Have Christians negatively affected culture by failing to fulfill God’s commands ? May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Theology , add a comment ”A dominant aspect of the Christian influence on early nineteenth century
America was the interest and energy it displayed toward the external world and society. This was the result of the application of the cultural mandate. But the gradual dominance of the pietist movement in Christianity changed all this. Philip Jacob Spener, and his successor August Herman Francke, turned Protestant Christianity inward;Christians began to abandon the cultural mandate to pursue the development of the internal spiritual life.Although it began as a renewal movement, Pietism ultimately tended to denegrate into mere personal religiosity without much direct influence on society and culture. Religion became “privatized” and ceased to affect public life….new generations of Christians turned inward and ceased any attempts to shape their society.” The Second American Revolution John W. Whitehead1.Do you believe that Christians in
America have failed to fulfill their cultural mandate?2.If so, what affect have you seen this has had on our culture?3. Do you believe that in failing to heed God’s command , any judgment has come upon our culture which is directly related to the (Christians) failure? Does God still place judgments on entire nations for the actions of His people?4. Is Whitehead correct in connecting pietism to the decline in Christian influence in society?
The Church and the State Relationship, Part 4 May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State , 1 comment so farMany legitimate questions have been raised in the first three parts of this series, and the feedback received, as it is established there is no pure separation of the church from the state, and in fact the state wields influence on the church’s internal activities by the very nature of its incorporation and tax exempt status. My friend ECD Pilgrim is concurrently looking at other aspects of the relationship, as well as internal governance issues.
Jesus Christ addressed a situation very similar to what the church in the United States faces today. In his famous interaction in Matthew 12:13-17 (cp. Matthew 22:15-22, Luke 20:20-26), where He was entrapped into a lose-lose situation, Our Lord showed his ensnarers were no match for Him. We must realize that at the time the Temple had aligned with Caesar in a quid pro quo relationship, and backed the oppressive tax render going to Caesar and his minions for their own benefit. There was a legitimate dispute about whether it was legitimate and there was a resistance among many of the believers to pay the tax because it was illegitimate. Our Lord, clearly separates the kingdoms here and shows that the state is always under and subject to God’s authority as it is all His.
So, as pointed out in Part 1, the church has ceded its diaconal ministry to the state and I would further state ,I believe as a matter of convenience or expediency, or at best as a serious lack of discernment. Consider it for the best part gone, as the taxation by the government has placed many church members diaconal gifts rendered to the state as they are the ones whose care we have placed our widows, orphans, elderly and disabled under.
So as we look at governance we need to look at the larger issue, to whom do we ultimately depend on as Christians, Our God or our state? I am not condemning anyone who by nature of the system we live under, has been forced to paid into and receives retirement or disability from the state. Ex post facto condemnation is wrong and is the worst of monday morning quarterbacking.
Our legitimate areas of concern of the church needs to be how we can be faithful to our Lord and live in both kingdoms, rather than making the church a subsection of the state to be used. The first area I think we must meet with strong resistance is liberation theology. In that article I quote Hoyos, “When I see the church with a machine gun, I can not see the crucified Christ (or the risen Christ)in that church”
How do Christians effect change in society? How does that meld with the great commission? I am not for one minute suggesting that Christians take no part in the earthly kingdom of the state, I am suggesting however, it becomes wrong for the church to be a political arm of the state. There are current theologians who have watered down their effectiveness for the gospel of Jesus Christ by wrapping Jesus in the flag. There are others who promote our alliance with the state for programs the “church can’t afford otherwise”, by taking public funds. You can justify it by working within the system and using to our benefit pragmatically. I will agree on one point, “the church can’t afford” to be in such a relationship as she cedes even more authority every time she takes a single dime from the state (all inclusive of government).
We are not our own, and we have been bought with a price . Until we start taking our worldviews and our eschatologies out to the grander scale we see scripture dictating, we have to end our reliance and alliances with the state in any future actions we take. While each of us has our particular worldviews, there is one thing we have in common as the mission of the church, and that is to spread the good news until the day of the Lord.
We must stop where we are and think seriously about our actions and the message the church is sending to the world. Many view us not as an offense, but either just plain offensive, as malcontents, or just plain idiots, and who do we have to blame?
In our common missions, in preaching Christ crucified, in preaching the risen Savior, in equipping the saints and worshipping the Living Triune God, who is alive and well, we need to start to remove the stumbling blocks we place in the way of the gospel. There are so few faithful churches todays, our core message should not be our politics, our activism, our economic theories, it needs to be the whole counsel of God, preached faithful, and worship of our Triune God in spirit and in truth. When we do this, we will affect the earthly kingdom and being obedient to our Master, the one who owns us. We can work across most worldview lines. We have allowed Satan to use this to our detriment in our effectivesness on influence in our community and our culture.
I believe at the same time we need to have systemic theology taught, our children need to be brought up in the faith and properly trained in the confessions of the faith, so they know their own comfort in life and are able to share the hope that lies within them. It is then we build a strong family, a strong church and a strong community. Until those occur we are just fragmenting and spinning wheels with some illusion of what could or should be with no practical implementation of it.
The church needs to put the cart back behind the horse, clearly focus on its scriptural mission and work within the earthly kingdom. Until our own houses and houses are in order, and our reliance is on God and not the state to effectualize change, we are like the jeep stuck up to its axles in mud. Jehovah Jireh , He is our Provider .Soli Deo Gloria.
Church ownership of property and it’s implication (s)-Part 3 May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State , add a commentThis summers church general assemblies season, have made headlines in the secular world as well as sent shockwaves across the evangelical community. In reality, none of these were really new developments, of a scripturally sound denominations, suddenly ‘doing a 180′, but just further and more blatant departures from scripture.
Salt losing it savor and lights turning a harlot red. I know several faithful elders within the PCUSA who hold firmly to scripture who are extremely upset with their churches decisions and direction, and just positioning themselves on how to distance themselves from the denomination even further or waiting for an inevitable split between those who hold to biblical views and the liberal control of the denomination. I know of quite a few in ECUSA who are utilizing church by-laws to get around the ECUSA decisons in a way to distance themselves as well. One of their blogs I read this morning recounted a catholic friend asking them why they even bothered to hold services.
Lets just take a quick look at three different views of this. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Property Trust Clause (G-8.0201) ,the OPC FOG XVI, 7 regarding dissuasion, and the PCA BOCO 25-9. The purpose of comparison is not for the technical legal aspects but for a broader application as it relates to this series.( The latter two documents are not directly from the BOCO, but discussed in context)
The context we are looking at this in is why when a denomination departs from it’s orignal standards and stated purpose ,do particular churches stay within the denomination? The answer many times is given that one stays within the denomination to be a defender of the faith, a voice of truth, heralding the Word of God and calling their brothers unto repentence as dictated by our Lord in the application of Matthew 18:15-18. But what do you do when they fail to repent? Can you remain under the authority of one who has departed from the teachings of scripture?
Strange how it seems we again come to the issue of secular law and the church in dealing with scriptural premises and the Christians life/the life of the church. But we must examine its implications on the body and how we can build up the body, not be mere complainers and finger pointers.
