Leviathan

This summer I will be participating in a Summer Fellowship at the Western Justice Center Foundation in Pasadena. The Western Justice Center was founded in 1996 and is actively involved in initiating, developing, and implementing programs in society aimed towards the dissemination of violence, through dialogue and teaching. The program that I will be engaged in developing this summer will be designing a Conflict Resolution Seminar for the Pasadena Police Department. Although I believe that I have a healthy critique of the overall function of the police in our society, this program is attempting to teach police officer's how to handle and re-direct conflict within their own department and on various calls for service.

My critique of the police is not necessarily the fault of the police themselves, but the fault of our culture in its individualistic mindset which has subsequently transferred control in society over to the government, who have taken that control and systematically created; Leviathan. In this sense, I am referring to the Enlightenment use of the word Leviathan, used by Thomas Hobbes' book in 1651 entitled: The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, commonly called Leviathan, which has detailed the social contract which must be controlled by a "strong central government", which does not support any "right of rebellion," which was later supported by John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. This is in a sense Hobbes' own hermeneutic of biblical Revelation, in that Leviathan could be a metaphor for chaos in society, which must be put in order by God's instrument of divine order; the state.

This is a summary of Hobbes' Leviathan in his own words this describes his belief about the power of OUR state, please read carefully:

"The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence."

The goal of our understanding of Conflict Resolution then should come from the perspective of "the other". This "other" according to Hobbes should have their wills placed under the dominion of the Commonwealth because in essence, "humans can not be trusted". We then as Christians must acknowledge that out of this belief proceeded modernity and as we continue to move towards post-modernity we be careful to understand that we see "the other" through our worldview and the lens which has been created through the social structure of what Hobbes has detailed above. This "Commonwealth" which Hobbes created is in fact the Roman state wrapped in a new package and presented to humanity as that which will bring the "peace" which we desire. The very peace which we desire can in fact create another system which will justify the suppression of ideas based upon our belief in a "universal umbrella of logic" which will define how we act towards anyone who may disagree with us. To quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer he stated,

"The mistake of Anglo-Saxon thought is the subordination of truth and justice to the ideal of peace. Indeed, such a view assumes that the very existence of peace is proof that truth and justice have prevailed. Yet such a view is illusory just to the extent that the peace that is the reality of the Gospel is identified with the peace based on violence. No peace is peace but that which comes through the forgiveness of sins. Only the peace of God preserves truth and justice. So “neither a static concept of peace (Anglo-Saxon thought) nor even a static concept of truth (the interpretation put forward by Hirsch and Althaus) comprehends the Gospel concept of peace in its troubled relationship to the concepts of truth and righteousness.”

What can not be missed in this concept of peace as quoted by Bonhoeffer is the fact that it was developed on the system of Hobbes', Leviathan which in reality is always extremely violent. So, peace gained at the expense of violence is never the goal of peace. This is what Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said which caused so much controversy. Those who have participated in the system of peace brought by Leviathan have lived fairly comfortably, making the kingdom of God fit into this so-called, "structure of peace". But to those whom were on the receiving end of Leviathan, they were consumed by the "breath of his nostrils"!

Hobbes himself was reacting towards the wars created by "passionate man", his answer was to subvert passionate man with a dominant state. The whole point of the Enlightenment was the develope a "unifying scientific rationale which will allow everyone to agree", but when that didn't work, the state was created as; Leviathan.

So, here is the question, "How do we resolve conflicts?" Any responses are appreciated. Thanks, Love ya' all, Paul

Social Reconciliation

This picture is from the Iraq Study Group! Scary to "think".

These three men are making universal policy in regard to Iraq, yet none of them speak any dialect of Arabic, nor are any of them Iraqi, and I am only assuming, but I am probably confident that they do not have a firm grasp of Iraqi or Muslim history. How can we in the church learn from these three men? Hopefully, in many ways.

