Archive | July, 2009

I’M ON VACATION

16 Jul

vacation-travel

I don’t have my computer.

A friggin’ APPLE MacBook is in the friggin’ shop–and I don’t have one.  I’m blogging on my friend’s computer, typing a sermon on a typewriter at home because otherwise it would be a handwritten mess on Sunday morning.  So, I’m not going to stress out over it, but I’m going to take a much needed respite–I guess.  I don’t know how long they’re going to have it.  They said if it’s an in house thing, just a few days.  But if it’s a hardware problem, from 2-4 weeks.

OUCH!

In the meantime, however….

I started a friendly feud over on Twitter and you can catch the drama between me, Mason Jamal and Citizen Ojo of The Desultory Life and Times of a Public Citizen as to who was going to muddy the waters while I was in the sweet repose of a VAY-CAY-SHUN!!

Pray for me this Sunday for those of you that do that thing.  If you don’t just send the positive energy this way and I’ll more than likely sop it all up as I preach “If You See A Good Fight, Get In It!” from John’s letter to the church at Laodicea in the book of Revelation 3:14-22 for those interested.

Make sure to check out the blogs on my blogroll who are most certainly holding it down.  Also, there’s the Black Weblog Awards that are coming up.  We’re all vying for it, but click here and Twitter feed on the right and you’ll still be hearing from me.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

The New Peculiar Institution

11 Jul

black in america 2

I’m not going to be able to watch this year’s “Black In America, Pt. 2” with America’s favorite Soledad O’Brien.  I did have the opportunity to watch it last year and like most in the black blogosphere ripped it to shreds. Most of us leveled the same charge that the two day special highlighted the problems of being black in America.  As if that wasn’t enough, most of us were aware that very little if any attention was paid to systemic problems that are a direct result of slavery, Jim Crow and what most of us recognize as institutionalized racism.

For those that aren’t aware, institutionalized racism is this peculiar system where racism is exhibited in much more subtle ways rather than the in your face assaults associated with the post-bellum South in the form of Jim Crow laws and police dogs and water hoses.  A form of institutionalized racism would be where an employer perusing job resume’s wouldn’t pay attention to someone with ethnic sounding names such as Lakeishia or Rontreveon for instance.  Aside from the external problems that causes on the level of racist attitudes, internally, African Americans criticize one another for the creativity of these names for the simple fact that Starleshia or Dreshawn won’t be able to get a job when they’re older.  In fact we internalize a public and systemic problem of racism and prejudices which isn’t our fault, and assume the burden ourselves.

I was spurred by an article by the Vernon Mitchell, Jr. aka Negro Intellectual over at yet another new project by the The Black Snob (isn’t she ambitious? Let’s give her a hand clap!!!!) that was designed with the specific purpose of sounding off about the CNN special entitled The Retort.  He suggested that perhaps CNN would have been better off to do a special named after Gunner Myrdal’s famous anthropological study “American Dilemma” and highlight the systemic problems about race in this country rather than, as Mitchell asserted the “Negro Problem.”

Most of us knew why suddenly CNN decided to do a special about race.  For many in America, this idea of a “post-racial” country had really been in operation since the mid-nineties if truth be told.  Once America had climbed the high post of the Reagan years, had seen the institution of the Martin Luther King holiday, and the symbolic replacement of esteemed Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas, many in whatI will call a “first” America had thought we had gotten over and had gotten through some issues.  For this segment of the United States, the Rodney King beatings and subsequent riots in and, the crisis in Haiti in 1994, the O.J. Simpson trial just to name a few were mere blips on the racial radar screen.  However for those of us who live in a Second America and are forced to operate in the dual consciousness of a First America, the killing of Amadou Diallou and most certainly the events following Hurricane Katrina were more evidence that we still hadn’t come as far as we’d like.

Barack Obama’s ascent to the presidency forced this first America to deal with black folk again.  And yes, it comes all the way down to skin color. 

rednecksIf I can park here parenthetically for a moment, it amazes me that much of our issues as humans, pathologically is a difference in mere skin color.  It has nothing to do with eugenics or the science behind the physiognomy or other anatomical difference, but seriously skin color.  When many of us watched yet another CNN expose during the late spring of 2008 and we watched Hillary Clinton give her last ditch efforts to clinch the nomination, most of Generation X and younger who were raised in metropolitan climates were mildly horrified, to say the least, when CNN and other local and individual journalists who had access to a movie camera, went into the hills of West Virginia and Pennsylvania interviewing whites who were quite clear that they didn’t want no black man as the president of this country.

And they weren’t afraid to say it on camera.

So CNN, and Soledad perhaps, felt it was their duty to show America what it meant to be black in America.

Bully good job, I guess.

I think Mitchell was right that much of what was presented could have been entitled “The Black Problem In America” or even “The Problems With Being Black In America.”  From what I can remember, many felt that what was portrayed wasn’t the best cross-section of blacks in America.  Note, not of “what it meant to be black in America” but of simply blacks in America.  For instance, I remember that when it came to the issues of religion that they interviewed a family who was Church of Christ.

Seriously, Church of Christ?

I’m not knocking it as a real denomination because it most certainly is, but in the face of the historic black mainline denominations a few that have their premier inception prior to the Civil War, or the fact that modern-Pentecostal denominations as we know it as a world movement was started on these shores and as a result of a black man from Mississippi, I hardly think that Church of Christ accurately represented blacks in America.

And don’t get me started on the fact that they don’t believe in musical instruments in the church when clearly when one thinks of black churches, an instrumental ensemble is included in that thought.

I wonder what spurred CNN to air the dirty laundry of black America this second time.  From all reports, this second installation is appearing to be more of the same.

 Right.  More of the same.

This seems to be border-lining on exploitation to me.  I can only imagine what has ended up on the cutting room floor when it came to editing these clips.  I think what also is tell-tale to most of us in the black community is who they picked to lead this story: Soledad O’Brien.

Now, I do think it’s interesting as to just how situational blacks are when we pass judgments on people addressing ontological blackness.  

  1. dark skin light skinSkin Color and facial features and hair.  We place emphasis on blackness based on skin color.  On a color spectrum from the “s/he so black he purple” to the “light bright one shade from white.”  The darker the you are the “blacker” you are, the lighter you are the better chance you have of being called “white.”  (And yes, to address the skin color issue, while adults in our community may have treated the light skinned children better in class rooms and what not, it was another world for them out on the playground because of the preferential treatment they received.  Often times the playground or a dorm room played stage to the universal equalizer that many of the darker children meted out on the light skinned ones.)  If one is found to have the right amount of melanin in their skin, usually all judgments cease.  Not to mention if the person has nappy hair with bigger lips and a broader nose  If not, then we go to the next stage.
  2. Do he talk white?  If the person talks black as far as pronunciations and enunciations of words, it’s the end of the ontological blackness continuum.  And yes, there is a certain speech pattern.  Nine times out of ten, I can pick up the phone and tell whether I’m talking to a white person or a black person.  For us, I’m not sure if it’s genetic, or is it something that blacks have just learned to intuit for our own survival, or I could be way off base and maybe everyone can.  Nonetheless, if the person “sounds white” then we go to the third and final stage.
  3. Do s/he act black?  Using a word I don’t like, but since it’s a statement of fact I will, the spectrum goes all the way from “ackin’ like a nigga” all the way to “acting white.”  This includes a myriad of things such as body language to the way one dresses to the what one actually does as far as activities.  Does the person slouch in their chair versus perhaps sitting squarely in a chair?  Do they do weed or snort cocaine?  Do they go to Man Alive at the local mall or go across town to stop in American Eagle or Abercrombie & Fitch?  Do they go to the local crab shop or, to be local since I’m down here in Jacksonville, go to the Chicken Koop or go across town find a Starbucks and a Five Guys.

