The current blog climate leaves one with the distinct impression that I would be supremely negligent to not weigh in on the topic de jour, the acquittal of George Zimmerman. My comments, though, address the commentators...pundits and analysts and bloggers.
The bottom line is that the polarization of commentary clearly exhibits the continued and pervasive racialization of American society. By "racialization" I am not saying that American society is a 'racist' society. Rather, I mean that race is a constant companion in our society...a factor which has a continually reverberating role. Not sure you agree? Here are some examples: religion-look at the racial segregation at most places of worship: neighborhoods-segregation is stubbornly present in real estate; economic wealth-as of 2007 median wealth of White families was 20 times greater than Black families; marriage; health; media preferences; life expectancy; politics; loan rates; advertising & marketing; music; and the list goes on and on.
Racialization is a constant presence in America, and commentary about the Zimmerman verdict reflects this reality. More specifically, it points to a foundational difference in the way the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy is viewed. In general, White-Americans tend (and are acculturated as such) to view the altercation and aftermath as the narrative of an individual actor. Whereas African-Americans tend (and are acculturated as such) to view the situation and the aftermath as a narrative of societal systems. The lenses are different, therefore, what is seen highlights a different hue.
While the consequences of these different perspectives are numerous, I will highlight two. The first is the assumption that we all see the situation purely objectively without any sort of filtering. The truth is, we all filter reality. Secondly, there is the problem of the relative strength of the narratives. The systemic narrative is at a disadvantage because the individual actor narrative is the dominant voice.
It is for this reason that I appreciate the thoughts of another blogger, Eugene Cho, who reminds those of us of the dominant voice to stop and listen http://eugenecho.com/2013/07/16/if-our-black-brothers-and-sisters-are-hurting-why-cant-we-just-shut-up-listen-and-mourn-with-them/
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
When death is close and personal...
My best friend is dying of pancreatic cancer. He may just have a few more days in this life. When I spoke with him last week, I didn't know it was likely my last conversation with him; for his condition rapidly nose-dived four days ago. It took all of us by surprise, especially his dear wife of 37 years, but she is inspiring in the midst of her grief.
Of course, we have prayed that God would have mercy on him, that he would be granted many more years. I have known him for over 40 years, I know his life, and such a request seems so reasonable, so clearly beneficial. You see, my friend is an exceptional example of faith, scholarship, humility and leadership. His continued life and contribution would be a wide blessing for so many. He has taught hundreds, even thousands, around the world...and there is so much more he could do for many years to come...and many would glorify God as a result. Such aspirations seem so reasonable.
Herein is the quandary. If God takes him now in these next days, this means that God has determined that such a narrative brings him greater glory than the scenario I envision above, the one that seems so reasonable. Why then do I remain dismayed? My feelings of confusion are not unlike those of the disciples who scattered in dismay during our Lord's crucifixion... They were so convinced of another, more glorious, more normal, more expected narrative.
If the death of God's saints brings him great glory, then we do not really understand very much about the glory that godly service in this life supposedly brings. And so, to take this thought further, doesn't this mean that our missional service in the world is not as impressive as we might assume?
We don't know so much...
Of course, we have prayed that God would have mercy on him, that he would be granted many more years. I have known him for over 40 years, I know his life, and such a request seems so reasonable, so clearly beneficial. You see, my friend is an exceptional example of faith, scholarship, humility and leadership. His continued life and contribution would be a wide blessing for so many. He has taught hundreds, even thousands, around the world...and there is so much more he could do for many years to come...and many would glorify God as a result. Such aspirations seem so reasonable.
Herein is the quandary. If God takes him now in these next days, this means that God has determined that such a narrative brings him greater glory than the scenario I envision above, the one that seems so reasonable. Why then do I remain dismayed? My feelings of confusion are not unlike those of the disciples who scattered in dismay during our Lord's crucifixion... They were so convinced of another, more glorious, more normal, more expected narrative.
If the death of God's saints brings him great glory, then we do not really understand very much about the glory that godly service in this life supposedly brings. And so, to take this thought further, doesn't this mean that our missional service in the world is not as impressive as we might assume?
We don't know so much...
Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Bible is too long . . . and too short!
As I read through the Bible yet again, I'm reminded how loooooong it is. Serious editing needed to cut it down to a manageable read. Tangents, rabbit trails, and those lists...enough already. What we need is a concise collection of what is really important, right? Then again, as I read, I'm often left with questions...what happened next? why does the story end there? what is missing from the description which would help me understand? why can't there be more explanation? So, clearly, the Bible is too short, because there is so much missing, right?