I haven't posted in a while, but it does not mean that I am not attempting to "think through"(Oh, the wonderful Enlightenment) various theologies and existential realities, which deeply affect the elite classes who already possess the means and wealth to be able to determine their destinies. In case you were wondering, my theology will not challenge what the dominant culture has always thought, because I still think that we should continue to build upon the foundation that those who have, should be given more, and if they are not given more, we should develop new ways by which they can gain more. We have continued to sustain the already existent systems through new theologies which have perpetuated the elite to travel and speak and teach, because as long as we are not developing ways by which those who have never had anything, will maybe have these same opportunities to participate in the social systems, we have to believe simply that, "Hard work pays!" This means that after all is said and done, we believe that humans either make "good or bad" personal choices and their lives reflect either of these choices. We in Seminary want to "have our cake and eat it too" because if poor humans are not gaining opportunities through what we are preaching, then are we simply preaching to the elite? Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the German church was a "Bourgeois church", and has systematically pushed the poor and working class out and was full of the artisans and elite classes. If we had a board meeting in our church, would the faces around the table look the same as the one pictured above? If they do, then how the hell can we look down our noses at others, when we are doing the same thing?!

After all Jesus did say in Matthew 25:29, "For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. I love to proof-text, it always works out well for me. In this verse, Jesus meant the rich and powerful of course, because like us they valued "hard work" and the poor will have even what they have taken away from them, since having abundance is a sign of God's blessing and provision, based upon that hard work, right?

If Jesus was around today, oh wait, the resurrection of Jesus and the giving of the Spirit, means that the ministry of Christ is being brought forth in the earth today, right? Who would Jesus address in terms of people putting burdens on other people today? Those darn fundamentalists from the Bible Belt, those darn Dispensationalists, those darn patriarchal perpetrators of male dominance! Isn't fundamentalism developing doctrines, which we believe are "fundamental" to our faith, then promoting them universally? Aren't we all fundamentalists, then? If I do not hold any of the above mentioned gross distortions of theology, then I am safe from God's judgment, because of course Jesus doesn't mean me, he always means them, when he addressed the religious leaders, because I possess a theology of intelligence, a theology which promotes equality, (as long as I am the one promoting the so-called equality), but the point of this entire blog is to demonstrate that if we hold an elite theology, then we are perpetuating the system of inequality all over again, because without developing theology to address the past injustices in which theology was developed to maintain power and control over other people, how can we in Seminary look at anyone else and think we are "right and they are wrong". We who say, "But my theology which has come down through the generations and is a theology of tradition, and please never forget, "It is a theology of Northern Europe!" Can I get some whiteness, oops I mean witness." I actually had a professor at Fuller say, "I don't know why God chose to reveal theology to Europe, but that is what he did!"

When we look around our churches, I sometimes think that the people who maintain power and control in these churches are the same people who would have been powerful outside of the church, which scares me. I believe that we need to seriously deconstruct the fact that our churches and theologies are not developing us to care for others through service, to lay aside power, and participate with the reconciliation of people with opportunities which they have never had before. Wouldn't it be great to see the poor get educated through scholarships which churches provide, instead of building large buildings. Instead of adding a "Wing to the already large Library", we develop a program whereby poor students obtain opportunities to go to college, get free tutoring from graduate students, and this program is also integrated into the School of Theology and Psychology, so that these students and their families can receive free counseling. Just a thought.

Crime and Violence...

Crime and Violence....

A topic which makes us all wonder what we should do? The answer over the past two decades for most Americans and most Evangelical Christians for that matter has been to isolate ourselves further and further away from where we believe crime and violence will strike, yet we are seeing violence more and more in "our" neighborhoods and in "our" lives and it simply can not be ignored any longer. The LA Times will immediately label any and all violence as "gang related", as they again did this morning, when the LAPD shot and killed a "suspect" (key word), then the paper this morning labeled him as a "gang member". I am in no way justifying the fact that the suspect shot at officers, but the prevailing opinion is, "Kill the gang members and we will live in a safe city." The Christian community is silent about this phenomena of demonizing someone who was just killed, in order to justify the actions of the people who shot him. I know that the police have a difficult job as it was difficult when I did the job, but this labeling of people has to stop, because it makes the person into an object, not a subject who had a family, feelings, interests, and was created in God's image.
Through my studying of sociology, the labeling of people by dominant society has always happened, but we can not ignore the cities any longer.