The interesting thing is that the above spectrum is totally fluid to each individual black person.  Where that may work for some, others would think what I suggested was totally foolish and was “systemic to the problems of racial parity in this country” I’m sure.  On the other hand, maybe many blacks do this subconsciously.  It appears to me that we did that with Soledad O’Brien—the end result was that she wasn’t black enough to give this CNN special enough credence in our community.

We can say to each other “Oh so-and-so isn’t black enough” and we’ll throw up the air quotes when we say “black” and try and cover our tracks, the thing is that generally the other person we’re talking to knows what we’re saying.  Then we’ll offer another person’s blackness as assurance that that person would speak to our needs.  Take Roland Martin for instance.  By all accounts Roland is black.  But damn, he’s too black for the same blogosphere that lambasted Soledad O’Brien.

So, not black enough is not good, but too black is bad as well.

Then someone like T.J. Holmes, to stay in the CNN vein is too….hmmmm, what word should I use….oh yes, too much of a milquetoast Negro to get the job done either.  Now, T.J. Holmes or even his scary older brother look alike Don Lemon apparently don’t possess a strong enough of a black card to trump whatever it is that the black blogosphere or the African American community has played.

But, we won’t want to have the same conversation concerning Michael Jackson in his death.  We turn a blind eye, and even wear a veil ourselves to our own, at times twisted thought patterns.  We’ll question Soledad O’Brien’s blackness and we’ll watch a man literally turn colors before our eyes, change his nose, put weave in his hair that would have made Farrah Fawcett jealous—and whether we like what Bill O’Reilly said, he made sure to have white children.  But because he died, we don’t like or want to talk about that, for whatever reason.

This is truly an American dilemma.

kelly ingram park birmingham water hosesWe, as a collective nation and as equal citizens in this United States find ourselves in throes of a new peculiar institution that we’re even less apt to talk about than the first.  As hard as it was, it was still easier to talk about racial injustices and disparities when the law was clearly unjust; when news reels captured water hoses and dogs sicced on non-violent protesters; when media placed on the front pages of newspapers nationwide when non-violent marchers were attacked on the Edmund Pettis bridge in Selma, Alabama, but now we don’t want to talk about it.  The right-wing media and talking heads have begun to wrest the fair and open discussion about race in America and have begun to moderate the discussion themselves.

This presents us collective with a dilemma as to whether to have the conversation openly and honestly and let both sides speak and listen and begin to understand, or to continue down the path of ignorance and passivity that we’re already traveling.  The decision seems to be taking the path of least resistance, and as a result it’s creating a new peculiar institution governed by a deathly silence that remains mute while in some respects American race relations are on a sinking ship.  When we got a new ship in the 60s (because clearly that old ship had sank and blacks were left looking the people in the movie “Titantic”), we began the construction of this new institution. 

I just wish it wasn’t so peculiar.

If you have any thoughts or reflections to this post, feel free to drop them in the comment section.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Things This Uppity Negro Likes: American Cities Pt. 1: Washington, D.C.

10 Jul

capitol building pennsylvania ave.

Anyone who’s known me since about, oh, 2005 knows where my ultimate goal in life is: Washington, D.C.

I know sometimes you’re supposed to keep some things “close to your heart” a lesson many of us hear preached and taught to us via Joseph the dreamer from the Hebrew Bible book of Genesis.  We all know the story of how he had dreams concerning his family and how his brothers got jealous of his dream interpretations and we all see the trouble he experienced.  I think it’s interesting, however, that most times when I heard the story from the pulpit, the preacher never connected the fact that if he hadn’t told anyone about his dream that the life sequence he encountered may not have occurred.  That is to say that there stood a good chance that he wouldn’t have been tortured by his brothers, thrown into a pit, and ultimately sold to Potiphar in Egypt—that is to say, he wouldn’t have had the ability to live the life of royalty.

Okay, maybe I’m stretching this a bit and coming off as promoting the “health and wealth” vantage point, but you all get what I’m saying.  So simply stated, my life’s dream goal would be to get this Master’s of Theology and go into my Ph.D. program, and it would be nice to graduate before my 30th birthday and just walk around for a few months with the ability to say “I have a Ph.D. and I’m only 29.”  I figured that whatever that next Sunday after my degree has been conferred I’m probably going to dance right out of my clothes like David—having undignified praise—and jus totally do the “saints don’t hold me” dance in church.  Then that Monday after graduation I’m going to go into hiding for about two weeks, which really means I’m going to either be in the Caribbean or in the Polynesian islands like Fiji or something getting DRUNK OFF MY ASS because the thought of never having to open another book and turn in another paper to a professor for THE REST OF MY LIFE would be a thought that I can’t even fathom right now.  Probably come back and enjoy a full summer of rest and relaxation—and then actually worry about marriage.

Well….

That would be nice as far as the marriage part, but I’m not going to be able to totally rule out marriage during my doctoral studies, 30 seems to be late starting on a family, but, I guess.

howard founders-library-frontWhat would be ideal would be that—ahem **clears throat** Howard University, aka The Mecca would absolutely LOVE to hire me in the Divinity School as the new assistant professor in homiletics, and I would be like the next great thing smoking!  Ya know, hopefully by then my whole ordination/licensing thing would have worked itself out.  Wanna do the whole UCC thing, but clearly I’m dragging my feet on that as we speak, so ya know in the Baptist churches, all you gotta do is be able to preach and they’ll minimally license you.  Ordination simply means you have to submit to being in the old boys network.

Whatever.

Howard Divinity SchoolGet the teaching job at Howard Divinity School, and I’m sure I’d be making money from various preaching and speaking engagements across that country because I’m going to be one of the few black Ph.D.s in my field and of course I’m sure many institutions will want to hear “the black perspective” and they’ll call on me.  Why? Because hopefully my dissertation would have been the absolute shiznit and I’ll just be all that and a bag of chips.

As far as D.C. is concerned, I’m still debating about where I want to live in the DMV.

I actually liked when I was out in Montgomery County, aka MoCo which is the northwest burbs of the District.  But when I was in Gaithersburg, well, technically North Potomac (lol), albeit the Red Line went all the way out there, G’burg was still just a bit far.  Somewhere like Bethesda or Rockville would work for me. 

Sadly, I never got the PG County experience, lol.  Guess I’ll have to go out that direction next time I’m up there.

Only reason why I’d be hesitant to live in the city is for one reason and one reason alone:  I want my vote to count dammit!  And I guess I’m taking the Keyesian advice and actually thinking about moving to Maryland.

Virginia—hell no.

Nor Southeast DC—at least I don’t think.  I haven’t been over to that side of town since 2001 when I went with my church on the college tours and we stopped in Anacostia over on Cedar Hill to see the Frederick Douglass House.  That area just reminded me of Baltimore and Philly.  But I remember getting off at the friggin Eastern Market Metro stop for the inauguration this January and that part didn’t look bad.  Actually, I don’t remember the neighborhood names, but I know how expensive the houses have gotten not far from the U Street corridor and around Howard in the last few years, so I’m sure with regentrification sure to be going on in Soufeast that of course housing prices are sure to go up.

