Islands, one Congressman’s response was, “Well, Columbus was the first to hold a press conference.” 

This kind of belligerent dismissive arrogance seems to reflect the attitude and actions of some Whites when it comes to any legitimate scholarship that attempts to challenge the faulty, flawed historical narratives that place Europe at the center of all intellectual, scientific, mathematic and cultural achievements in the world.  The documented scholarship and multiplied volumes refuting this narrative is so overwhelming that it would take up too much space to list in this blog. The real question is why there is such resistance to any legitimate scholarly attempts that call these claims of European dominance into question?  Why is it that no alternative suppositions are allowed to be examined or even considered, once the false white narrative has been exposed?  Are we to believe that European scholars are above scrutiny and their scholarship beyond error?  Is the white community saying they are the only ones allowed to investigate, inquire, explore or refute the legitimacy of any and all scholarly work in the academy?

Recently, there has been an all out attack on any legitimate scholarship that presents an alternate view or intellectual position on a host of academic subjects. Many of the attacks have come without sufficient explanation and/or with little academic credence.  One such example is the recent attack leveled against “Critical Race Theory.” Nearly a dozen states have passed legislation either banning, restricting or limiting the study or teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the public school system.  Republican members of congress have introduced legislation restricting the spread of Critical Race Theory as “a divisive ideology.”  

What has been most disturbing about the attacks is the cluelessness of those who oppose CRT.  Many of those in opposition cannot tell you what Critical Race Theory is or what it means?  You, who are reading this blog and have perhaps formed an opinion about it, do you know what it means?  Do you know where it came from?  

One of my passions for years has been reading and studying the constitution and race.  Because of this in the late and 80’s and early 90’s I became aware of the subject “Critical Race Theory.”  My understanding of it was as a legal construct and framework used to examine the flawed suppositions that our legal system was based.  It was a framework that legal scholars used to identify the inherent flaws in our constitution, our legal and judicial systems and identify how they racially advantaged whites and disadvantaged blacks.  These scholars unpacked and examined legal cases beginning with the suppositions of the framers and the earliest rulings of the supreme court to challenge these suppositions, findings and decisions; recognizing that the framers had a huge blind spot when it came to race.

As I understood it, Critical Race Theory was legitimate legal scholarship from renowned and respected legal scholars who were bringing their perspective into the discussion of the constitution, the judicial system and legal rulings when the legal system was applied to African Americans.  The agreed father of this scholarship was Derrick Bell who authored the landmark work, “Race, Racism, and American Law,” in 1971. His scholarship has been joined by legendary jurist A. Leon Higginbotham Jr., who authored, “In the Matter of Color,” which examined race and the American legal process during the colonial period and Mary Francis Berry, the author of “Black Resistance/White Law: A History of Constitutional Racism in American.” These scholars, along with many others, examined the American judicial system to challenge the inconsistent reasoning and flawed decisions which they show promotes and sustains white supremacy. 

There are two key elements of Critical Race Theory that most if not all proponents of CRT agree upon. The first is the understanding of how white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America, through “the rule of law” and “equal protection,”under the law. The second is a desire not merely to understand the unholy alliance between law and racial power but to change it.  

Someone will ask, why would anyone question such fundamental principles of our constitution and legal system and claim that it has an inherent “white supremacist” leaning?  I’m glad you asked. Let’s examine one example.

The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  It was based upon this fundamental foundational principle that Dred Scott brought his case to the Supreme Court seeking, as a black man, the basic precept of equal protection under the law.  But when he did, the court ruled that Dred Scott, because of his “race,” had no standing in the court and was not allowed to even file a claim for redress. The actual statement from the decision, authored by the Chief Justice, designated African Americans, ‘‘as beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.’’

Within the legal system of America is the precept of inferiority. It is a concept that imposed itself on the American legal system and judicial thought unchallenged and attached itself specifically to the African American community.  Higginbotham describes it like this in his book “Shades of Freedom.” 

“The dominance of the precept of inferiority has to do with the fact that ‘inferiority‘ is fundamentally different from all the other precepts.  Most of the other precepts,…defined or enforced certain tangible rights of the slave master or obligations of the slave…By contrast, the precept of inferiority did not define any specific right or obligation. Instead, ‘inferiority‘ spoke to the state of mind and the logic of the heart.  It posed as an article of faith that African Americans were not quite altogether human. What’s more, ‘inferiority‘ did not owe its existence to the legal process.  Although the law came to enforce the precept, it did not create it…When the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and, presumably, all its attendant conditions, it did not eliminate the precept of inferiority.  Even much later, when the law abolished state-enforced racial segregation, it still did not eliminate the precept.”