Many of the mainline denominations we see today who have departed from scriptural truth very likely could have never done it and retained their churches without the secular courts on their side. If a church dissents in changes in denomational doctrinal changes such as the Resurrection, the nature of Salvation, the Atonement , while they have the right to leave the denomination by the particular churches vote, they may lose all their property, their assets, and in some cases the pastor may endanger his pension. If a church just choses to ignore the presbytery and hire another pastor anyway, they may well find themselves being sued by the denomination, and even find their denomination going to file briefs on behalf of other denominations to hold this grip on churches.
In the OPC, for instance while each particular church has ownership rights to its property, they use a process of dissuasion. ” ..As a session is obliged to attempt to dissuade a member from leaving the church, so a presbytery is obliged to use its powers of dissuasion against a congregation’s leaving. And as long as that congregation is under the immediate oversight of its presbytery as a congregational unit, some open process must be provided. This FOG XVI #7 does. And in case there is a minority of members opposed to leaving, the OPC has the duty to make provision for their continuing in the OPC with constitutional oversight as paragraph c provides.” Much of this came from the formation of the OPC where all but one church lost their property to the PCUSA.
The PCA in 25-11 states “Particular churches need remain in association with any court of this body only so long as they themselves so desire. The relationship is voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever. A particular church may withdraw from any court of this body at any time for reasons which seem to it sufficient.”
Quoting again from the OPC document I linked above, “Schism is a serious sin. This is not to say that ALL separating congregations are thereby declared guilty of sin against the unity of the visible church (whose unity is disunity is very evident in the church’s present state on earth). but we take seriously John 13:34-35 and 17:20-21 as applying to the visible church as well as the body of Christ invisible.
In fairness we have viewed denominations that have oversight in the form of hierarchial governance. I am strongly in favor of presbyterian style of governance as in my humble opine, it adds to the stability of the local church and guarding against false doctrine.; as well as settling disputes of doctrine and practice by a larger body and a doctrinal standard by which teaching elders are ordained. The ability to have a group outside your own who can advise and mediate internal disagreements upon request is invaluable in maintaining order in the body of Christ.
In looking at these different forms of how much control is ceded to the hierarchial body, I believe that there is a strong case to be made scripturally that when it comes to ceding rights of our property and assets to a larger body, the larger body no longer feels constrained to a check and balance system and has led to an abuse of its authority, and has trusted in the power of the civil magistrate and lorded that civil power over the church of Jesus Christ. What say you?
The state of the Church. Has the church joined with the state? (Part 2) May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State , add a comment{This series intent is done in the spirit of Semper Reformanda. }
Last year I was contacted by a pastor who had some comments on a situation he knew I was involved in . This gentlemen made a remark that ended the conversation turning it into a one-sided lecture on his part,. He flatly said that a church is wrong to incorporate as it removes the Bridegroom as the head of the church, and by the very nature of incorporation, derives it existence from the state. He further went on to say how we were wrong to file for tax exempt status.
My initial reaction was flat rejection of his statement and thinking this guy is too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use. He lives in between Nirvana and la-la land, and most likely why he has had financial problems. Of course, it is a pragmatic reaction, that’s just not how things are done today! Join reality buddy. And there was the defensive mechanism-I have personally drawn up articles of incorporation for a church and been a legal officer of a church corporation previously.
Let’s take a look back into history. When King Henry ended the relationship with the pope centuries back, he became the head of the Church of England, and each king thereafter was to succeed him as the head of the church. Whether the King was active or inactive in any governance or oversight is really secondary to this series, it is the fact he was the de facto head.
When the colonists came to America, they had a great desire to have the church be a institution free from any control by the state. Their dream became reality when our constitution made the church immune to any interference by the government and immune from being taxed.
The early church in America was a great influence in society. The reformed churches became education centers for their children where they were both educated and received religious training. Universities, book publishing houses, outreaches, soup kitchens, the list goes on. The Catholic church realized the impact and started their own schools so they could indoctrinate their children as well. In concise summary, the church was having a great influence on society and on its governance. They were salt and light. Immune from any interference from the state.
As churches began having impact beyond their community and began to amass finances, government introduced the concept of tax exemption. Churches and non-profit ventures of the religious institutions would incorporate and be exempted from taxes. Now what is incorporation? It is a fictious person, that would exist beyond the passing of the person who formed it (perhaps overly concise). It’s existence and authority is derived from the state. Now this may seem like hair splitting, but our legal eagles will tell you there is a great difference between immune and exempt.
Immune is free from any authority, where exempt acknowledges the authority and in exchange for an action or inaction, is freed from its obligations to the authority to pay taxes. So what is the quid pro quo? Tax exemption, and the ability of its member to deduct their donations to the church in exchange for no direct involvement in the political process, as long as they file for tax exemption.
Tax deductions are good, I take them. The idea of the church not paying taxes is good stewardship, isn’t ? Aren’t we to be good stewards of the Lord’s money? A win-win situation pragmatically.
Does Matthew 12:13-17. (cp. Matthew 22:15-22, Luke 20:20-26), Render unto Caesar those things that are Caeser’s, …. Come into play here at all? Historically this was addressing the annual tax to Rome, not the taxes on land, to the temple, or customs taxes, but the tax unto Caesar. Jews were divided about this tax and whether they were morally obliged to pay it. The temple authorities (who gave Jesus up to be crucified) collaborated with Roman rule and endorsed the tax, while those sympathetic to the Roman resistance rejected it. Most commentators do feel Jesus Christ answer was a separation of the two kingdoms/realms and that believers should give what is required of them in both realms.
While the passage show our Lords adept debating style and ability to avoid a trap set for him, and generally believed that since all belongs to God anyway, it has little to do with everyday taxation. So why include it here? I wonder aloud is there application in that since God owns everything anyway, are we in anyway perhaps hindering the mission of the church and its influence we have on society by entering into a voluntary agreement with the state to avoid taxation of the church and the donations of its members?
I look around and see where our churches no longer the education centers for our children, the impact the church has on our communities has been diminished. In Pennsylvania pastors have been ruled to be at-will employees whose employment is “at the whim” of the corporation. In fact I would go one step further and say the outside world is having much greater impact on the church, than the church is having on it. We have watched mainline church after mainline church go the way of the world and be influenced by the world, rather than us being salt and light to the world. To the point commentators are laughing at it calling the devolvement, “Larry, Moe and Curly Joe” or “Our Mother Jesus”,.
I do not come with the answer, or with condemning finger pointing. I am not on the higher road looking down at all you infidels .I have actively participated in “what seemeth right unto man”. I do know the Scripture is very clear that Christ is the head of the church and its bridegroom. I only wonder if we are having an illicit affair with the state, citing we have not yet come to the wedding feast, and are reaping the benefits of that relationship.
I actively am calling for a new reformation, am involved in a group entitled reformation42day, am encouraging youth to rise up and take active roles in the church. In doing so I must be willing to examine my own actions and attitudes and be able to be ready with solid biblical answers. Aping a popular talkshow host-what say you?
The state of the Church. (Part 1) Has the church joined with the state? May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State , add a commentThe state of the Church. (Part 1) Has the church joined with the state?
The perversion of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been a cause of controversy for years. I am not as concerned about the traditional arguments here and in fact wish to turn the refocus how the church has abdicated its roles and broke down the walls of separation. The focus on this is not the constitutional aspects, which I believe could debunk most of modern opinions of the court by examing the federalist papers and the writings of the founders, but the aspect of the church and its relationship to the state via its own abdication of authority by choice.