Which again puts me somewhere in Maryland.

Silver Spring anyone?

Well, I remember driving down Georgia Avenue or 16th Street coming down from the Beltway to drop into the city and I always thought the houses in those areas seemed about as decent as you could get for city living.  The only problem is that D.C. Public Schools are abysmal.   But then what major city doesn’t have a public school problem?  I was just lucky when it came to my public school education in Chicago; I just happened to have a mother and father who cared for me and took an interest in what school I attended.

But that’s my plan.

row houses in DCI would love to take up residence in D.C. for the rest of my life.  It’s a decent enough climate where they experience four complete seasons, the Eastern Shore isn’t terribly far which means the beach—the REAL beach, not 63rd street on the lake—is a nice option for a weekend trip with the fam.  Also, D.C. is a mecca, in some sorts for YBP’s otherwise known as Young Black Professionals.  There are plenty of options for growth and development in an all black community of people who look like you.  I could see myself moving in with my first apartment in the garden apartment and starting out till I got on my feet to move somewhere else.  Ya know, fighting for parking and just leaving my car there and walking to the Metro to get where I wanted to go.

I know this post had nothing to do with nothing, but I’ve been meaning to post one of these “about the blogger” type posts and shed just a little bit of light into the life of this one uppity Negro.

I always made some joke that if by some chance of fate or Providence that if I magically were offered some paying opportunity in D.C. right now, I’d quit whatever it is that I was doing and load up the Cruise Ship and head for D.C. no questions asked.  I mean that would be one helluva opportunity because at minimal they’d have to set me up with housing and I’m quite sure that expecting all of that is a virtual impossibility.

Hmmm…but we say with God nothing is impossible.  I guess we’ll all be watching and waiting.

Look out for the next city I could see myself living in.  Any guesses? 

 Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

To All My Single Ladies

7 Jul

steve mcnairThis has been an age old question I’ve always wanted to know concerning women and their relationships with married men: why do mistresses always think that they are the number lady in the lives of the men they deal with?  Seriously, what situation does anyone know of where the man treats the mistress like a wife?  The wife, and family if kids are involved always get the biggest house while the mistress and him sneak off to random motels, hotels if it’s a celebrity. 

Or condos in the case of now deceased Tennesee Titans former QB Steve “Air” McNair. 

Concerning his now deceased girlfriend, 20-year-old girlfriend Sahel Kazemi who’s from this area of the country out here in Jacksonville, Florida, I really wonder did she think that she was the number one in McNair’s life?  So he bought her an Escalade—whoop-de-doo.  When are women going to get it; as long as the man is married, he doesn’t love you!

I think this is a relatively simple fact and thought to digest.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce and discover just how this concept works.  If this man that you’re messing with has not left his wife, that really shows the man’s inability to either a) make crucial decisions in his life b) or his supreme selfishness by wanting to have his cake and eat it too.  Moreover, to the woman, if you’re messing with a married man, let’s just say things work out in your favor and he really does divorce wife number one, what’s to say he won’t step out on you down the line?

To address the neo-Conservatives of the group, since I try and make sure my posts have a little bite to them, I think it’s stuff like this that’s eroding away the fabric of real marriage in this country—not gays and lesbians trying to marry.  In fact it seems like that demographic is trying to institute and create a stable family, perhaps one that does not look like the traditional picture of family in this country, but a family nonetheless.  I would much rather hear the media associate with the conservative talking points their discussion on how once one has a family how to maintain a familial structure rather than attack others for something that really doesn’t affect their own family.

On the other hand, I truly do believe that marriage as we know it, is somewhat of a farce.  Even in the Old Testament scriptures, the process through which the Israelites had to get married was utterly ridiculous. The idea of dowry’s being paid to the various families and the rules concerning women were highly patriarchal, dominating and downright inhuman at the expense of the soon-to-be wife if you ask me.  In addition to these Victorian ideal of a family structure that clearly place the wife beneath that of the husband and the immovable belief that the woman is to “submit” to the husband.

Now I’m not against that idea in a pure sense.  That is to say that the wife and husband team decide mutually that for the best of their family that the husband is to be the leader, but I doubt anyone ever had the conversation where for the best of the family that the woman should be the leader of the familial structure.  Fact of the matter is that that is the case many times in the single-parent households.  According to Walton’s book Watch This! The Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism, some of these preachers would have one believe that because single mothers are single that they are operating outside of the will of God.

Well, after that foxhole of a tangent I just went on, I still ask this question to single women: why would you mess with a married man?  Or to push it even further, to what extent would you mess with a married man?  While not excusing an affair with a married man, but I think doing so with the “no strings attached” clause is much more healthier in the long run for both parties rather than a woman actually catching feelings for this man.  Again, not excusing the man’s behavior, but maybe women force the man into saying something that may not really be true for the simple sake of keeping the affair going; he’s into the affair for one reason while the woman is in it for another reason—and the two never equal each other.

will smith and jadaFor me naturally, I question the institution of marriage.  Maybe we are experiencing a natural shift in things, a natural evolution of sorts.  Perhaps given our mayfly existence, it’s hard to wrap our minds around the idea that we may actually be living in such an epoch, but imagine how it must have been for the animals and creatures who experienced the climatic shift of the Ice Age.  Perhaps the natural progression of technology and information coupled with our preconceived notions and practices around marriage aren’t designed to sync with each other.  That’s probably why we still have a section of Luddites who feel that all technology is of the devil.  To take a page out of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett’s marriage playbook, it’s not a secret that they have an “open relationship” that while still married, they are both allowed to “dip out” when the one party feels necessary.

To each their own I say.  Perhaps we’re no more programmed to be monogamous than we are to engage in sexual escapades with different people in a willy-nilly fashion.  The latter proves dangerous as we embark on this new millennium as a result of sexually transmitted diseases that are incurable at worst and barely treatable at best.  The fact that some don’t wear condoms because of the reality it forces the user into by revealing to them that they are engaged in risky sexual behavior.

The only thing I can say is just simply think before you act.

It’s like chess.  In order to attempt to have a chance at winning, one must always be able to think a few steps ahead.

 What do you think was behind this all with Steve McNair and his girlfriend?  If one had to lay ultimate blame—which is easier to do at McNair or at the girlfriend?

 Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

The Danger of Diversity

5 Jul

Riverside ChurchThe Riverside Church of Manhattan on the Upper West Side comes to mind when one thinks of bastions of ecclesial liberalism.  And generally one calls to mind famous pastors of Henry Emerson Fosdick, William Sloane Coffin and the latest James Forbes.  Sadly, I’m sure in the history of this great institutional church, Dr. Brad Braxton may be the only pastor with an asterisk by his name. 

Now Dr. Brad Braxton is somewhat of a academic icon to me personally.  I never really followed him perhaps until the last year or so, and I have yet to read his books, but I did know that his areas of expertise were the New Testament and Homiletics and many use his book Preaching Paul in their homiletics classes.  And frankly I think his sermon at the back “A Second Wind” was pretty darn good considering most things.  I remember that when word got to us at ITC that he was leaving his post at Vanderbilt University’s School of Divinity to accept the job as pastor of the Riverside Church in New York that many of us looking toward Ph.D. programs were happy for him being an African American to have the position, but also that the academy would be made more the poorer because of his vacancy.