Could it be that I'm not such a good judge of what is too much and too little? Someone with more experience in these matters ought to decide . . . I know, the Author.
Could it be that I'm not such a good judge of what is too much and too little? Someone with more experience in these matters ought to decide . . . I know, the Author.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Label conundrums for diverse churches
Well, I would never be accused of being an avid blogger. I'm always blogging avidly in my head, but rarely does it move further... Besides, spewing forth words without direction and organization contributes nothing noteworthy. Don't we wish more agreed? Now for the post...
I came across this article in recent days from Michael Emerson and I celebrate the progress where diverse churches are more prevalent than ever. http://reflections.yale.edu/new-day-multiracial-congregations I so appreciate Emerson's research and analysis.
The professional sociologists seem peer-bound to use "multiracial" instead of the more common "multiethnic" or "multicultural" or "intercultural." This is understandable, but it is interesting to note how the rest of us settle on one term as opposed to another. Some choose the term their favorite author uses. Others prefer the term their congregation has adopted. Some see these terms as interchangeable, others strongly disagree.
I'm not bothered if one is preferred over another...I hold them loosely.
Yet, it seems to me that there are some key considerations. "Multiracial" seems to accentuate the reified nature of "race," the affirmation of something which doesn't actually exist. Race is presented as something biological, when it is really just an arbitrary social construction. "Multiethnic" seems to focus too heavily on the genetic aspect, following quite directly from the Jew/Gentile dynamic, but leaving out dimensions which divide us, such as lifestyle interests, economic levels, generations, etc. Such concerns would seem to push us toward "multicultural" which has a broad net...too broad for some folks.
In the end, though, it is not the 'multiplicity' which matters most, that is, the multiple compounding of ethnicities or cultures. Rather, it is the relational character of a diverse congregation which most completely reflects the "one new man" reality of the body of Christ. In this regard, "intercultural" gains traction because it draws attention to the relational nature, the "inter" aspect...as in "interdependent" or "interactive" or "inter-whatever."
Personally, I prefer to describe the organizational nature of a congregation made up of diverse peoples and cultures as "multicultural." But, when referring to the character of such an congregation, I believe "intercultural" is preferred. In other words, a multicultural church, made up of intercultural people. It's a mouthful, and not so useful as a label, but it tells the story more completely.
So, that's what I think...what about you?
I came across this article in recent days from Michael Emerson and I celebrate the progress where diverse churches are more prevalent than ever. http://reflections.yale.edu/new-day-multiracial-congregations I so appreciate Emerson's research and analysis.
The professional sociologists seem peer-bound to use "multiracial" instead of the more common "multiethnic" or "multicultural" or "intercultural." This is understandable, but it is interesting to note how the rest of us settle on one term as opposed to another. Some choose the term their favorite author uses. Others prefer the term their congregation has adopted. Some see these terms as interchangeable, others strongly disagree.
I'm not bothered if one is preferred over another...I hold them loosely.
Yet, it seems to me that there are some key considerations. "Multiracial" seems to accentuate the reified nature of "race," the affirmation of something which doesn't actually exist. Race is presented as something biological, when it is really just an arbitrary social construction. "Multiethnic" seems to focus too heavily on the genetic aspect, following quite directly from the Jew/Gentile dynamic, but leaving out dimensions which divide us, such as lifestyle interests, economic levels, generations, etc. Such concerns would seem to push us toward "multicultural" which has a broad net...too broad for some folks.
In the end, though, it is not the 'multiplicity' which matters most, that is, the multiple compounding of ethnicities or cultures. Rather, it is the relational character of a diverse congregation which most completely reflects the "one new man" reality of the body of Christ. In this regard, "intercultural" gains traction because it draws attention to the relational nature, the "inter" aspect...as in "interdependent" or "interactive" or "inter-whatever."
Personally, I prefer to describe the organizational nature of a congregation made up of diverse peoples and cultures as "multicultural." But, when referring to the character of such an congregation, I believe "intercultural" is preferred. In other words, a multicultural church, made up of intercultural people. It's a mouthful, and not so useful as a label, but it tells the story more completely.
So, that's what I think...what about you?
