FOR JESUS’ LOVE 18
Leadership Traits
By
Dr. Gale A. Ragan-Reid (November 25, 2017)
“So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.” (St. John 21:15-17, King James Version [Christ’s charge to Peter]}
Greetings in the Holy Name of Jesus,
My sisters and brothers, I am here to tell you that there is no single truth as the murkiness of the depth of the soul darkened in the competitive nature of man, throughout the ages. And as dismal as all of that sounded to the uplifting of the human spirit, there is faith, for hope is not deferred or unequivocally lost. Most importantly, we know that hate came out of love and the sting of sin is the law. More importantly, we know that grace is of God. However, we are taken aback in the words of President Lincoln, here in the United States of America, when he spoke the Gettysburg Address (November 19, 1863), “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” If my memory serves me correct for my fourth grade assignment was to memorize President Lincoln’s speech, The Gettysburg Address, then, I beg the difference of what that first line in our great president’s speech meant, presumably to the recent immigrants---those who were a part of the melting pot--- of the time and those recently freed out of slavery, notably African Americans more so than the other immigrants.
Why in God’s heaven, here on earth---America, did the Civil Rights Act (April 9, 1866, 14 Statute 27-30) not make a difference [There were subsequent variations, however, The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship and the same rights enjoyed by white citizens to all male persons in the United States "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude." pbs.org/reconstruction], immediately following the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863)---a federal proclamation, so that the words spoken in the Gettysburg Address
2
resonated in the freedom won during the Civil War (1861-65), in the daily lives of former slaves, for without the Civil Rights Act 1866 making a difference to guarantee the liberties---freedoms in the Constitution of the United States of America in our daily lives---those with reprobate hearts and minds used arguments questioning the power of congress to enact such an act, which gave state governments and local governments power to pass laws to re-enslave African Americans, therefore the 1866 Civil Rights Act became the Civil Rights Act of 1871---still arguably passed but not enforced beyond federal power?[It was enacted to protect African Americans and others that were in slavery.wikipedia.org] It took another 100 years give or take a year or two, for the USA to enact the Civil Rights Act 1964 and to ensure the leadership of America represented African Americans [“The Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (1908-73) on August 6, 1965, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States”, history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act], the Voting Rights Act 1965 (August 6, 1965) prohibited racial discrimination in voting followed the Civil Rights Act, ---all of 100 years since the Civil War (1861-1865), which gave the States of America the rule of law in the civil liberties of the newly freed slaves and the reign of what became known as the Jim Crow and Jane Crow era---Black codes, practiced in the States, throughout the USA. Understandably, we see clearly now that the years of Reconstruction, led by men of ill-repute in high offices, “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” [Ephesians 6:12], in a movement that used any means necessary to force former slaves back in bondage---chose to disenfranchise African-Americans so as not to rightfully share the wealth of America---even the promised wealth of 40 acres and a mule were denied to African Americans in many states. Many southern preachers spoke to their congregations that former slaves were Ham. Most African Americans did not understand that those in the knowledge of what they were doing---did not mean Noah’s son Ham, but that the states and local municipalities used the Babylonian law under Prince Hammurabi (1780 B.C.) to rule our daily lives and illegally denied our rights under the Constitution of the USA, so the Gettysburg Address spoken by President Lincoln did not resonate in the lives of former slaves, in particular African Americans, only in general, did it resonate in the lives of those the populous saw fit to let in, publicly denouncing Jews and African-Americans.
In reflection, we think how Satan competed with man (Adam) by convincing Eve to eat the fruit of good and evil [Genesis 3:1-6]. What about Cain’s competition with his brother Abel [for Cain was tiller of the ground and offered the fruit of the ground; Abel was keeper of the sheep and offered the firstlings of his flock, Genesis 4:1-4], which made us ask, “Am I my brother’s keeper? [4:9]” We see, here, two times God worked
3
two of mankind to hopefully gain agreement to further His plan for heaven and earth, both times, the two did not agree---husband and wife, brother-to-brother. Eve chose to decide for her husband to disobey God, talk with Satan, listen to Satan, eat of the fruit, give the fruit to Adam---unilateral decision making---not agreement. Cain completely lost all respect for his brother, killing him possibly thinking by default he would gain the win of his offering, which became a challenge competition just as Satan claimed everything by default since Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden---heaven, here on earth.
Howbeit the sons of God and the daughters of man [Genesis 6:1-5], brought about the wrath of God to destroy the earth, leaving the sons of Seth (Noah) ---the son born to Adam and Eve since their sons failed: Cain murdered Abel; Cain cast out. We quickly move to Abraham and Sarah---success in marriage but Sarah did influence Abraham to cast out his Egyptian son by Hagar [Gen. 16:15, 20-21; 21:13-14], so that the two sons Isaac and Ishmael would not rule in succession since Abraham’s death. However, God gave Rebecca, Isaac’s wife twin’s sons---Esau and Jacob. Jacob convinced Esau to sell his birthright for a bowl of soup. Interestingly enough, Rebecca did not permit Esau to take head of leadership back and helped Jacob deceive her husband to receive the blessing of the first born.