This is just one example of the kind of legal scholarship that Critical Race Theorists have used to show how the legal system of the United States enforced by law white supremacy and black racial inferiority. Can anyone say such topics should be dismissed out of hand because they raise the issue of white supremacy and challenge its legitimacy?  If you disagree with its positions and/or suppositions is that not something that should be legitimately argued in an appropriate arena of academia, instead of outlawed by Federal and State legislators or dismissed by Religious Denominations?  What is it that White America is afraid of when it comes to discussing these issues that have had such a powerful impact on the lives of African Americans.

Recently Nikole Hannah-Jones, Pulitzer Price winning journalist and editor of the landmark New York Time Magazine “1619 Project,” is being blocked from receiving tenure at the University of North Carolina because of here role as editor of the project.  Why is it that after decades of false, misleading and inaccurate scholarship, that Europeans cannot withstand any academic scrutiny or accountability.  Has Europe’s position as the unchallenged authority on all subjects given it a divine arrogance that has made it believe it is above examination or investigation? 

Where is this White-lash coming from that says, “You are not allowed to say anything that might be construed as negative or demeaning about me…even if it’s true.”  And if you do, we will cancel you. Here are two passages from the wiseman that I believe we should all consider.

The first is Proverbs 28:26 MSG, which says, “If you think you know it all, you’re a fool for sure; real survivors learn wisdom from others.”  

The second is found in Proverbs 15:31—32 CEV, it says, “Healthy correction is good, and if you accept it, you will be wise. —32—You hurt only yourself by rejecting instruction, but it makes good sense to accept it.”

No one has all the answers. The more we probe, reflect and discuss our challenges and problems, honestly, accurately and fairly; even the difficult ones, the closer America will arrive at becoming a “more perfect union.”

On April 20, 2021, when the news circulated that the jury in the Derek Chauvin case had reached a verdict; there was a massive state of suspended animation as people across the nation and around the world collectively held their breath in anticipation of the verdict.  When Judge Peter Cahill read the three guilty verdicts there was a huge exhale and for many a sigh of relief that finally the judicial system had worked for African Americans.  But as important and significant as the finding was, there was another recently made decision that may have greater impact and enduring implications for the future of the African American community than Chauvin’s guilty verdict.

Last week, April 29, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it will ban menthol flavored cigarettes and all flavored cigars within the next year.  This ban will significantly reduce disease and death linked to using those two products.  Studies show that menthol flavored cigarettes are more highly addictive than other tobacco products.  But there is more to the story.  

This fact was known by the tobacco industry and was the reason they heavily marketed the brand to racial minorities.  In the name of diversity the tobacco industry advertised their menthol brand tobacco products, using young attractive black actors on billboards across America strategically placed in African American communities.  Menthol became the band of choice for many African Americans who did not realize the odious and sinister effects that menthol was having upon them.  According to the CDC more than 85% of mentholated brand users are Black, nearly 47% are Hispanic, 38% are Asian and 29% are White.

It is believed that menthol flavoring is more addictive and harder to quit than regular brands.  Another study determined that if menthol had been banned, within a years time, it would lead to 923,000 smokers quitting, including 230,000 African Americans.

So America used the free labor of African slaves to plant, grow and harvest its tobacco crops for hundreds of years during slavery in parts of the South, in the Caribbean and South America.  Then knowingly and deliberately advertised its most addictive tobacco brands to the same community it exploited for free labor years later; to profit from and poison, for dollars, disease and death.

Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP has been calling for the ban of menthol cigarettes for years. He said in a statement, “For decades, the tobacco industry has been targeting African Americans and have contributed to the skyrocketing rates of heart disease, stroke and cancer across our community.” “The tobacco industry is on a…quest for profit, and…have been killing us along the way…it’s about time we prioritize the health and wellbeing of African Americans.”

Other advocacy groups such as the ACLU have mentioned the serious racial justice implications that the ban of menthol may have. They are calling for more progress in addressing the health needs and disparities in communities of color that decades of neglect and abuse have created. The Wise man says, “Don’t walk on the poor just because they’re poor, and don’t use your position to crush the weak, Because GOD will come to their defense; the life you took, he’ll take from you and give back to them.”——Proverbs 22:22—23 MES

So the the FDA’s decision to ban menthol from tobacco products while unnoticed, may have a greater impact on the welfare and well-being of African Americans, people of color and all Americans in the journey to justice, because the first and most important aspect of good citizenship and equal protection under the law is advancing good health for all.

And people wonder why African Americans deserve reparations?  Perhaps the picture is becoming clearer.