I really hadn’t followed him since then until on Friday when my friend told me that he resigned.  And I was a bit shocked.  I remember that there had been some mild talk about the fact that Riverside was going to have two African American pastors back to back, and there was some mild concern that Riverside was turning into a “black” church.  Whereas previous membership had been 60-40 in favor of Euro-Americans, by last year that number had reversed with growing numbers of Latinas and Latinos and a small Asian population out of a slightly more than 2,500 member congregation.

However, the recent stories surrounding his resignation don’t seem to point to the fact that it was racially motivated at all, but squarely financial:

The senior pastor of Riverside Church, the renowned bastion of liberal theology and social activism on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, is resigning after just nine months on the job.

brad braxtonThe pastor, the Rev. Dr. Brad R. Braxton, has been the focus of a fierce battle within the congregation over his compensation package and the mission of the church. He said he notified the church’s board Monday night that he was stepping down.

Dr. Braxton, 40, was chosen last September by a committee that considered more than 200 candidates. But a week before his formal installation in April, a group of dissident congregants went to State Supreme Court in Manhattan seeking to block the ceremony, saying that he and the board had been unnecessarily secretive about the church’s finances. They also complained that Dr. Braxton was moving Riverside away from its tradition of interracial progressivism and toward a conservative style of religious practice. The judge refused to block the installation, and urged both sides to reach an accord.

Since its founding in 1930 as a Gothic cathedral built by John D. Rockefeller, Riverside Church has espoused a progressive and often pacifist agenda. But internal fights have plagued the congregation for more than a decade.

Longtime members ascribe some of the tension to changes in the racial makeup of the 2,700-member congregation, which was once about 60 percent white and 40 percent black, and now is roughly the reverse. Some of the troubles are traced to generational differences, between older whites with roots in the civil rights era and younger, middle-class black members who are less politicized.

Dr. Braxton, a Baptist minister and former Rhodes scholar, appeared to knit together both those traditions, calling himself a “progressive evangelical.”

But his opponents kept up their attacks, saying that his pay package exceeded $600,000 a year, including a $250,000 salary and a housing allowance. Experts on American churches said the pastor’s compensation was well above average among pastors nationwide, but within the range of packages for senior pastors of similar major churches in other big cities.

Well, I’m frankly not in favor of any pastor, no matter the size of the church making more than $300,000.00 in my own opinion particularly does not speak well of a pastor.  I think such a comfortable salary fully allows for a pastor to take care of housing expenses and most other expenses that arise.  Well, Brad Braxton got a $600,000.00 package that included

  • $11,500 monthly housing allowance.
  • Private school tuition for his child.
  • A full-time maid.
  • Entertainment, travel and “professional development” allowances.
  • Pension and life insurance benefits.
  • An equity allowance for Braxton to save up to buy a home.

    • Not to mention that Braxton brought on an assistant pastor with a package of $300,000.00.

    Wtf?!

    I’m sure the church could more than afford nearly $1,000,000.00 in new salaries, but it’s not a good look when Braxton’s package was doubled that of James Forbes who most certainly has more name recognition than Braxton does on the preaching circuit, and even ten times more than that of the famed William Sloane Coffin (even though that was 1987 money).  

    Well what does this have to do with diversity and it’s danger Uppity Negro, you ask?  Well I’m glad you did.  Check out the following clips of Braxton.

     

    This is what Riverside was getting.

    Now Braxton had already categorized himself as a “progressive evangelical” and naturally the word “evangelical” causes the average liberal to see red immediately.  Check out this quote from the Wall Street Journal:

    Riverside prides itself in being interdenominational, interracial, international and, even, interfaith. In its multiracial Sunday worship it defies the characterization of Dr. King, who famously observed: “The eleven o’clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America.” Mr. Braxton was the second African-American to serve as senior minister at the church.

    Riverside is also known for being highly democratic, so much so that any 10 members can call a general meeting of the congregation. The church overwhelmingly voted to hire Mr. Braxton back in September. But from the start, a small group of dissidents complained about his evangelical style, which they said put a greater emphasis on personal salvation than on doing social justice. They recoiled at his penchant for the “altar call,” in which he asked people to step forward and witness their faith.

    The small group of dissidents called a congregational meeting. They went to court to try to stop the installation of Mr. Braxton in April. The truth is that they did not get much traction until they mentioned to the Daily News the $600,000 compensation package — which included salary, a housing allowance, retirement benefits and tuition for Mr. Braxton’s 4-year-old daughter. It became front-page news with Mr. Braxton identified as the “600K Pastor.”

    Aside from church people being church people and being mired in tradition, whatever that tradition may be, Braxton’s large salary in the face of the church’s social justice and liberative tradition and the massive economic turn-down was merely the icing on the cake.  I’d suggest that the real problem lie in the type of diversity that Braxton was bringing to the church.

    As I put a quarter in it and park, given my own run-in with one of the lone Euro-Americans who was in attendance at the church I preached at this past Sunday, and on the blog comments I read over at Shaun King’s blog, Shaun in The City, in a post thread entitled “Fostering (Real) Diversity Is Harder Than I Thought,” I am making the suggestion that ecclesiastical diversity seeks to be dictated through a white American hermeneutic.  I say that because usually when issues of marked negritude arise, that it’s those of Caucasian background that lay the charge that whatever is being said or done is anti-diversity.

    I was really struck by a comment left on Shaun King’s blog concerning this topic where one commenter suggested that whites don’t care what color Jesus was:

    …but what you find with most black ministers is that they choose to focus more on fighting racial discrimination than they do showing the community the grace and mercy offered by Christ. Certainly, discrimination violates Christ’s command to love one another as we love ourselves, but the Gospel isn’t about man’s inhumanity to others but about a loving Father who allowed His Son to come and reconcile us all to Him. 

    Most white Christians have no issue with the color of Jesus’ skin. He could have been the blackest Ethiopian or had the slanted eyes of an Oriental or worn the red hair of a freckled Irishman. The God of scriptures accepted us all the way we are – bigotted, racist, ignorant, indifferent, apathetic, and totally screwed up. Explain why God would do that and people will flock to hear the Good News.”

    Now someone else came back and refuted that claim by saying that:

    Your statement “Most white Christians have no issue with the color of Jesus’ skin,” could be based on the fact that Jesus has been portrayed in the mainstream as looking European. Many ethnic minorities have also accepted this vision. It would be easy for White Christians to have “no issue” w/ Jesus’ color since that is the “common” image for Him…Ethnic minorities who experience racial discrimination and live in an environment they perceive to be oppressive, may experience self -loathing, hardened hearts, and a spirit of fear and hopelessness among others. For black ministers to overlook these experiences would be insensitive and unrealistic. Contrary to your statement, when discussing discrimination, black ministers discuss Christ’s unconditional love and His celebration of our differences. Black ministers also encourage living victorious lives regardless of circumstances b/c God is above it all.

    diversityBut it got me to thinking that perhaps–yes, perhaps–the prevailing thought is that whites should be allowed to dictate the diversity conversation and that yet again, the African American perspective is “other” and needs to be revamped in order to sit at the table of diversity.  I am suggesting that some of the members at Riverside that had already set their teeth against Braxton simply because he did an altar call (something that’s more than common in black churches and many evangelical churches) have effectively placed Braxton on a “time-out” and told him that he needs to calm down and stand in the corner before he can come sit at the table of diversity as defined by some liberal elite group.