William Julius Wilson, as sociologist at Harvard and previously The University of Chicago, has written a book entitled; When Work Disappears and has traced the lineage, post World War II, by detailing, a historical study into the economic collapse of inner city neighborhoods in the U.S., between 1950 and 1990, but focusing mainly on 1970-1990, in hopes of looking at ways to bring economic revitalization back to the inner city.

Wilson has detailed how, “outmigration” of higher income families, predominantly middle class and working class black families from ghetto neighborhoods into mainstream society, has caused a definitive disjunction of social cohesion in neighborhood, where people used to form social networks at church, community organizations, schools...after the working poor left, the unemployed poor where left to "fend for themselves." He also points to the fact that unemployed poor are slightly different from the working poor in these same neighborhoods, in that the working poor have greater opportunity to attain economic stability, whereas the unemployed remain trapped within a greater cycle of poverty. Once this “social buffer” between the unemployed poor and the working class poor was removed after the middle and working class families “out-migrate”, and social organizations which once gave structure to inner city life also disappeared, unemployment would continue to increase, through the enlargement of ghetto areas in cities, by people simply leaving those areas.

Statistically, this premise of “outmigration” had been developing through the years, post World War II, but culminated between 1970 and 1990. In the years after WWII the federal government had “redlined” mortgages for homeowners in certain inner city neighborhoods, but favored mortgages for suburban neighborhoods, attracting families to leave the inner cities in favor of the suburbs. “It trapped mainly blacks and certain European immigrants in the inner cities.” The suburbs had greater use of land at this time, therefore many suburban planners made use of lenient zoning restrictions, through “tract housing”, making it difficult for “inner city racial minorities to penetrate.”

How then do we as Christians created jobs, or how do we reconcile the marginalized with the opportunities afforded to the rest of us? This is a difficult question, which I am wanting study and know in a deeper way. The above mentioned statements from Wilson's book was a paper which I wrote at Fuller Seminary about the economic revitalization of cities and how jobs need to be created in cities allowing people opportunities to work. God Bless.

The Black Panther Party (BPP)

This paper will attempt to show how the lack of economic development in certain neighborhood’s of Los Angeles has given rise to gang problems, but also how the societal labeling of and use of the term “gang” denotes a negative response and invokes fear in the minds of communities in Los Angeles. Instead of looking at the formation of gangs as social organizations and outlets, as originally designed in response as immigration into the U.S. increased, gangs have now taken on a completely different identity which has been consummated by expressing a complete lack of hope in the system. For example to quote from the Founding Father of The Black Panther’s, Huey Newton, he stated that, “The Black Panther Party (BPP) was formed in this country in 1966 as an organization of Black and poor persons embracing a common ideology, identified by its proponents as revolutionary intercommunalism.”[1]
Huey Newton developed The Black Panther Party in the 1960’s as a reaction against the unjust economic, social, and political practices of the American Government, and therefore the Black Panthers developed a Ten Point Program to redress certain issues which were plaguing their communities. (My words) This Ten Point Program is as follows:
1. We Want Freedom. We Want Power To Determine The Destiny Of Our Black Community.
2. We Want Full Employment For Our People.
3. We Want An End To The Robbery By The Capitalists Of Our Black Community.
4. We Want Decent Housing Fit For The Shelter Of Human Beings.
5. We Want Education For Our People That Exposes The True Nature of This Decadent American Society.
We Want Education That Teaches Us Our True History And Our Role In The Present Day Society.
6. We Want All Black Men To Be Exempt From Military Service.
7. We Want An Immediate End To Police Brutality And Murder Of Black People.
8. We Want Freedom For All Black Men Held In Federal, State, County, And City Prisons And Jails.
9. We Want All Black People When Brought To Trial To Be Tried In Court By A Jury Of Their Peer Group Or People From Their Black Communities, As Defined By The Constitution Of The United States.
10. We Want Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice And Peace.[2]
The Ten Points Program was basically drafting a covenant with the African American community in which it integrated their interpretation of the United States Constitution with the Constitutions promise to give its citizens the rights which they deserve as human beings, combined with the reality of life in inner city America, which demonstrably showed massive differences in the above mentioned opportunities. This Ten Point Program reflected the formation of a gang for the positive growth of the African American community, through Black Nationalism, which was a premise that had been defined a few years earlier in the decade by Malcolm X. What then does The Ten Points Program, Huey Newton, and Malcolm X have to do with the problem of gangs in the inner cities of the United States?