Hence, Rebecca sent Jacob to her brother Laban so that history would not repeat itself (Cain killed Abel), knowing how upset Esau was when he did not receive the first born blessing. When Jacob returned to his homeland, he and his brother Esau did come in agreement, as much as they could because Isaac still blessed both sons, Jacob and Esau and God still blessed both sons, making both sons rich, however, Jacob did marvel at how many men his brother rode up with to meet him. Now, as the story goes, Jacob’s second wife—the most loved wife who Jacob asked his Uncle Laban for first, was not given to him, first for the tradition said the father had to marry off the first-born before the second-born. So, Jacob married Leah, Rachel’s eldest sister, first and worked more years for his Uncle Laban in order to marry his beloved Rachel---Uncle Laban’s second daughter.
Was this a punishment of sorts or curse on Jacob for taking his brother’s blessing for Esau was the first-born and for forcing his brother to pay for the bowl of soup when he was hungry since a hard days work? However, Jacob gained agreement with his mother and won the first-born blessing but her husband, Isaac blessed Esau when he asked him to bless him, coming in agreement with his father. We know coming in-agreement is how Jesus told Israel to conduct business, in prayer: asking for what they wanted, with the blessed assurance that Jesus is with them when two or three come in agreement, in
4
prayer. This way of coming into agreement does not squash the individual in prayer but let us look at some individual decision making during that time.
Rachel competed with her husband’s God---the living God and stole her father’s statue of the god that her family worshipped, a pagan god, for Rebecca’s brother was not in the line of God’s family---Abraham and did not worship, her husband’s God, desired to still remain with her god, the god of her father since marriage to Jacob. She competed to have more children than her sister Leah, for Jacob, giving Jacob her handmaiden but her sister---Leah did not let her have more children and gave her husband, Jacob her handmaiden as well. According to the law, the children born to the handmaidens were rightfully and lawfully the children of Leah and Rachel. Rachel died before Leah on the way for perhaps it was because she lied about taking the statue of the god of her father causing her father to fall into disagreement with Jacob, a hardship especially hard on Jacob in his heart because he worked so hard---for many years to continue in agreement with his Uncle Laban, the brother of his mother who came in agreement with him over the first born blessing, and the father of his two wives.
In closing, competition is bitterness in the belly even though the fruit of competition can render a sweet relief. Why was the Civil Rights Act enacted many times; 1865 [vetoed by President Andrew Johnson], 1866 [passed the bill and vetoed again by Andrew Johnson then for the first time in the history of congress---congress overrode the veto power of the president---with a resounding 2/3 vote majority in each chamber of congress, which passed the bill to become law to support the 13th Amendment, however John Bingham (Ohio-Republican, from the 21st district) argued congress did not have the power to enact such an act], 1871[bill passed following passage of the 14th Amendment and Congress reenacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in 1871, which made the act law]? I recall the adage when good people are in power the people rejoice but when bad people are in power the people suffer. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois (Republican) was born in Colchester, Connecticut and practiced law in Greenville, Georgia before going to Alton, Illinois in 1837---elected to the Senate in 1855 introduced the Civil Rights Act 1866 bill to the Senators and James F. Wilson, a lawyer was born in Newark, Ohio and practiced law in Newark until 1853 wherein he moved to Fairfield, Iowa and continued to practice law (Iowa-Republican, from the first congressional district) introduced the bill to the House of Representatives. Representative Wilson said:
“It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of "civil rights and immunities." What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No; for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection
5
against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. The definition given to the term "civil rights" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary is very concise, and is supported by the best authority. It is this: "Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government."
With that said, we know that the Voting Rights Act did not give African American men the right to vote until 1965. Which is another why did African American men have to wait until the Voting Rights Act to receive the right to vote? Shouldn’t they have received the right to vote from the 15th Amendment (1870) for all men in the United States of America? [Or, did African American men just not vote because of disenfranchisement practices against them.] Of course, we know women did not receive the right to vote at the same time that men received the right to vote. So that explained some of what Representative Wilson said when he introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which did not prevail as civil rights protection until the subsequent Civil Rights Act of 1964 under President Lyndon Baine Johnson (Texas-Democrat).
This practice of disenfranchising African Americans---casting out, as the populous sees fit remains a problem today as a result of bitter competition even though Americans living in the USA no longer think of themselves as living in a melting pot but blending together in a tossed salad maintaining their integrity in the uniqueness of their race, color, creed, or culture. “The Voting Rights Act 1965 significantly widened the franchise and is considered among the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.” [“In 1965, taxation without representation was at an all time high with only six African Americans in the House of Representatives and no African Americans in the Senate but by 1971 there were thirteen African Americans in the House of Representatives and one African American in the Senate. This blatant disregard for African Americans in the Congress of the United States of America reached God, firstly in prayer over change and secondly, reached the White House under the presidential administration of Lyndon Baine Johnson. After the U.S. Civil War (1861-65), the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” Nevertheless, in the ensuing decades, various discriminatory practices were used to prevent African Americans, particularly those in the South, from exercising their right to vote. During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, voting rights activists in the South were subjected to various forms of mistreatment and violence. One event that outraged many Americans occurred on March 7, 1965, when peaceful participants in a voting rally march from Selma to the state of Alabama’s capital Montgomery were met by Alabama state troopers who attacked them with nightsticks, tear gas and whips after they refused to turn back. Some protesters were severely beaten, and others ran for their lives. The incident was captured on national television”] history.com
God bless. May Christ Jesus be with you, always and forever? In the Name of Jesus. Amen.