My thesis is actually that it is the church who has broken down the barrier wall between itself and the state and it’s willingness to throw it’s responsiblity to it’s flock off onto the state and the heathen, as well as its willingness to take money from the state in exchange for their union.
Starting at the “New Deal”, social security and social assistance programs, the church should have been up in arms in protest. (Maybe a step backward, starting at the prohibition, it should have been in protest of legislating “alleged Christian principles” but was in support of it-with the exception of J. Grescham Madchen. ) But it gladly ceded it’s responsibility to the widows, the infirmed, the orphans and to the needy to the state.
The principle of teaching someone to fish , rather than to merely give fish lost out. We find in Acts where the burden of meeting the needs and serving the tables interfered with the evangelistic and ministerial aspects of the apostles (now transfer to elders), so there were among them those chosen to meet those needs. That office has all been lost today.
How did the church ever allow this to happen? Disorder in the offices is one of the quickest ways to destroy a church and make it unhealthy. Non- functional offices in the church is the norm, not the exception.
The diaconal concept is skewed into distribution only, and the modern day deacon takes care of books, and does labor in the church, cut the lawn, paint the building, clean the church. What does he do with the flock? Maybe a household chore or a ride to the store or doctor or to the state office to sign someone up for benefits? And that is a healthy deacon in today’s church. But, I see this as one of the core problems in todays church.
A deacon must be one who can counsel and instruct and discern. When a deacon cares for the needy, by a members submission to the authority of the church, a deacon should be helping to set up budgets, and look for root causes of the need, not only to “give fish”. When the church gives assistance to a member, it has the responsibility to ascertain why that need is there, and how to overcome the need for assistance. This sets the stage for interaction between the deacon and the member in need?
Is the member terrible with handling funds? Is the member lacking discipline in his own life? Is the member tithing? Is the member involved in some habit that is causing them to deprive their family of their needs to the point the church has to step in? Does the member lack direction in life? Or are they just lazy? Or is there a disability that will exist for a more permanent need for assistance from the church? These are issues that the biblical deacon looked at and it was a way of direct ministry to the flock. Sometimes there is nothing but circumstances beyond their control. In that case, the church would have to make longer term plans and solutions to meet the need and to adjust the members needs downward into what is needed, not just what is comfortable.
But, by abdicating the responsibility of the needy (same principles apply to widows and orphans and the church) to the state we eliminate an entire area of ministry and oversight the church is responsible to its members for. While there are qualifications and programs the government has to support the member, the government does not provide ministry to the flock. Well yes it does, but not a biblical one. How can you legitimately ask a member to see their finances when the state is helping them meet their needs. They can keep getting fish and never need to learn to fish themselves.
We will take a look in the near future about other areas of church offices and members roles, and to see where we have strayed and how (and if we are willing) to correct the error of our abdication and restore our churches to biblical roles .
While we have many issues with the workings of our government that deserve attention, perhaps it is time we start getting the log out of our own eyes before dealing with the governments problems. Our governance is from God as expressed through our roles as priests in our own families, and from the local church to which we are to submit to its biblical authority.
If we want a change in how things are going in our government, perhaps the way to institute that is to get our churches and homes in order first, the ones in which we have the greatest chance of effecting change. When we accomplish that, we can turn our eyes onto the world.
Minorities and the Reformed Churches May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Ethnicity, Theology , add a comment~
Why are there so few African-Americans and Latinos in the PCA? Or in any Reformed church, for that matter?
This is, I think, an important question. The Church of Jesus Christ is to embrace all nations, as God fulfills in Jesus his promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:3, Matt. 28:19). This does not mean that each congregation must have a quota of members from every people-group (see my paper on “Racisms”), but it does mean that the church as a whole should reach out to everybody.
Some would argue that since the PCA (to use one example; others would do equally well) is only one denomination of the church, it shouldn’t be expected to try to reach all types of people. They would recommend that the PCA focus on upper middle class, well-educated whites, with whom they typically have the most rapport. Leave the poor and minorities to the Baptists, Independents, and Charismatics.
But this approach will not do. In the first place, denominations are unscriptural (see my Evangelical Reunion). The church should be one organizationally as well as spiritually, and that one organization should be ministering to people of all nations and social strata.
Second, denominations typically claim to function as the Church. That is, they claim to have a complete message, complete sacraments, a complete organizational structure. They claim to be sufficient as “churches” to carry out the Great Commission. They must make this claim; otherwise they have no reason to exist. Jesus assigned the work of the Great Commission to the church, not to some religious club. If the PCA wants to do the work of the church, without organic connection with other denominational expressions of the church, then it must do all the work of the church, meaning in the present context that it must reach out to all nations and socio-economic groups.
Third, the Reformed denominations have claimed to have a sounder formulation of the gospel than non-Reformed bodies, as well as sounder methods of evangelism and nurture. They claim, therefore, to be better equipped than others to carry out the Great Commission. If they are not reaching some ethnic and social groups, that is cause for concern.
I have no statistics on the success of Reformed churches in reaching out to American minorities, but my observation (and I trust the reader’s as well) is that we have been very weak in this respect. I am not entirely clear on the reasons for this, but I mention the following possibilities:
1. Historically, the Reformation has been a movement of academic scholars. (See my paper, “Hurting People’s Feelings.”) In the churches, preaching has followed something of an academic model in style and intellectual content. This approach appeals to the well-educated, who are also often the relatively wealthy members of society. It tends to turn away others, in the present case the relatively poor minorities.
2. Being an intellectual movement, the Reformation in some circles disparaged feelings, in my judgment to an unscriptural extent. (See again, my paper, “Hurting People’s Feelings.”) This attracted rather Stoic kinds of personalities and discouraged those who with greater need of emotional support. It discouraged also the emotionally demonstrative. That is one source of our ethnic hyperuniformity.
3. Similarly, the minimalist aesthetic of Reformed worship (questionably derived from the Second Commandment) limited the churches’ ability to communicate effectively to some cultures.
4. Some Reformed theologians, particularly R. L. Dabney, have made statements deemed racist. These are largely forgotten today, but Reformed churches in America must bear the burdens of the history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination. Other denominations and traditions in the US bear the same burdens.
5. It is interesting to me, however, that although there is an African-American Methodist denomination (the A. M. E.) and various African-American Baptist conventions (such as the National), there is no African-American Presbyterian, Reformed, or Anglican fellowship. The reason, I fear, is not that white Reformed churches have been more welcoming to African-Americans than other churches, but that these folks had too little interest in the Reformed Faith to even form such fellowships. So in the era of segregation even the option of a single-race Reformed church was not possible. This indicates how high a hurdle we must overcome. The history of the last two hundred years is a major obstacle to the progress of the Reformed gospel among African-Americans.
6. The Reformed emphasis on objective, absolute truth has sometimes been misused. It is one thing to insist on the absolute truth of Scripture. But Reformed theologians have often insisted also on the unchangeable divine truth of various traditions of worship and church life. Music is a conspicuous example today. This traditionalism is ironically closer to Roman Catholic theology than to the Reformation sola Scriptura, and it forms a major barrier to communication between the Reformed churches and minority cultures.
