Featured Post

Freedom + Liberation = Equity

As I reflect on the recent resignation of Dr. Gay, from the presidential role at Harvard University, I yet celebrate the scholarship and lea...

Friday, May 29, 2020

Are Riots Justifiable for Gaining Legislative Attention about Ethnic Injustices?



Rev. Troy L. M. Denson (May, 2020)

All will admit that riots are destructive, whose results are costly, and are unlawful; however, throughout history, riots are considered as peoples' expressions of flagrant and public injustices gone unchecked by the national and/or regional legislative governance(s).

The fires in Minneapolis, Minnesota typify many frustrations and disappointments in the U.S., in which the victims, mostly African Americans, have been considered by the law as the criminals, and many are arrested for these expressions despite the injustices that continue mounting up throughout the country's history. In the photo, George Floyd was arrested due to being policed concerning a $10 bill alleged as counterfeit by a store clerk. Without resisting arrest, Floyd was forcefully apprehended and died after 10 minutes of the police officer's left knee and weight resting on Floyd's neck. 

In a novels written by Walter Dean Myers (2009), titled "Riot", and another book written by Iverson Bernstein (1991), titled "Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War" ...both describe a riot started due to Black peoples' unrest but yet they become double-victims of the riot. Dean and Iverson describes, "... a long hot July in 1863, the worst race riots the United States has ever seen erupt in New York City. Earlier that year, desperate for more Union soldiers, President Abraham Lincoln instituted a draft–a draft that would allow the wealthy to escape serving in the army by paying a $300 waiver, more than a year’s income for the recent immigrant Irish. And on July 11, as the first drawing takes place in Lower Manhattan, the city of New York explodes in rage and fire. Stores are looted; buildings, including the Colored Foundling Home, are burned down; and black Americans are attacked, beaten, and murdered. The police cannot hold out against the rioters, and finally, battle-hardened soldiers are ordered back from the fields of Gettysburg to put down the insurrection, which they do–brutally." In Dean's writing, this is the context of a story told by a 15 year old girl (Claire) who is the daughter of a white man and black woman. She wars within herself trying to make sense of society as well as her own identity (2009). And this is also the confusion bestowed on many African American children borne in the U.S.'s 21st Century, whether they hold a love for their country, as it exudes injustices on their own Black people.

Personally, in my 50 year lifetime, I have lived through the reports of 6 riots due to African American's unrest with law enforcement's injustices, and I have experienced one riot personally. In Baltimore, Maryland, in 2015, riots erupted due to the unjust exoneration of officers after the death of a young black man, Freddie Gray, while being transported to the police station, riding handcuffed and unprotected in the back of the police van. Consequently, a mall and many businesses were ravished. While I understood the duress of my fellow African Americans, as well understood the presence of National Guards, I joined a group of 100+ clergy in a peace march on the west side of Baltimore, which assisted in comforting and/or quelling the rioting. However, if one reflects only on the most recent 20 years of governance, wars, policing, employment, housing, prosperity, healthcare, and public dignity in the U.S., although there exists an equal share of cultural contributions, there also exists a glaring tilt of favoritism given to the cultures whom are not minorities. 

Simply, in the most recent 20 years, there has been enough public unfairness to justify unrest, disturbance, continual activism, and "acts" within the nation's minority generations whom are less than 30 years of age. A rhetorical question might be, "With a nation who exudes so much gross unfairness, how can we preach a gospel of God's favor to our children?" Rather than "God Bless America", we must say "God Help America". What is your opinion about recent rioting in the last 20 years in the U.S.?

Speak in Tongues or Not?


Troy L. M. Denson

(Please share your opinion after reading this.) 
The argument of "speaking in tongues" dates back to the first centuries (1AD) following their first occurrence documented in the Holy Bible's NT book called the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1-3). The Apostle Paul referred to "tongues" in comparison to other "Spiritual gifts", in which he concluded "love" (charity) as his preferred "gift" (1st Corinthians 14:4-5). Scholars such as Mae Henderson, in her book titled "Speaking in Tongues and Dancing Diaspora: Black Women Writing and Performing", she asserts that "...The oral tradition has always played an important role in African American literature, ranging from works such as Zora Neale Hurston's 'Their Eyes Were Watching God' to 'Toni Morrison's Beloved'. These and countless other novels affirm the power of sonance and sound in the African American literary canon. Considering the wide swath of work in this powerful lineage -- in addition to its shared heritage with performance -- Mae G. Henderson deploys her trope of "speaking in tongues" to theorize the preeminence of voice and narration in black women's literary performance through her reconstruction of a fundamentally spiritual practice as a critical concept for reading black women's writing dialogically and intertextually" (2014).


Similarly, Mark J. Carthelege, in his book, "Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives", identify spiritual tongue-talking as "gosolalia", and contributes to the dialogue from various point-of-views: "Speaking in tongues (glossolalia) is a common spiritual phenomenon in the Pentecostal and Charismatic streams of the Christian church. Such Christians believe that when they speak in tongues they are communicating with God in a language that they have never learned--spiritual prayer language given to them by the Holy Spirit. This innovative volume seeks to enhance our understanding and appreciation of glossolalia by examining it from a range of different angles. Christian scholars from diverse academic disciplines bring to bear the insights of their own specialist areas to shed new light on the practice of speaking in tongues" (2012).


Personally, regarding "Speaking in Tongues", I neither promote "tongue talking" nor criticize or ostracize it... I simply wait on the "fruit" of those who do such. Why?, because I believe that "Love" is the assessment, outcome, proof, litmus test, or validity of all religious actions... whether I understand them or not. That said, if one visits a Pentecostal, Holiness, or Church of God in Christ church, which makes up an estimated 279 million people, (4% of the world population and 12.8% of the world's Christian population)... one should expect to hear some "tongue talking", whether understood or not, because it's neither the words nor language that one should seek, it would be the "fruit of the spirit" that one should assess. To those who publicly criticize 12% of the Christian population because they "speak in tongues", one could make a special case for likewise neither visiting the "tongue opposer churches" nor listening to their sermons, because they display very little love for their fellow Christians. The question of this discussion is, "In our present-day, 21st Century contexts in the U.S., whereas there exists many cultures, many religions, as well as diverse sects who claim Christianity or Christ-likeness, or Jewish heritage, and there exists many "tongues"... i.e. languages, can the argument opposing "tongue talking" yet hold water amidst such diversity? (Click the comment link below to leave your thoughts on my blog. Thanks).

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Should We Report Back to our External Sites of our Employment?

Now that millions of employees have dipped their toes into the world of remote work, a decent portion of them may not want to go back once coronavirus-related restrictions ease up. Some 60% of U.S. workers told Gallup that they'd prefer to work from home as much as possible even after the pandemic calms, The New York Times reports. It's easy to see why: No need to spend time and money commuting, you can escape coworkers when you need to focus, and you have more control over your day. Granted, not all workers have the option to skip the office. But for those who do, this shift may be a permanent one.
What do you think? Do you want to go back to the office after the coronavirus is in our pasts?