    The lone white person at the church took great issue with my sermon and suggested that it was divisive in so many words without being quite that blunt about it.  But he proceeded to tell me about the purpose of Martin Luther and the 95 Theses he tacked to the door of the church at Wittenburg and how he was at this church to be a liaison between the only all black church in this presbytery with their sister church in the city (which I’m presuming is either much more white or much more racially and culturally diverse) and moreover how he considered himself a “lay minister” and that he was here to keep the “little Larries like you” in check.

    Again, he’s one white person in a church that’s all black.

    Frankly, I’m mildly, mildly insulted that a white person in an all black setting had the cajones to step to me and talk to me about racial reconciliation.  Fact of the matter is that half the damn reason we have separate EVERYthing is because there was most certainly a time when whites didn’t want to be associated with blacks.  It seems that whites have now turned the tables on us.  I’ve yet to meet a black pastor who ever once made a declaration that whites weren’t welcomed in their church, in the past or present, but that’s not the track record for some white congregations in the past most certainly.  When a white person, this particular man or not, feels comfortable to assert that one’s sermon or any other word or deed wasn’t fostering cultural diversity and racial reconciliation because of a mere recitation of verifiable historical facts, then I think reconciliation is doomed from the start.

    To take the Riverside Church as an example, when a church is 60-40 in favor of a white majority, it’s considered a diverse church.  When it’s 60-40 in favor of blacks its considered a black church at worst, and a church becoming a black church at best.  

    Are we seriously blind in this country to the disconnect here?

    Commenters on Shaun King’s blog noted that it was much easier for a white male pastor to have a “diverse” church (which I’m beginning to wonder is “diverse church” merely code word for a church with mostly white members and the “token” members from other ethnic backgrounds) than for a black (male) pastor.  One such commenter pointed out that:

    Our congregations reflect who we are. You and your wife went to colleges with people who choose to segregate by sex and race. You did your elementary school outreach in a school that was not diverse. Not casting stones at any of these things but they are what they are and none of these landmark events speak of diversity. On top of that you do blog posts criticizing Christian events that are too white. Not exactly rolling out the welcome mat. 

    My church is diverse because that is who I am, not a goal I am trying to get others to adopt. 

    Couple these things with the reluctance many white people have to submitting to black leaders, and the fact that you are leading a plant in the south, the lack of diversity seems pretty understandable, if not expected.

    My question is what type of accomodationism must take place in order for whites to accept a different point of view.  So Shaun and his wife went to Morehouse and Spelman, they got the same basic education as did everyone else and their degrees hold as much weight as any other four year degree.  So Shaun did outreach at a predominantly black middle school–how is that of all things black and whitenot rolling out the mat for whites or others of ethnic background to be attracted to him?  Are whites opposed to doing outreach at all black schools?  I’m confused.  Now I’m not saying that the author of that comment is indicative of all whites, but I’m sure he’s not alone in his point of view.  

    I think Braxton should have seen this coming, but something tells me he got the big head slightly making the argument that churches of comparable size were paying their senior pastors as much, and particularly with him being degreed and having previous experiences at the Douglass Memorial Church in Baltimore, an ecumenical equivalent of Riverside, and having to be CEO of sorts over a staff of 150 and a school as well.  He should have known that he was coming in through a storm and he should have laid as low as possible.  I almost don’t doubt him for resigning because he had lost pastoral capital with too many of the church members.

    Now, the sociologist in me would be very interested to see racially what members were raising the most sand.  To probe deeper I truly wonder if it was a money issue solely or was it the money coupled with the fact that he was “changing our church.”

    Diversity is when everyone’s opinion is recongnised as a lived reality.  While it may be hard for whites to recognize and accept the past racial misdeeds in this country, many, many more need to accept that it is an everyday lived reality of racial discrimination and discrepancy for millions of non-whites and non-Americans in this country.  By the same token, non-whites need to be more understand of the ignorance that belies many whites in this country.  Through the privilege of white skin, many whites really are wholly unaware of the culture of non-whites.  In some respects do you really fault someone for true ignorance?  It’s my personal prayer that when these whites are aware of the injustices that their non-white citizens experience that they actually do something about it and not just remain in their ivory towers.

    I think the whole diversity debate is more a cultural one than it is a racial one, but I guess I’ll just let that one marinate on your mind.

    Do you think the diversity discussion properly takes into account what could be an African American perspective?  If so why and if not, why.  What should both parties bring to the diversity discussion table that would result in steps toward reconciliation?  Why do you think some whites have a problem with what’s considered an African American perspective when what’s being said is irrefutable facts?  How far off base do you think my analysis was?

    Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

    Again, on this Independence Day…

    4 Jul

    black woman and flag

    In the spirit of laziness and the fact that I couldn’t think of anything else that I could really say different than what I did last summer, I’m running the post I dropped on Independence Day that I did last year.  Maybe this time people’ll comment on it. 

    JLL

    …as we celebrate yet another year of pseudo-liberties, as our civil liberties are constantly under attack in this era of terror.

    Well, enough about white America, this really just a day off for the rest of us to barbecue.

    Mama Uppity was always leery of 4th of July picnics and Memorial Day celebrations as well.  She always said what did black folks really have to do with the independence of this country from Britain?  Clearly, Jefferson did not include black men, nor women of any shade in the Declaration of Independence; for it’s really the commemoration of this document as it was sent to Britain declaring the colonies independence from the mother country.

    As if to further drive home the point of who should be called citizens and non-citizens, the infamous three-fifths clause was written into the Constitution 11 years later in 1787.

    Well, I think Mama Uppity, over the years has come around as far as celebrating the Fourth is concerned.  My reasoning behind the picnics, aside from the good food, is really that these high nationalistic holidays are truly the only days when the whole family and friends have time to take off from work and visit one another face to face.  Usually Mama Uppity is relegated to talking on the phone to Auntie somewhat uppity and the rest of the family.

    However, Mama Uppity  is right, and with the rise in popularity of Juneteenth, more black people are beginning to question this notion of Independence Day.  We can go along with Memorial Day because most if not all black families have had someone who has served in the Armed Forces and Labor Day–well, hell we all work.  And usually, for nothern black families, at one point or another there was a man who had worked with organized labor through unions either in the steel mills, the auto plants, or some sort of factory of some sorts. 

    But after the last drop of lemonade is swallowed, this idea of Independence Day goes down the throat of many blacks like that pitcher of Kool-Aid that Aunt Willie May made and she aint put enough sugar in it–this notion of the Fourth goes down a bit sour.

    Of course this isn’t a brand new thought.  I’m actually some odd 156 years behind the genius that was The Hon. Uppity Frederick Douglasswho spoke to a Rochester, New York aggregation on this same issue.  Below is a large excerpt from the speech that the abolitionist delivered on July 4, 1852.

    Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

    Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions. Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart.”

    But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon) whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.

    Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, “may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!”

    To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.

    My subject, then, fellow citizens, is “American Slavery.” I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave’s point of view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.

    Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery — the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate – I will not excuse.” I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.

    But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.

    What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!