7. One of these traditions has been the tradition of a “learned ministry,” which I will discuss at greater length. The academic emphasis of the Reformed movement has led to an emphasis on academic qualifications for pastors. Reformed denominations typically demand an A. B. degree or equivalent, plus some amount of seminary training. And they give to pastoral candidates rigorous examinations in biblical languages, church history, and theological subjects. Members of minority groups typically don’t have the financial or educational prerequisites for this kind of study. The result is that very few minority people qualify to become Reformed pastors. But to attract minority church members it is necessary to ordain minority church officers. This is, I think, a major barrier to minority participation in Reformed churches.
There is much to be said for the concept of a “learned ministry.” The “parson” of early American villages was often the one member of the community with an academic training. He became the de facto local expert, not only on theology, but also on science, history, etc. Some would like to see the Christian church regain this cultural ascendancy.
But it can hardly be argued that such a degree of learning is a biblical requirement for ministry. The New Testament requirements do include the provision that an overseer be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2), and we may infer from 2 Tim. 4:2 that he should be able to “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage…” Compare Tit. 1:9. Surely these responsibilities require some head-knowledge as well as heart-knowledge. But they do not require, even in our present-day culture, an A. B. or equivalent. The apostles themselves were perceived to be “unschooled, ordinary men” (Acts 4:13). With the exception of Paul, they were not trained in the rabbinic schools, let alone what we would now describe as the disciplines of the liberal arts. The New Testament writers express themselves, not in the Greek of the poets and philosophers, but in the Koine of the common people.
Western missionaries planting tribal churches in areas new to the gospel often encourage these churches to install indigenous leadership as early as possible. Such leaders need to know the Gospel and the basics of the Bible. But no one insists that a young church need wait until some members of the tribe earn A. B. degrees before they can become pastors or elders. Yet Reformed churches routinely insist on such educational requirements (with some slight flexibility) in preparing people for ordination in America.
Why should there be such a discrepancy between our standards for mission churches and our standards for home churches? The mission field exists on US territory today. Educational expectations differ greatly in different ethnic and cultural communities. It still makes some sense to require college or university education of those called to be senior pastors of largely white suburban churches. It makes no sense at all to require such education of those called to work, say, with Hispanic migrant farm workers.
So my suggestion is that we recognize a broader range of educational requirements for different kinds of ministry, rather than having a common set of requirements for everybody who is to be ordained. Of course, some requirements must be met by all candidates: all must have a good knowledge of Scripture and Reformed theology. All must have good ability to communicate these truths in preaching, teaching, counseling. (I would actually elevate the requirements in these areas.) But there should be no requirements as to how this knowledge is obtained (whether by seminary, tutoring, private study). And of course there should be an emphasis on the qualities of character that dominate the Pauline lists of qualifications for church office (1 Tim. 3:1-10, Tit. 1:5-9), qualities that need to be emphasized far more in Reformed churches. But there is no reason also to require college preparation of all ordinands.
It may be that those who are ordained with lesser preparation will need more supervision when they enter ministry. Normally in Presbyterianism we assume that once a man is ordained to the teaching ministry he has all the tools: he is fully prepared to take any responsibility in the church, without any additional help. Of course, in our hearts we know that is wrong. Every pastor needs help, especially in his first years in ministry. In Presbyterianism, supervision of young pastors is supposed to come through presbytery, but that supervision is often very slow in coming. For this purpose, one is attracted to something like Episcopacy, in which one man is charged with supervising the ministries of other men. Presbyteries can approximate this by energizing their committees on “The Minister and His Work.” Through some such mechanism it could be recognized that the education of ministers in an ongoing thing; it doesn’t end with ordination. Given such a system, those who enter ministry with less educational preparation than others could receive regular guidance and counsel from more experienced and knowledgeable church leaders.
Does this mean that minority pastors would hold a second-class ordination? No. In my judgment every pastor should be under authority, under supervision. We should not assume that ordination gives the right to autonomous ministry, following the supervised trial period of licensure. Ordination rightly confers some privileges: rights of participation in session and presbytery; rights to administer sacraments. But it should not be the end of accountability. If every teaching elder is accountable to some fellow-presbyter (s), then we need not worry that this process will distinguish some as second-class.
I have focused on the seventh barrier between Reformed and minorities, for I have had some specific suggestions for overcoming it that needed to be presented at length. But the other problems should also be addressed. If they are, I think we might at least make some progress toward making Reformed churches more multi-ethnic: that is, toward making Reformed churches more like The Church.
John Frame RTS Orlando
The making of a Christian police state May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government, Theology , add a comment“The army of God is to conquer the earth, to subdue it, to rule over it, to exercise dominion. Christians are called to war.” — George Grant
Usually when we think of a theocracy, we think of an authoritarian society, headed perhaps, by a king, or an ayatollah. Such governments usually come to power through coups, wars, or inheritance. However, there is an important theocratic movement in the U .S. today, and it’s seeking power through democratic elections. And the way things are going in California, the theocrats are becoming a force to be reckoned with.
California has been the focus of political experimentation by the Christian right since the mid-1980s, and these experiments are beginning to bear fruit. For example, in San Diego County, the Christian right fielded 90 candidates for local offices such as school board, rural fire district, and city council in November 1990. Sixty of them won. Events in San Diego County epitomize the new Christian right since the rise and fall of the stars of televangelism.
Colonel V. Doner, a key Christian right strategist, wrote in 1988 about the lessons learned from the movement he helped create. He says there is a two-part solution to the “failures” of the Christian right. The first, he said, is that “the Christian right had better be able to command complete and total loyalty and selfless dedication and sacrifice to its objectives on the part of its supporters.” Second, Doner insists on “an orthodox… Christian doctrine that clearly demands that all Christians be ac tive.”
The “doctrine,” to which Doner is evidently referring, is Christian Reconstructionism, a virulently political theology which seeks to impose Biblical law on all of society. They believe that they have a divine mandate to build the kingdom of God on earth. Some leading Reconstructionists believe that contemporary application of Old Testament laws would mean the institution of the death penalty, not only for such crimes as murder and rape, but adultery, idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, homosexuality, and juveni le delinquency, and possibly, the breaking of the Sabbath.
Most evangelical churches in this century have adhered to variants of premillennialism — belief that Jesus will return before a thousand-year era of peace — which generally discourages political involvement, believing that Satan rules this world, and that little can be done until Jesus returns. Doner believes this view is “escapist” and a “bogus theology.”
The recent appearance of militant Reconstructionist George Grant as the featured speaker at the annual banquet of the San Diego Evangelical Association, epitomizes the Reconstructionist trend. Grant, who is also a vice president of televangelist D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries, was also a featured speaker at the big Operation Rescue rally in Wichita, Kansas last summer.
The “total loyalty” Doner requires is being created by the “shepherding/discipleship” model of church organization. Shepherding is a highly authoritarian system of personal supervision by a hierarchy of elders and shepherds. Over the years, this system ha s been fraught with abuses. Shepherds often control all one’s important decisions, from choice of marriage partner and career to, of course, politics.