I am currently in the process of designing a paper which can address the economic, social, and political instability of the inner cities in the U.S. Through my research I started to attempt to understand how the evolution of gangs in the U.S. have direct involvement with the lack of economic development and lack of accessibility to the resources of society. The Black Panther Party originated as a social organization, a "gang" per se to address these issues. What if "gangs" still had a voice in society to address their laments about the inequality felt and experienced? My last blog post said that gangs do have a voice in society and Wow; "IT IS LOUD AND CLEAR!"
The Black Panthers simply utilized the U.S. Constitution as the document to which gives them the rights afforded citizens of the U.S., such as "Jury of peers", i.e. those who are from the same class, race, ethnicity, economic background as the person being tried. This would be the logical conclusion of the word, "peer". Logic of course is only utilized when it benefits the ruling class. The U.S. Constitution also gives citizens "the right to assemble", which we in the Church hold dear to our lives. Rome would not allow its citizens to assemble in more than twelve at any given time, which in essence were pre-modern "gang injunctions." Rome (Caesar) didn't like competition, for more on that see the Trial of Jesus at the end of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. I see many of these movements today very similarly to the Zealot movements in the New Testament, and Jesus called many Zealots to be his followers. He must see something in their heart which reflects the heart of God in relation to injustice, but would bring the kingdom of God, not through violence, but through the cross and resurrection.

Anyways, I find many of these causes start because people are extremely frustrated with the injustices, but I am finding more and more that God deeply wants to bear the injustice into the body of Christ, which means that we as Christians participate, but we have another voice, which wants to transform the person and the structures to reflect God's love. God's love is demonstrated in the incarnation of God's self becoming flesh and living with the oppressed, marginalized, and poor people. God though transformed humanity so that the anger and bitterness felt by said oppression did not destroy the people who were oppressed.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said that "Racist hatred destroys the blacks to whom it is projected onto, but it also destroys the whites." I find that once though we back away from directly naming issues, such as structural racism, many say, "Oh, good, now I can get back to the peaceful life."

[1] Newton, Huey: The War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America: Doctoral Dissertation: UC Santa Cruz: 1980.
[2] Newton: War Against the Panthers.

Excuse me, Sir

I have to post a short response to an incident which happened last Friday at our Fuller Seminary Book Store. We have been attempting to raise money and awareness about the crisis of orphans in Africa through a Men's Basketball League called Hope Sports. Hope Sports is a non-profit basketball league, which first and foremost connects people with sports so that we can participate in a mutual activity together, and secondly takes all the proceeds and gives them to Mosaic Church which in turn gives them to Breath of Heaven Children's Village in Zambia, Africa. The whole aspect of aid to Africa is a Pandora's box which I will not open at this time.

Anyhow, on Friday the Hope Sports jar is on the counter of the Coffee Shop as most jar's for charities are located. Inside the jar were dollar bills and other change. In walked a customer who was not a Fuller student and asked if someone could re-fill his water bottle, which they obliged. As soon as the employee turned around the customer reached into the jar and took a handful of money, put it in his pocket, took his refilled water bottle and left. This story is not to display the horrible deed of stealing money designated for an orphanage, because in my opinion this man is just as desperate as anyone for money.

So, you ask, "What gets you annoyed?" The fact that it was witnessed by other Fuller students who were sitting inside the Coffee Shop. Some of the students pointed it out to the employee after the man was long gone. I told this story to another person and he stated, "Well, did you want the students to grab him, what if he had a gun?" I will address the first part of his answer about "grabbing him and the second part about "a gun" in the next paragraph. Why, does it have to be either "Do nothing" or "Attack him violently?" There is a middle ground, which is confront him about his actions, speak kindly to him, maybe simply point out that the money is not his, say to him, "Excuse me sir, may I speak to you?" Address him with terms of respect, but pointedly so that he is aware that someone saw his actions. In all honesty, if Christianity is social, why are we so afraid of other people? Sometimes people commit crimes because they want someone to notice, to notice that he exists. Oh, how odd, someone would do something like that for attention? Yes, it happens all the time in inner cities across the country.