    For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men — digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave — we are called upon to prove that we are men?

    Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

    What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? No – I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

    What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may – I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

    At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.

    What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.

    Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

    Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from “the Declaration of Independence,” the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. — Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.

    And despite this,  Shelby Steele allegedly was quoted as saying that “[w]hite Americans have made more moral progress in the last forty years than any people in the history of the human conditions.”

    Go figure.

    What are your thoughts on the Fourth of July for those who were not initially included in the framing of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?  Do you think that non-whites truly have a right to celebrate the Fourth of July?  Also, what are your traditions that are passed down for the Fourth of July barbecues and fireworks?

    Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

    Breaking News: Sarah Palin Resigns as Alaska Governor

    3 Jul

    sarah-palin

    So, it just dropped on the news wire, so to speak (clearly we have internet now with telephones and emails and Blackberrys) but that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate with Sen. John McCain, will resign as of July 26th from her office as Alaska Governor.  This is the CNN story from AP:

    Gov. Sarah Palin announced Friday that she will step down as Alaska’s chief executive by the end of the month. She will not seek election to a second gubernatorial term in 2010.

    Palin, a Republican, was elected governor in 2006. She was tapped as Arizona Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential running mate last year.

    Palin said she was transferring authority to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who will be sworn in at the Governor’s Picnic on July 25.

    A Republican source close to her political team told CNN’s John King that it was a “calculation” she made that “it was time to move on.” The governor’s “book deal and other issues” were “causing a lot of friction” in her home state, the source said, adding that he believes she is “mapping out a path to 2012.”

    As the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Palin has been considered one of the front-runners for the GOP nomination in 2012. Her decision not to seek another term as governor is sure to stoke speculation that Palin is seriously eyeing a run for the White House.

    In an interview last month with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Palin said she was unsure about her re-election bid because she needed to focus on her state and her family.

    “So, no decision yet on either 2010 or let alone 2012?” Blitzer asked.

    “No decision that I’d want to announce today,” Palin responded.

    Lemme put it to your like this:  she was going to have one helluva up hill battle in her home state running against whomever her opponents were. I’m not sure if they have primary elections up in Alaska (I mean, who really knows about Alaska politics down here) although I’m sure they do, and I’m sure she would have had a hard time running in her own party as the incumbent, let alone against the full field of candidates.

    But this is from the person who I’m not convinced even voted for herself in the general elections last November. Check 0:35.

    That being said, someone told her it wouldn’t be a good look running for president and you can’t even run as a gubernatorial incumbent in your home state and win.  Maybe finally folks’ll see her for who she really is, a political charlatan who’s clearly representing a minority of people in this country; by all accounts she lost it for McCain back in 2008 (though not as quite as much as Obama won it in 2008); she was a highly polarizing character that brought out some crazies that had been lurking in the background in this country; above all she’s out for number one and personal gain and not the common good.

    That she’s working on her memoirs or her book is absolute bollocks to me!

    Whatever she has up her sleeve for her personal gain, I hope it blows up in her face big time for the sake of the citizenry of this country.

    Do you think she has an angle with this random resignation?  Or is she hoping to cover-up something that’s going on behind closed doors that would blow up big time in her face if the national press got a hold of it?  Is she just generally a fool or is it just me?

    Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

    Members of the Black Church Should Demand A Return on Investment

    3 Jul

    TP_239963_CASS_pentecost

    I remember in my Finance 101 class the professor giving us the formulas for how to figure out return on investment of the principal or capital deposit.  The answer usually produced what was also known as the rate of return, either in fraction or percentage form.  It’s basic math, the final value of the investment subtracted by the principal investment all divided by that principal investment equalling the rate of return.  Naturally there are formulas for compounded rates and for multi-periods of the investment, but for the sake of this blog, lets just K.I.S.S.

    So, the other day my friend and blog reader TriniUppity sent me the following story from LiveSteez:

    LiveSteez research shows that Black churches, in aggregate, have collected more than $420 billion in tithes and donations since 1980. With a Senate investigation into the finances of several mega churches underway, the “Prosperity Movement” has been the target of mounting criticism from inside and outside the Black Church. Specifically, the affluent ministries of The Reverend Creflo Dollar, Bishop Eddie Long and others have drawn the attention – and ire – of some clergy and laypeople alike. 

    Researcher Henry E. Felder’s study of Blacks’ donation habits demonstrated per capita spending of $508 per year in 2009 dollars. Another source, Tyler Media Services, estimated that Black Church revenue approached $17 billion in 2006.

    One church, the Reverend Dollar’s World Changers, reported $69 million in 2006 income, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. 

    Mainstream politicians and Black community leaders are demanding a better accounting of the “return on investment” offered by churches to the communities that fund them. Meanwhile, legions of faithful churchgoers defend their pastors and accuse their detractors of applying a double standard that ignores the largesse of wealthy, white televangelists, while underplaying the economic development and social service functions provided by the Black Church. 

    “The church has gotten caught up in materialism and greed, a lifestyle. Many ministers today want to live like celebrities and they want to be treated like celebrities. In other words, instead of the church standing with the community, the church has become self-serving. It has strayed away from its mission” according to Dr.Love Henry Whelchel, professor of church history at The Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.

    Few people – not even the ongoing Congressional investigation by Senator Chuck Grassley accuse the mega church pastors of outright larceny, and congregants generally approve of their pastors’ luxurious lifestyles. However, in a blatant recent example, a father-son pastor team, 76-year-old Richard Cunningham of Moreno Valley and his son, 52-year-old Philip Cunningham of Laurinburg, N.C., pleaded guilty to felony grand theft and fraud charges. The younger Cunningham also pleaded guilty to forgery. Over five years, prosecutors say, the Cunninghams stole from Calvary Baptist Yorba Linda Church and School bank accounts and used the money to buy time shares in Hawaii and Palm Springs, golf club memberships and a Cadillac. Prosecutors say the men have paid $3.1 million in restitution to the church.  

    What amazed me was just the fact that of the three pastors mentioned, they were all headliners in the current book I’m reading by Jonathan Walton entitled Watch This! The Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism.  I’m sure y’all are getting tired of me mentioning it, and I’m sure you can’t wait for me to move onto the next book, but I’m sure he wouldn’t mind the publicity.  Now I’m midway the book, but I’ve just entered the section where he begins his ethical analysis of televangelism, but also the theologies and philosophies of Bishops T.D Jakes and Eddie L. Long and Pastor Creflo Dollar, but moreover, the attitude of the listeners over the broadcast and of course those that fill the pews on a weekly basis.

    I’m not a big underliner when it comes to reading, usually I remember what I read, but I’m always stuck fumbling trying to find the page where I found it at the first time.  But the following quote from Walton’s book received an underline from me:

    Experiential encounters with the divine that suspend the material world allow people to transcend the negative cultural identifications that are associated with their class, race or gender while having their own inner desires and spiritual longings affirmed.  This is why I consider televangelism to be a ritual of self-affirmation.  It creates an experience where participants can be actors on the stages of ritual drama.  Televangelists authenticate and make authoritative already held assumptions and spiritual longings of their adherents that allow and encourage them to experience and envision themselves being created anew according to their personal aspirations.