One catalyst for a Reconstructionist-oriented, shepherding-based movement has been the Coalition on Revival (COR), on whose steering committee sits top shepherds Bob Mumford and Dennis Peacocke, as well as Colonel Doner, and top Reconstructionists R.J. Ru shdoony and Gary North. COR is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California in Santa Clara County, near San Jose.
In September 1987, COR chief Jay Grimstead and his pastor Mike Kiley of the Home Church, organized a meeting of evangelical pastors in Santa Clara County. According to a tape of the meeting, their purpose was to set up a “pastors committee” for long-range social and political takeover. Grimstead proposed an experimental program to ground pastors in COR-approved theology and shepherding techniques over 18 months. They they would select 6-12 “elders, deacons, (or) staff” to become their personal disciples. When ready, they in turn would disciple other church members.
Grimstead enthused that with 25 churches so discipled, “we could create an army…of people who are ready to die for Jesus. And to die for your vision as a pastor.”
Rev. Kiley described a discipleship program in which dissenters would be brought into obedience or expelled. He also said that when a city gathers enough disciples, “This is when Jay [Grimstead] comes in.” He explained, “because once we raise up people, m any of them are called to areas of government… And we are able to filter them into the right type of places because they’ve been well-trained.”
Grimstead explained that “several national groups of strategists are looking at 60 major cities” for long-term influence. This would include “replace[ment] of anti-biblical elected officials with biblically oriented candidates.”
“So,” he concluded, “we are launching today…an experimental effort to get a model for how that is to be done.”
One COR activist is Rev. Billy Falling of Escondido, California, in San Diego County. For seven years, he has run the Christian Voters League (CVL), which has chapters all over California. Falling promotes a popularized version of Reconstructionism he cal ls “the political mission of the church,” and in 1991 published a book by that title, in which he argues that “according to the Bible, legitimate civil government is the police department within the Kingdom of God on earth,” and “it is to impose God’s ven geance upon those who abandon God’s laws of justice.”
“Both Church and State,” Falling continues, “are to be under subjection to the Word of God. This requires a political mission of the Church.”
The book has been distributed widely in California, and is about to go national. Among the book’s endorsers are Jay Grimstead, and U.S. Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA), who also wrote the introduction.
In an article in the CVL newsletter, Dannemeyer’s primary challenge to Sen. John Seymour (R-CA) was announced under the headline: “CVL Charter member to Run for U.S. Senate.” The article, which made clear Dannemeyer and Falling’s long association, as well as outlining his career and views, listed Dannemeyer’s upcoming appearances at local churches. Falling wrote: “Please contact my office… if you wish this CVL member to speak at your function.”
Dr. Sam Rodriguez is another key figure in the Falling network, as the CVL director for northern California. Rodriguez ran unsuccessfully for state school superintendent in 1990, and is already running for a re-match with incumbent Bill Honig in 1994. Ear lier this year, he bought 100 copies of The Political Mission of the Church for pastors in Shasta County. He then organized a meeting reportedly attended by 115 people, featuring a talk by Falling.
The enthusiastic endorsement of this book by important politicians like Dannemeyer and Rodriguez raises disturbing questions about their commitment to democracy and religious freedom. If these leaders believe, like Falling, that government is the “police department of the Kingdom of God,” whose job is to wreak “God’s vengeance” for infraction of “God’s laws,” Californians — indeed, all Americans — need to ask what laws? And what punishments?
Elsewhere in the book, Falling refines his theocratic intentions: “We must discard the foolish interpretation we have so long held of the ’separation of church and state’ … Only when we restore the Bible and Its [sic] truth as the supreme law of the land will we be in line with God’s intention and plan for government.”
Do Falling, Dannemeyer, and Rodriguez believe, like leading Reconstructionists, that homosexuals and heretics should be executed? These are fair and serious questions, that may increasingly need to be asked of many politicians of the Christian right. Just how far do they plan to go with the notion of Biblical law?
Meanwhile, the San Diego Surprise of November 1990 is the most dramatic example to date of the efficacy of the county level organizing strategy of the Christian right. Here’s how it worked: Candidates were recruited, primarily by Steve Baldwin and Dan Van Tiegham of the California Pro-Life Council (an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee). Most of the candidates did not campaign, thus avoiding alarming the opposition. These, mostly political unknowns, were pre-screened for political reliabili ty. Though novices, they could be trained and groomed for higher office. “The people we recruit will be like our farm league,” Baldwin told the Southern California Christian Times.
Baldwin reportedly obtained membership lists of sympathetic churches to be compared with voter registration lists. This was followed by “massive” phone banks to turn out “the Christian vote.” Then the California Pro-Life Council endorsed the candidates, b y obvious pre-arrangement, and distributed 200,000 endorsement flyers in church parking lots the Sunday before the election. Van Teigham wrote that a similar effort in June 1990 “resulted in a takeover of the San Diego County Republican Party by pro-famil y activists.” “Incredibly,” he concluded, “most of the victorious candidates did no campaigning except to help distribute flyers.”
Baldwin (who is running Rep. Dannemeyer’s Senate campaign) promises to field another 200 candidates in 1992. Baldwin was a speaker at candidate training seminars sponsored by Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition this summer. Van Teigham was recently named the Coalition’s state coordinator, and is currently recruiting and training candidates state-wide.
Generally, the Christian right’s strategy is aimed at turning out high numbers of voters from a disciplined church-based voting bloc, to take advantage of the low general voter turn-out in any given election.
The theocrats are acutely aware of their minority status and the opportunities presented by voter apathy. George Grant writes: “Since only about 60% of the people are registered to vote and only about 35% of those actually bother to go to the polls, a can didate only needs to get the support of a small, elite group of citizens to win. It only takes about 11% of the electorate to gain a seat in the House or the Senate. It only takes about 9% to gain a governorship… 7% to gain an average mayoral or city co uncil post.” Liberal humanists, writes Grant, “can be defeated by a handful of well organized, well informed, dedicated, individuals.”
The theocratic intentions to exploit the weaknesses of contemporary democracy in the U.S. are clear. How well it will work, remains to be seen.
Militant Islamic Fundamentalists and the U.S. Extreme Right May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government, Theology, Uncategorized , add a commentRacial Nationalism, the Third Position, and Ethnoviolence
|
|
||||
|
||||
Jim Crow laws May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Criminal Justice, Government , 2commentsAt the beginning of the 21st century, United States drug policy is dominated by a mendacity that demands criminal penalties, often very harsh criminal penalties, for the use of illicit drugs. n1 Beginning with the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914, n2 there has been a seemingly unstoppable momentum to define drug use, which many view as a medical or social problem, in strictly criminal terms. Mandatory minimum sentences, asset forfeiture, broadly drawn conspiracy laws and voter disenfranchisement are just some of the tactics in what has become known as the “war on drugs.” President Richard M. Nixon was the first president to use the word “war” to frame United States drug policy. n3 Since then this metaphor has been used by each successive United States president and become part of the popular discourse on drug policy. While numerous commentators have questioned the wisdom, efficacy and constitutionality of these policies and laws, the recent phenomena of exploding prison populations and racial profiling have spurred critics to challenge these policies and laws.