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
No doubt you have noticed; we in the USA are in the homestretch of a presidential election year. So let me see if I understand the current reality...er, dilemma for many evangelicals:
On one side we have a sitting president and candidate who openly professes his love and commitment to Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior...but, who is persistently painted by some, many of them Christians themselves, to be a closet Muslim, an insinuation he repeatedly denies.
Why do they overlook his claims?
On the other side, we have a candidate who openly and proudly displays his devotion, service and leadership in the Mormon faith, a cult with its own scripture, the Book of Mormon, which is in direct opposition to biblical Christianity.
Why do they overlook his claims?
Hmmm...awkward.
On one side we have a sitting president and candidate who openly professes his love and commitment to Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior...but, who is persistently painted by some, many of them Christians themselves, to be a closet Muslim, an insinuation he repeatedly denies.
Why do they overlook his claims?
On the other side, we have a candidate who openly and proudly displays his devotion, service and leadership in the Mormon faith, a cult with its own scripture, the Book of Mormon, which is in direct opposition to biblical Christianity.
Why do they overlook his claims?
Hmmm...awkward.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Minority Milestone in the US birthrate...
In the last couple days I've been following a reading trail which presents a milestone in US demographic history. From now on, there will always be more minorities born in this country than Euro-Americans. Several publications document this threshold, here is one from the Washington Post.How many majority-culture churches are aware of this trend? How many care? Sadly, for those paying attention, many will see this development as more of a threat than an opportunity... The youth of this country is the future, and it will be a very diverse story. Yet, the suspicious boundaries between ethnicities and cultures persist. Christian self-segregation mutes God's intention for the church to be a contrast community visibly demonstrating the reconciliation power of the gospel. Unity has no meaning apart from diversity. Likewise, unity means nothing without participation.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Prodigal Sons
I just read Carolyn Arends' piece on Luke 15 and the unfortunate title given to this story, "The Prodigal Son." I agree with her assessment that the main point of this parable addresses "the other prodigal son," the 'older brother', in that it is a group of 'older brothers' to whom Jesus is addressing...his usual foil, the infamous Pharisees, et. al. (see 15:2). They play the 'older brother' role perfectly...and we, the evangelical establishment, follow well in their wake.
There are three points I would like to add. The first relates to my reference above "this parable." Often the parable known as "the prodigal son" is presented as a story that stands alone. However, note that in verse 3 Jesus says, "Then Jesus told them this parable...". Was it just the one about the lost sheep? No, the whole chapter is the parable. There are three vignettes within one parable, each building on the other. In my Bible, each vignette is titled as a separate parable, but this was not Jesus' intention.
Secondly, having noted that each vignette contributes to the flow of this parable, we see there is a pattern in these three segments--something lost (sheep-coin-son), something found, then great rejoicing. Right? Yes, but, I left out a critical piece...in the first two scenes there is another key element...one which is missing in the third scene, an extensive search. Who was supposed to be looking for the lost son?
Note that how the older brother learns of the celebration party, the other servants tell him in verse 27, "your brother has come." When disrespecting his father by complaining about his treatment, the older brother says, "this son of yours," (verse 30) we see that the older brother is so incensed that he cannot bring himself to acknowledge he has a brother. But, his father says in verse 32, "this brother of yours was dead and is alive again...". Who was supposed to be looking for the lost son? His older brother! (In my years in Africa I learned how the eldest brother was the leader of the siblings, the one responsible for them before their father...an Eastern cultural characteristic which is still widely common.)
Thirdly, note how the parable ends without resolution. One lost son has been found, the other is still outside the celebration. This is a clear reference to us older brothers who suppose ourselves to be so tight with our God...when, in reality, we are mostly far from celebrating that which our Father celebrates. Instead, like the older brother, we want to dictate what honors us and pick the friends with whom we want to celebrate...instead of looking for our lost brothers.
So, the older brother is outside the celebration...but, what will it take for him to join the celebration? Clearly, it would mean repentance and reconciliation with his father...but, that is not all. The older brother cannot join the celebration without acknowledging his younger brother, humbling himself and reconciling with him as well. Not only do we not recognize that we are largely estranged from the party...thinking, like the Pharisees, that we are insiders when we are actually outsiders, but, do we also recognize the degree to which we are estranged from those who are actually celebrating with our Father?
Not only are we not looking for our lost brothers...we don't care that they are lost, let alone desiring to be in intimate kingdom fellowship with them. As our Lord said, "The first will be last, and the last will be first."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)