    I’m reserving total judgment, but I think that quote is indicative of all the reasons why everyone aligns themselves with some sort of faith tradition–is it not?  We all seek some sort of self-affirmation from outside of ourselves in the manner of fellow humans.  Church is in fact a community of believers; and that extends to the faith communities of other religions and sects and yes even cults: they all profess a faith in a common belief.  However, Walton still accurately makes the argument, I think, that these three pastors “promote similar aims, objectives and desires for the African American community–economic advancement, the minimizing of race, and Victorian ideals of family.

    That being said, why in the world would any of these pastors try and politicize that which they believe is apolitical?

    What happens is that many of these pastors of the megachurches within the vein of the big three mentioned, all preach a gospel that sounds right and makes sense on the surface.  However, as I’m sure this article from LiveSteez is attempting to suggest (although doesn’t go quite this far) is that the pastor is the exemplar of the message that they’re preaching, but the lack of prosperity is the fault of the people.

    Without making this another super-long blog post, much of this goes into the simple pastor-parishioner relationship.  Parishioners would follow to the death their pastor–just ask the followers of Jonestown in Guyana.  Literally, the pastor could do any and everything wrong in the book and be arrested for it, but the parishioners will fight tooth and nail for their pastor–just ask the number of children molested by clergy members in both Catholic and Protestant churches and how many members didn’t give a damn.  So if the pastor makes these otherworldly, or watch this, “kingdom” claims with regards to finances, why wouldn’t I believe it.

    So parishioners give money and the pastors knowingly misinterpret the Malachi 3:10 passage regarding “Will a man rob God?” concerning tithes and offerings.  Pastors literally scare members into thinking they’ll be cursed–with a curse–if they don’t give.  I went to one COGIC church and the deacon told the congregation that their lives, cars, houses and what not would be cursed if they didn’t give a tithe.

    And people still sat in their seat.  As if to say “I wish a muthaf—”  Well, you know the rest.

    Fact of the matter is that most of us know better.  All of us went out into the parking lot and onto the street after church was over and to my knowledge no one had car trouble after church.  Although we know better, we want better.  Even after reading Walton’s chapters on T.D. Jakes, I see why people would flock to his church.  I mean, most of his theology as interpreted by Walton wasn’t too conventional for me, but he lacks the strong social justice component that I’m used to–or rather that I desire for my own self-affirmation.  Word of Faith and its infuses from New Thought and New Age beliefs actually piqued my interest insofar that much of what we’re dealing with results in one’s outlook on life–but it ended there.  I don’t agree with the idea that a lack of faith is the result of one being broke or experiencing physical sickness.  Creflo Dollars famous quote about all of us being “gods” I was ready to understand, but the rationale behind it sounded like bullcrap.

    And Eddie Long was a whole bunch of foolishness unto himself.

    I couldn’t help but laugh out loud through Walton’s blatant sarcasm and tongue-and-cheek writing style when it came to describing Eddie Long’s hyper-masculine, Victorian family style, patriarchal and misogynistic theology.  I died laughing when I read this:

    Bishop Long is not necessarily celebrated for his preaching prowess like Bishop Jakes or his homiletical clarity like Pastor Dollar.  And journalistic investigations have even revealed that Bishop Long’s sermon in response to the Virginia Tech shootings was purchased from www.esermons.com, a Web site where preachers can purchase a sermon for a fee.”

    To be fair he quoted a John Blake article from the AJC entitled “Pastor Inspiration: Divine or Online? Surfing Sermons: Sometimes Desperate Ministers Lift Texts from Web” in a May 12, 2007 article. 

    2977323_420x300_mb_art_R0That being said, why should the black community expect a return on the investment when many of us still attend churches on Sunday, but not the business meetings during the week to see where the money is going.  We’ll complain about it, but most of us would rather not do anything about it.  To be just cut and dried about it, shame on the people in that Leroy Thompson video!  That’s absolutely a sham before God and the rest of the world!  Some can barely pay their bills but they throwing money on the altar and that fool is running through it like hot knife through butter.

    At the end of the LiveSteez article, they pose a series of questions for a further investigative series and one of which seeks to quantify at least $350, 000,000,000.00 in investment and what would that look like, and another seeks to ask what does the black community have to show for that amount of money being turned over in our own community tax free.  When preachers are still demanding this rural country boy amount of 18% of church income and the church is bringing in close to $10,000,000.00 annually and you still have members who are taking the MARTA to your church–we have a problem saints.  

    The sad thing is that most of us can’t see the evidence of this over time.  Now of course this is over the course of some nearly 30 years, (damn, I’m getting older) but when you add it all up, it’s a substantial amount.  I’m sure much of this money goes to bad business investments, ridonkulus preacher salaries, bad bookkeeping by Sister Mary Jo who’s 85 and can’t tell a 7 from the number 1 when doing the books, actual fraud and embezzlement by various church members over the years, and no doubt many an inner city church has a horror story concerning the municipality in which the church is located and how they may have screwed them over financially.  Or even for episcopal denominations such as the AME, CME, UMC and COGIC churches in the mainline denominational tradition, often times, parishioners give extra money to help their local pastors and what not run for the office of episcopal bishop and according to a source–these bishops buy, literally, votes in order to assure themselves their position.  Not to mention churches buying matching his and her Cadillacs for the pastors and first ladies and other very depreciable assets and even non-assets.

    Just food for thought, what if we all had just pooled the money together and made some serious investments in our local schools by creating community charter schools, pumping this money back into black owned banks (so what if they couldn’t give you the loan, still put your money back into that bank) providing stores and shops for independent businesses and what not.

    You see what happens, we have church sponsored or even the pastor sponsored business ventures: rather than opening a mall, or strip mall of church owned businesses, give members or others the opportunity to be individual business owners and spread the wealth rather than having all the money return back to a church that probably at that point in the game doesn’t need it or God-forbid allow it to line the pockets of some already stupidly rich pastor.

    Well…this post is long enough as it is.  I’m done, ;-)

    Where do you think all the money has gone–aside from the pastor?  What do you think over the last 30 years could have been done with a continual investment of this $350b. and what would the various black communities look like now?  Are white churches any better or is this just a black phenomenon?

    Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

    Speaking Truths That Empower

    1 Jul

    pulpit

    Most liberals are familiar with the phrase “[speak] truth to power” which I always loosely associated with social justice messages, particularly those from the pulpit.  But, when pressed on the issue, I wasn’t able to give a cogent definition of what the “truth” was and let alone what the “power” was.  So when I heard the phrase “speaking truths that empower” I took it and ran with it and it made perfect sense to me.

    Well, I preached last Sunday a sermon entitled “One More Chance” from the Hebrew Bible book of Lamentations 3:19-24 where the poet laments about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.  However, the poet decides to stop lamenting when they write

    But this I recall to my mind and therefore I have hope: the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning, great is your faithfulness.”

    I began the sermon about what it means to be oppressed, to understand just what had happened to Israelites when they had been captured by the Babylonians and carted and carried off into slavery.  I did heavy African American history and how our ancestors had been stolen from their homeland and survived here in this country.  Then I moved into the exegesis of the Temple’s fall and what audience Lamentations was written for, and I borrowed a run from my pastor of biblical scriptures beginning with each letter of the alphabet A-Z to draw the parallel of acrostic structure–the form of writing that the book of Lamentations was written and some of the Psalms and Song of Songs (Solomon).  Finally, I drew it all together saying that after all of the despair that we as a community had experienced that God had given us “one more chance.”