Critics of these policies have begun focusing on the disparate impact and enforcement of these laws and policies on minority communities. n4 The analogyhas been made between the current drug laws and the Jim Crow laws that marginalized and disenfranchised African Americans in the American South during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. n5 With this symposium we chose to provide a platform for those who question the dominant drug policy paradigm and wish to explore the connections between race and drug laws that, for the most part, have been ignored in mainstream discourse.
In recent years laws have been passed that forbid those with felony drug convictions from receiving student loans. n6 There are no time limits on these punishments; once convicted, loans are denied for life. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (”HUD”) has a “One Strike and You’re Out” policy which denies housing to people accused of using drugs, even absent a criminal charge. n7 Recent years have also seen the publication of numerous reports linking drug war efforts and racial discrimination. For instance, in 2000 the United States General Accounting Office issued a report that criticized the United States Customs Service for the racial disparity of it search and seizure policies at national airports. n8 According to the report, African American women were nine times as likely as white women to be x-rayed after being frisked, even though they were half as likely to be found carrying contraband. n9 Although we could not address as many of the issues as we wished, our hope is that this symposium will add to and expand the important dialogue taking place about race and drug laws.
Shortly before the symposium, news broke about a drug sting operation in Tulia, Texas. n10 The story of Tulia seemed to encapsulate the larger national drug war story. During a one-day drug raid one in six of Tulia’s African American citizens was arrested. A white deputy organized the sting, and juries for those accused were made up mostly of whites. A series of trials for those arrested resulted in severe sentences; one man received sixty years for selling one-eighth of an ounce of cocaine. A local newspaper printed a passionate editorial supporting the arrests. It was not until a local resident began examining the cases and contacting journalists outside Tulia that the white citizens of Tulia, and eventually the whole nation, began to take a close look at what had happened. A local prosecutor who was questioned about what had happened defended the sting by saying, “We’re not a lynching county. This is a community that’s tough on drugs.” n11 The story of Tulia provided a stark backdrop for the discussions and presentations of our symposium. Is what happened in Tulia an anomaly - a random situation, resulting from the overzealous activity of one small town deputy? Or is what happened in Tulia paradigmatic of the national war on drugs? Is Tulia, simply the United States in microcosm? How is race implicated in our current drug laws? The Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review invited speakers to its symposium in an attempt to answer this, and other questions about race and the drug laws.
The morning Keynote Speaker, Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes serves in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas, in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. She has served as past president of the Barrister’s Association (1990-1991) and the National Bar Association, Women Lawyer’s Division, Philadelphia Chapter (1998-1999). She currently serves as a judicial liaison to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Sub-committee on racial and gender bias in the judicial system. In her Keynote Address, Judge Hughes discussed the challenges that a judge, bound by a judicial oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth,
faces in the day-to-day administration of justice. Often stripped of judicial discretion in sentencing by mandatory minimum sentencing laws, she struggles to uphold her oath to dispense individual justice. Judge Hughes pointed out the inefficiency of mandatory minimum sentences by comparing the recidivism rates of those drug users sentenced to mandatory sentences in state prison as opposed to those given individualized sentences, with options for drug treatment and other supports, best suited to ensure that they can succeed in reclaiming productive lives.
Diana R. Gordon is Professor of Political Science and Criminal Justice at City College, City University of New York, and the author of numerous books and articles. Her symposium article, Drug Policy and the Dangerous Classes: A Historical Overview, illustrates patterns of discriminatory drug policies that have resulted in the marginalization and disenfranchisement of minorities since the first drug prohibition laws were passed. Initially noting colonial restrictions against providing African and Native Americans with alcohol, Professor Gordon noted many socioeconomic factors influencing drug prohibition, such as labor shortages and surpluses. In 1875, San Francisco passed the first drug prohibition ordinance against opium consumption, which primarily targeted Chinese laborers. The timing of the ordinance was such that it coincided with finishing railroad construction; the immigrants were no longer needed. During the Depression, sanctions against smoking cannabis by Mexican immigrants increased as their labor was perceived to be a drain on the economy.
Other bases for past drug laws include a fear of immigrant and minority drug use contaminating white Americans. Secondary effects of this drug use were widely publicized to include violent crimes. These images turned on the geographic locus of the problem. In California, it was a fear of Hindu immigrants’ use of cannabis. In the South, the portrayals turned to cocaine-crazed African Americans attacking white women.
Professor Gordon also notes that today’s drug laws in many ways are more difficult to fight than the original Jim Crow laws. While the laws are facially neutral, the effects disproportionately fall upon minority drug users. Media reports of drug use by individual persons of color foment perceptions that all members of a particular race are dangerous, thus requiring increasingly more disproportionate enforcement of the laws.
The morning symposium panel entitled Criminal Penalties and the Disparate Impact and Enforcement on the African American Community included three of the most knowledgeable and renowned experts in this field. The speakers were Mr. Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project, Mr. Eric Sterling of The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, and The Honorable Robert W. Sweet, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York.
Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, has researched criminal justice reform issues for twenty years. Mr. Mauer is the author of the book Race to Incarcerate, n12 as well as numerous reports on criminal justice such as The Crisis of the Young African American Male and the Criminal Justice System. n13 In his article, Mr. Mauer discusses the disparate impact and enforcement of drug laws in communities of color, addressing particularly the one-dimensional aspect of drug policy in such communities. While communities of color may see police presence as one aspect of a successful policy to limit the damages of drug abuse in their communities, Mr. Mauer makes clear that such policies must be used in conjunction with treatment options, social supports, and economic opportunities. In addition, Mr. Mauer addresses the issue of substantial voter disenfranchisement that has resulted in communities of color as a result of felony drug convictions.
Eric E. Sterling is the president of The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a private non-profit organization that promotes innovative solutions to criminal justice problems. He was a principal aide in developing the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, n14 the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, n15 and other laws. Mr. Sterling’s talk offered a unique perspective on lawmaking from his experience as Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives from 1979 to 1989. Mr. Sterling relates how lawmakers needed no additional information to determine that illegal drugs were a problem. However, the representatives leveraged the drug issue to their own advantage. They emotionally charged not only the electorate but also each other in a “hysterical one-upsmanship” in providing skyrocketing penalties for drug crimes. The most recent statistics provided by Human Rights Watch note that for drug offenses, African Americans are imprisoned at a 1300% higher rate that whites.
Mr. Sterling also inquired whether the prohibition against drug use was a “thought crime,” given that the few politicians who have advocated review of our present policies are regularly branded as drug users or are shunned by the press and their own political parties. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress asserts federal authority to regulate and prohibit drug use. However, drug use per se affects only the individual user and his or her mind, raising the inquiry of whether one’s brain can be rightfully regulated as a component of interstate commerce.
The Honorable Robert W. Sweet is a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York and Chairman of the Committee on Judicial Improvement and the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Group for his district. Judge Sweet has also served as Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1953-1955) and Deputy Mayor of New York (1966-1969). Judge Sweet has taken courageous stands against mandatory minimum sentences and other U.S. drug policies. In his article, Crack in the Wall, he discusses how he came to these difficult decisions. He also discusses the problems of mandatory minimum sentences, as they affect both defendants in drug cases, and the judicial system itself. Judge Sweet also discusses the “the new federalism” and its possible impacts on drug policy.
Giving the afternoon Keynote Address of the symposium was the Honorable Kurt L. Schmoke, former Mayor of Baltimore and current partner with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.