Gang violence is a perfect example. Why though do we assume that everyone in a city carries a gun? Has anyone besides myself and I don't count actually ever seen anyone ever with a gun? Seriously, I have NEVER seen anyone with a gun, outside of being a police offier. I know that guns exist, but where? Maybe it is fear which is perpetuated by the media and the police department which keeps people ignorant about gun violence, and keeps people doing nothing.

Let us look at how we as a society have abandoned the inner cities, as we chose to live comfortably in the suburbs, i.e. white flight from the '70's and '80's, excluding people due to skin color, economic status, or both, and by building "Housing projects" for them to live. So, the next generation growing up in poverty will gain the necessary attention by committing acts of violence. It would have been more efficient for the government to have allowed groups such as the "Black Panthers" to exist, since they predominantly were a political organization, speaking about issues of racism in the cities. Since people have no voice, violence creates a voice which we ALL hear "Loud and clear!" People from affluence gain attention by becoming elite and getting an education. Either way, in God's world both when misdirected (gangs as violent or education as elitist) cause the social death of any society. I heard a great quote by Hernando De Soto an excellent economist, not the explorer who said that, "Capitalism is first and foremost for the poor of society, not the elite, because the elite already have money."
Anyhow, just some food for thought. As my friend Corey Paxton said about this incident, "Just Do Something, anything!"

Bye Fuller Bye Bye...

Last quarter at Fuller! After this quarter I am officially finished with my theological studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. I have stated, "As soon as I am done with Fuller, I can finally start studying." Being forced to study certain disciplines at Fuller has been difficult, since it involved pretending to be concerned about issues which I am not concerned. I think Seminary spreads people too thin, since it is completely impossible to study everything, so why not focus and study a certain discipline. This is considered a "concentration." I am convinced though that merely studying does not change behavior, nor does it make anyone more loving. Also, merely seeking God does not allow people, outside of study to be able to engage culture contextually, because they won't know how various traditions have engaged the culture in the past; learning, then acting accordingly. Merely following culture could develop into a civil religion, where we simply reiterate the Christendom model.

Kelly Brown Douglas, a marvelous female African American theologian has written in her book, "What's Faith got to do with it?" Black Bodies/Christian Souls that our Platonized Christian traditions have caused our faith to demonize the black body. Separating the "flesh from the Spirit" can cause us to believe that our human flesh is evil, which is not what Paul meant in Romans. She has contended that this Platonic thought influenced Christendom and is therefore a damaging force in Christianity, because if the cross is the dominant paradigm of our faith, then if the cross should be demonstrated by societal power, it could become a part of this civil religion. We could then use the cross as justification to sacrifice that which we have demonized, which is usually found in "the other". Kelly Brown Douglas also points to Augustine as the one theologian most influentail in developing Platonized Christianity into a Christian dogma, through the Nicene/Chalcedonian confessions. She points to the fact that why is the life of Jesus not discussed in the Nicene Creed? Her answer is that Jesus' life doesn't matter in Platonized Christianity, because "the cross" had become to dominant symbol of promoting power of other people.

I too continually struggle against my own projection onto "the other", because it is easier to project our anger, frustration, and insecurities onto other people, whom we consider lower than us, than to deal with them, face the reality in our life, and in turn as Miroslav Volf says in Exclusion and Embrace, "understand God's truth inside the reality of our life." I think that this is a beautiful statement because reality is "frickin' difficult sometimes!" We must face that we have objectified people, not treated other human beings as a subject, meaning that they think, feel, and desire to be treated as human beings and that I continually place my own desires for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (or property) above my understanding that "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it." (Psalm 24:1 and I Corinthians 10:26) Of course I am speaking out of my own experience, but I use the term "we."