As mayor of Baltimore, Mr. Schmoke pioneered the use of syringe exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV and other bloodborne pathogens among injecting drug users (”IDU”) and their sex partners. He arrived at this decision after a frank evaluation of U.S. drug policy based on three inquiries: first, whether we have won the war on drugs; second, whether the present system is adequately addressing public health concerns; and third, whether continuation of a prohibition/law enforcement focus on the problem would provide a solution to these problems. Concluding that all questions required a negative reply, Mayor Schmoke attempted to persuade Maryland policymakers to augment their current approaches with a syringe exchange program.
Mayor Schmoke’s success story turned on addressing substance abuse as a public health issue, rather than one necessitating a response from the criminal justice system. Characterizing the issue in terms of a parent’s reaction to a child’s substance abuse problem, he posited that most people would call health care providers for medical treatment, not law enforcement officials for arrest and prosecution. The Baltimore syringe exchange program became a reality after three years of attempting to persuade the state legislature to waive the drug paraphernalia laws. The program reduced the spread of HIV by forty percent in
the IDU community and serves as a model for the nation.
The first afternoon panel of the symposium was entitled Public Health Impacts of Drug Laws. The presentations included a talk on the connection between racial profiling and HIV/AIDS by Dr. Dawn Day of the Dogwood Center (presented by Professor Scott Burris in Dr. Day’s absence), a presentation on syringe exchange laws by Professor Scott Burris (not included in this volume), and a presentation by Dr. Mindy Thompson Fullilove of a paper written by Beverly Watkins and Dr. Fullilove on the failure of the public health response to the crack cocaine epidemic.
Dr. Dawn Day’s article, Racial Profiling and Other Factors in the Spread of AIDS Among People Who Inject Drugs, analyzes various factors that contribute to the disparate rates of HIV infection in the African American and white communities. Dr. Day concludes that the fear of being stopped by police prevents African American intravenous drug users from carrying clean injection equipment, therefore increasing the likelihood that they will share syringes and become infected with the HIV virus.
Dr. Mindy Thompson Fullilove, is a professor of clinical psychiatry and public heath at Columbia University and a research psychiatrist at New York State Psychiatric Institute. She has published extensively on the topic of drug abuse and public health. Dr. Fullilove’s symposium paper addressed the growth of crack cocaine use in the inner cities of America, and the failure of the government agencies to respond with a timely and organized public health plan. Dr. Fullilove questions whether this failure of response was linked to the social and economic marginalization of those communities most affected by crack cocaine use. In her analysis, she compares the lack of public health response to the economic redlining that has taken place in poor neighborhoods.
The last panel of the day entitled Social and Political Disenfranchisement dealt with the social and political marginalization of African Americans and other minorities as a result of U.S. drug laws and policies. The speakers were William Buckman, Esquire; Susan Frietsche, Esquire; Amy E. Hirsch, Esquire; and J. Whyatt Mondesire.
William H. Buckman is a certified criminal trial attorney in the State of New Jersey, where he was admitted to the Bar in 1978. Most recently, Mr. Buckman was one of the lead defense attorneys in the case of State v. Soto. n16 The defense prevailed on a selective persecution claim in seventeen consolidated cases. Mr. Buckman asserted that the New Jersey State police operated based on a racially motivated profile on the New Jersey Turnpike. The recently published opinion in Soto has been cited nationwide as a precedent for challenging racially based profiles.
Mr. Buckman’s article, Challenging Racial Profiles: Attacking Jim Crow on the Interstate, initially notes that the rate of contraband seizure based on racial profiles is no greater than that achievable by using random traffic stops of all cars. Thus, racial profiles do not add predictive value to the determination of whether passengers in a car may be carrying illegal drugs. However, racial profiling continues because illegally searched persons of color are less likely to have the resources to challenge the illegally conducted search.
While drug laws are facially neutral, the “unbridled discretion” used in their enforcement results in disproportionate harm to minority populations. In Soto, Mr. Buckman used statistics to demonstrate not only who was stopped for violating traffic laws, but more importantly, who was eligible to be stopped. While most drivers violate at least one of the myriad traffic laws, African American drivers were 485% more likely to be stopped than non-African Americans on the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike. Officers augmented the exercise of their discretion with the use of “warnings,” in which an officer stopped a car for a violation but did not issue a formal ticket. These warnings often served as post-hoc justifications for stops and searches for illegal drugs based only on a racial profile.
Susan Frietsche is a staff attorney at the Women’s Law Project. She has litigated and lobbied on behalf of low-income women, domestic violence survivors, health care providers and their patients, lesbian and gay parents, and many others. Most recently Ms. Frietsche, along with the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy and attorneys Seth Kreimer and David Rudovsky, has been co-counsel in the important case Ferguson v. City of Charleston. n17 This case challenged a “search and arrest” policy in Charleston under which pregnant women seeking medical care were secretly drug tested and arrested for “fetal abuse” if they tested positive for drugs. Ms. Frietsche discusses Ferguson and its importance for women seeking medical care during pregnancy and all women seeking bodily autonomy.
Amy E. Hirsch is a supervising attorney at the Community Legal Services office in North Philadelphia. During 1998 she was awarded a Senior Soros Justice Fellowship from the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture to do research on the interaction of welfare reform and criminal justice issues. Her report on that research, “Some Days Are Harder Than Hard”: Welfare Reform and Women With Drug Convictions in Pennsylvania n18 was recently released.
Ms. Hirsch’s article, Bringing Back Shame: Women, Welfare Reform, and Criminal Justice, addresses the suffering of poor women when minimal interaction with the criminal justice system leads to disproportionately large effects on their public assistance benefits. In many states, possession with intent to deliver small amounts of drugs (five or ten dollars worth) is a felony, and a felony drug conviction results in the lifetime loss of welfare benefits. Many of the women arrested for this minimal possession had no prior convictions and no opportunities to enroll in drug treatment prior to their incarceration. Denial of welfare benefits is further compounded because many welfare caseworkers do not fully understand the laws. Consequently, women are regularly denied benefits for criminal convictions that do not require denial of welfare benefits.
Ms. Hirsch counteracted the conventional wisdom that welfare creates dependence on the public assistance system. She noted that welfare benefits create a measure of independence by providing a source of income to recipients that helps them break the cycle of dependence on drug-using husbands and boyfriends. If the goal of the present system is to deter drug use, denial of welfare benefits to persons with felony drug convictions is counterproductive. By removing the welfare recipient from the drug-use environment, the recipient is more able to address her drug problems.
J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Philadelphia branch of the NAACP and publisher of the Philadelphia Sunday Sun Newspaper, has a long and distinguished career as a civil rights activist, journalist, and legislative aide. Mr. Mondesire and the NAACP have recently been involved in a lawsuit seeking to overturn a Pennsylvania law that bans ex-felons from voting for five years after release from prison. In his article, Felon Disenfranchisement: The Modern Day Poll Tax, Mr. Mondesire discusses the history of voter disenfranchisement in the American South under Jim Crow laws. He makes a powerful analogy to the current state of affairs where thirteen percent of African American men now suffer voter disenfranchisement as a result of felon disenfranchisement laws. The current NAACP lawsuit seeks to remedy this situation and encourage a movement nationally to challenge such laws.
Drug War Beneficiaries: Banks and Dictators
The last article in this volume was not presented at the symposium, but was submitted in response to a call for papers. Professor Benjamin D. Steiner and Victor Argothy’s article, White Addiction: Racial Inequality, Racial Ideology, and the War on Drugs, initially notes that illegal substance use is often treated as an individual health problem among predominantly white, middle-and upper-class populations. n19 In contrast, policymakers adopt a militaristic approach when addressing drug problems facing lower socioeconomic status populations that are disproportionately minority communities. These observations form Professor Steiner’s thesis that the current dominant view of U.S. drug problems is one of “white denial/black blame.” In this model, whites are innocent bystanders; drug abuse and its attendant problems are found among minority communities. However, this perception is inapposite to reality; drug abuse problems may be more salient in minority communities, but white Americans use drugs in similar numbers to other racial groups.
FOOTNOTES:
n1. See generally Diana R. Gordon, The Return of the Dangerous Classes: Drug Prohibition and Policy Politics (W. W. Norton 1994); Marc Mauer, Race to Incarcerate (New Press 1999); David F. Musto, The American Disease: The Origins of Narcotics Control (Yale U. Press 1999).
n2. Pub. L. No. 63-223, ch. 1, Stat. 785 (1914) (superseded 1939).
n3. See William N. Elwood, Rhetoric in the War on Drugs: The Triumphs and Tragedies of Public Relations 24 (Greenwood Publg. Group 1994).
n4. See Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs, Human Rights Watch Report, Vol. 12, No. 2(G) (2000).
n5. See ACLU, ACLU and Drug Policy, American Drug Laws: The New Jim Crow.
n6. See Carol Lewis, If You Use, You Lose; Critics Decry Law That Cuts Aid to College Students Who Have Drug Convictions, Houston Chronicle A28 (Apr. 14, 1999).
n7. See Jason Dzubow, Fear-Free Public Housing?: An Evaluation of HUD’s “One Strike and You’re Out” Housing Policy, 6 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rights L. Rev. 55, 63 (1997).
n8. U.S. General Acctg. Off., U.S. Customs Serv.: Better Targeting of Airline Passengers for Personal Searches Could Produce Better Results, Report No. GG-00-38 (2000).
n9. Id. at 2.
n10. Hector Tobar, A Question of Motive Dogs Texas Panhandle Drug Bust in Tulia: One of Every Six Blacks Was Arrested. Some Residents See Raid as State-sponsored “Ethnic Cleansing,” 119 L.A. Times A1 (Oct. 7, 2000).
n11. Id.
n12. See Marc Mauer, Race to Incarcerate (New Press 1999).
n13. See Marc Mauer, The Crisis of the Young African American Male and the Criminal Justice System, Sentencing Project Report (1999).
n14. Pub. L. No. 98-473, 217 (a), 98 Stat. 1837, 2017-34 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. 3551-68 (1994).
n15. Pub. L. No. 100-690, 7001 (1), 102 Stat. 4390, 21 U.S.C. 848 (1) (1988 ed.)
n16. 324 N.J. Super. 66 734 (L. Div. 1996), appeal by state withdrawn DOCKET NO. A-1084-95T3 (App. Div. 4/22/99).
n17. 121 S.Ct. 1281 (2001).
The United States of Incarceration May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Criminal Justice, Government , 2commentsThe amount of money that American taxpayers spend on prisons has never been greater, and the fraction of the American population held in prison has tripled during the last 15 years, as has national prison capacity. Yet the expected punishment of violent criminals has declined, and violent crime flourishes at intolerably high levels. The seeming paradox of more prisons and less punishment for violent criminals, which means less public safety, is explained by the war on drugs. That war has gravely undermined the ability of America’s penal institutions to protect the public. As prisons are filled beyond capacity with nonviolent “drug criminals” (many of them first offenders), violent repeat offenders are pushed out the prison doors early, or never imprisoned in the first place.
As prison crowding worsens, many public officials are embracing alternatives to incarceration, such as electronic home monitoring, boot camps, and intensive supervised probation. Although those alternatives have their place, their benefits have frequently been overstated.
The most effective reform would be to return prisons to their primary mission of incapacitating violent criminals. Revision or repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for consensual offenses, tighter parole standards, and tougher laws aimed at repeat violent offenders can help the state and federal criminal justice systems get back to their basic duty: protecting innocent people from force and fraud.
Background: The Imprisonment Surge
For approximately the last 15 years, the United States has been engaged in the largest imprisonment program ever attempted by a democratic society. The number of persons incarcerated has soared to levels unknown in American history. Consider the following statistics.
In 1981 the total number of state and federal prisoners was 369,930. By 1992 the number had risen to 883,593.(1)
The number of sentenced prisoners per 100,000 population in 1980 was 138, a figure that represented a historic high. By 1993 the figure has risen to 344.(2)
In addition to the state and federal prison population, there were 444,584 persons held in city and county jails as of June 30, 1992, a figure that has more than doubled over the last decade.(3)
In addition to the nearly 1 million persons in state and federal prisons, and the over 400,000 in city and county jails, there are over 2 million persons on probation and over half a million on parole.(4)
The federal prison population, which stood at about 24,000 in 1980, had soared to over 90,000 by December 1993 and is expected to rise to 130,000 by the turn of the century.(5)
The drastic increase of the combined state and federal prison population between 1974 and 1990 is mainly the result, not of demographics, but of policy changes. Population growth accounted for 7.7 percent of the growth of the prison population, increased crime for 19 percent, and more arrests for 5.3 percent. The great bulk of the increase– 60.9 percent–was the result of decisions to send to prison offenders who otherwise would have been given an alternative sentence. And 7.1 percent of the growth resulted from an increase in time served.(6) The relative impact of the increase in time served may grow larger in coming years, as the 10- and 20-year mandatory sentences enacted in the 1980s have their full impact.
There are no signs of the prison surge’s abating. State prison populations are up 59 percent in just the last four years.(7) At the rate prisoners are currently being added to the state and federal systems, the United States needs 1,143 new prison beds each week.(8) A survey of 49 state prison systems plus the federal system found that they expected an average growth of 21.4 percent from January 1, 1993, to January 1, 1995.(9)
In state after state, prison capacity is at record highs, but the prison population is even higher. The average American prison system now operates at 15.4 percent over capacity.(10) For example:
Maryland’s prisons, built to hold fewer than 12,180 inmates, now hold 19,799.(11)
Florida prisons held 20,000 inmates in fiscal year 1980-81 and now hold over 48,000.(12)
The Texas prison system, which had 25,000 beds in 1979, had 109,000 by 1993.(13)
Forty states, two territories, and the District of Columbia are currently under court orders as a result of prison overcrowding.(14)
As of January 1, 1993, the federal prison system was 38 percent over capacity.(15)
Prison violence has also increased. Inmate assaults on guards have risen 10-fold in the last five years.(16) Over-crowding also contributes to inmate assaults on other inmates, as two persons with histories of violent assault are placed in a room designed for one.
Prison critics used to note that the United States incarcerated a larger percentage of its population than any nation except the USSR and South Africa. That statistic is no longer true. The number of state and federal prisoners per 100,000 population tripled in the last two decades, and the United St