In one of my classes today I referenced racism in regards to societal factors which do not allow the poor to participate in activities which cost a lot of money, therefore many of the poor are relegated to activities which incorporate much more communal living. I was told that I was "wrong" on three different points in regard to economics. I embrace being wrong and it being pointed out, because I said, "Finally, someone cares enough to say that I am wrong or that I bring up a good point."
I can't pretend I didn't chuckle a bit though, because in Scripture I see those who exclude others, especially as a result of wealth being one day "shut out" themselves from the eschatological kingdom. We need to start looking at the activities in our lives to see if our daily activities reflect communal living or not. If they don't, then we should start to question whether our benefits are from God, or part of my human greed. If I am participating in communal activities, even if they are small, this is a great start towards the inclusiveness of the kingdom. If my activities simply reflect greater cultures obsession with wealth, I should reflect upon this so that it does not draw me away from the eschatological kingdom in the here and now. (N.T. Wright)

The Bottom Billion

Does God think differently than we do? This is of course a simple question. LOL. I am reading a book entitled The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier in which it details that 1/6 of the population of the world lives in "extreme poverty", which is below $1.00 a day. Extreme poverty is something which plagues our world, because the reality is that "it kills". The people who live in extreme poverty will die. In the 1800's, pre-industrial revolution, much of the world, especially Europe lived in extreme poverty. The growth since the 1800's until now has increased in the developed nations, at least in the U.S. Twenty-five fold. From 1820 to 1998, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 1.7 percent per year with per-capita income rising from $1200.00 per person to $30,000 per person. African nations did grow, but only about .7 percent per year. (Jeffrey Sachs, The End of Poverty) The two fastest growing economies in the world today are China and India, not the U.S., so this does mean that certain nations can grow their economies that were previously poor, also note that China is still Communist, but has embraced a globalized market, so it does not depend upon democracy as President Bush would have everyone believe. Always with the rise of a global market, there is a corresponding rise of global abuses, drugs, sex-trafficking, slavery, human rights abuses. Many in the U.S. will decry these real abuse's in China, but don't address them in our own nation. (Just a side note).

As I am finding out, economic growth in certain nations, is so dependent upon the neighboring nations. If a country in Africa is "landlocked", they are not able to export, nor import resources, (capital) because their neighboring nations, either will not let them, or they charge high tariffs, to allow goods to travel through the repective nation. Having a "United States", has helped in the transfer of goods and services to neighboring states. Could this have been done outside of the Civil War, I do not know. I struggle with this issue, because it seems as though war destroys, but also sometimes brings economic prosperity to a nation, but I CAN NOT support the killing of people, so I am stuck. I therefore do believe in the partnering with foreign nations to keep investments in the economies of poorer nations. Africa has the greatest amount of natural resources on the planet, so to see African nations being exploited for those resources causes me pain. This is why I entitled this post, "Does God think differently than we do?"

The World Bank has charted numerous statistics which detail economic issues involved in our world, but the most telling in my opinion is life expectancy, since the ability to function, i.e. work, live, have a family, enjoy the life God has given us, is reliant upon being alive, another reason that war is anti-Christ, since it takes away the one ability humans have to be in relationship with each other and God, life itself.

If you click on the World Bank link above, it will bring you to a map which shows the Life Expectancy at Birth/2002. In red are the nations where life expectancy is 55 years old or below. The African nations have the lowest life expectancy in the world today. There are numerous reasons why some of these African nations have low life expectancy, HIV/AIDS, disease (malaria), no clean drinking water, poor sanitation, no economic growth (food). I sometimes get angry because of after European nations left Africa, post-colonialism, the African economies now had to begin to survive without the assistance of Europe within the structure of a European market. It is the great paradox of colonization.

What strikes me is that Jesus said in Matthew 20:16 "The last shall be first and the first shall be last", but this ending statement of Jesus' was in reference to a parable which involved the economic practices of a landowner. (Click on link to read the parable, I would love to know what anyone else thought) There is much debate over whether Jesus is saying that the landowner had a right to do "whatever" he wanted with his money (denarius) or whether Jesus is using the parable to show that it is unjust in paying someone so little for doing so much work (greedy). Either way, I believe that God sees things differently than we do. God will one day "wipe away the tears from the eyes" of the poor and afflicted and has prepared them a place in the "bosom of Abraham", while those who had everything in this life will not be invited to this place of rest. It should cause us a little discomfort in not knowing who God will justify.