    I went on to pose the rhetorical question as to what had we done with our “one more chance” that God gives us each morning that we wake up.  In typical uppity Negro style, I challenged the congregation that we need more people to challenge the social ills of racism and sexism in our community.  I even leveled that I was sick and tired of turning on local news and seeing victims and perps alike who looked like me!  I drove the point home by saying that too often many of us wait for a more appropriate time and we slap God in the face by not seizing the day and taking advantage of our “one more chance.”  Check it out.

    God gives us new mercies each and every morning and every time we say wait, we’re slapping God in the face and telling God “No thank you” to the new mercies that God has bestowed upon us.  Too often we as humans and as African Americans, we like to wait.  We want to wait.  Something about us seems to want to wait until it seems like it’s safe.  We constantly see injustices daily and we stand by and say nothing and do nothing.  We go into church meetings and Bible studies with questions and concerns burning on the inside and we remain silent to “wait for an appropriate time” lest we upset the establishment; lest we upset the status quo.

                Well what if Harriet Tubman had waited?  She was a ordained elder in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion church and carried a pistol with her on the 19 trips she made from North to South freeing over 300 slaves.  She would threaten those she was helping to escape with her pistol if they got scared and wanted to go back and wait for a more appropriate time to escape from slavery.  What if William Edward Burghardt DuBois had waited?  Would we have had an NAACP which was instrumental in funding the defense team for the Brown vs. the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education decision?  Would we have known about the Souls of Black Folk or been aware of the Pan-African links between this country and the homeland of our ancestors?  What is Dorothy Height had waited?  Would we have had the National Council of Negro Women?  What if Diane Nash had waited?  A freshman student at Fisk University who helped integrate the lunch counters in Nashville, Tennessee.  What if A. Phillip Randolph had waited?  Would we have even had the 1963 March on Washington and let alone known about a dream that a black Southern preacher had.

                We can’t afford to wait any longer.  When people and literally dying physically from HIV/AIDS pandemics and epidemics in our metropolitan cities and we still can’t get a viable universal health care plan to even go to a congressional committee; when Congress can pass a $700 billion dollar bail-out plan that was to bail out Wall Street, engage the anachronistic practice of Reagonomics and trickle-down to Main Street and for those of us that live on Martin Luther King streets in major cities we’re just SOL; when we have a Supreme Court Justice who shares my skin color, as the lone dissenting vote against the renewal of a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Bill that protects non-whites from disenfranchisement when it comes to voting by saying that we shouldn’t punish the current states for the sins of the past; we cant afford to wait any longer.  The damage that has been done is threatening to be irreparable with regards to our future.  When someone tells you wait, turn to them and say “If not now, then when?”

    I started a close with telling the story of Rev. Vernon Johns and how in the movie with James Earl Jones portraying him that indeed we needed some “boat rockers” who didn’t mind putting their lives on the line and doing all within their power to exact effective change in our communities.

    Well…

    Everyone who walked up to me had nothing but good things to say.  Only criticism I got was that I was too fast.  I’m waiting on a copy to verify that charge because it’s entirely possible, but as for now, I’m somewhat just chalking it up to the fact that this church was not used to the style of preaching.  Compared to the pastor I’m almost near opposite of preaching style.  Most of what I preached was rather rapid fire, I’ll admit that, but that’s a difference between rushing through the sermon versus just being charged up and having rapid fire delivery.

    I did fine with that, what I had a problem was with the following.

    jeremiah wrightMonday, the pastor got around to telling me how I did, to which he said he gave me a B+ on delivery because it was too fast, and then he told me–and I quote “…be less Jeremiah Wright and more uppity Negro.”  

    Well, he didn’t say that, but he said my name.

    I didn’t know what to do with that.  He tore apart the section of the sermon where I talked about waiting and said it really didn’t have much to do with the sermon and that that part would have been more appropriate with the Habakkuk 1:2 passage “How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save?”  And then he seemed to suggest, not outright, but that I had lifted, as in copied, the sermon from Jeremiah Wright.

    I was rolling my eyes to myself as I was listening.

    He went on to tell me that people like points and that I should have had points in the sermon.  Well, personally, I’ve never preached points before and had just stuck with topical sermons.  None of my homiletics professors preached points, and most of the sermons delivered in the classes, the people didn’t have points either.  Now I grew up listening to point preaching from Jeremiah Wright, but now Otis Moss III sometimes has points and sometimes he doesn’t.  Truth be told, they are easier for note taking purposes, but they aren’t the only mode of effective preaching.

    I think what irritated me and almost insulted me was the fact that this pastor whom I had only known for about three weeks at the time acted as if he knew me.  Because for him to say “be less Jeremiah Wright and find your own voice” suggested the fact that he knows me.  I was so stunned I sent The Critical Cleric a text message because I had let him read over the sermon before I delivered it, and he responded back “that sermon was ALL you” but he also rightly acknowledged the fact that Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ are totally central to my faith experience.  To not expect to see it in my writing and my preaching for that matter would be ludicrous and absurd.  Critical Cleric simply said that that was probably his way of saying to be less political and social justice oriented in the sermons and be more congregationally palatable, to he said was a bunch of bollocks!

    And I agree of course.

    I was sure that the congregation wasn’t used to it because I dropped African American history facts left and right quoting dates, people and not to mention hermeneutical and exegetical information germane to the Lamentations passage.  And, oh, maybe this past Tuesday an older woman (well, half the damn church is over 60) said just how wonderful the sermon was and how impressed she was.  But she went on to say that “I know you did a lot of research for that.  I know you couldn’t have had all of that up in your head.  The words “Bitch, what the eff you talkin’ bout?” and the actions of me climbing over my desk and shaking her violently were all words and actions that I wanted to express, but I just nodded and smiled politely and let her continue talking as if I weren’t phased by it.  I just didn’t want to fall victim to homiletical hubris because of course my first reaction was to dismiss the pastor’s constructive criticism.

    He went on to suggest that I could have given more examples of one more chance in the lives of the individual.  I thought about closing on God’ll give you one more chance on your job, and God’ll give you one more chance on your marriage, and God’ll give you one more chance on your finances, but I was like, hell naw.  I’ll speak more on that later.

    john calvinThat being said, I walked away with the idea that the pastor was merely giving me tips on how to preach to his congregation only, at worst.  At best, he was trying to give me tips on how be a Presbyterian minister who preached a gospel concurrent with Reformed theology and it’s precepts.  None of which necessarily provided me the tools to preach a gospel that results in an actual change in mind and change in behavior of the listeners.  

    One of the things I’ve somewhat vowed to myself is to be careful just what level I speak to the individual at the sake of the community.  Ninety-nine percent of my examples in this sermon were community oriented.  Seriously, who cares about you and your car and you and your house?  You know better.  There are more than enough popular preachers who’ll give you enough about the personal life, but we have few that concern themselves with the stake of the community.  I’m of the opinion that as long as people are literally dying in the streets, the ecclesial community has a responsibility to respond to it.

    As long as many of us sit in our pews of middle-class living and we stand by and do nothing, we’re no less guilty than those that stood by while Jesus was lynched on a Roman cross even after being found guilty by Governor Potius Pilate.

    So, I was quite aware that I didn’t include any individual references because, as you, my readers know, know that where I stand on issues concerning our community.  The Critical Cleric simply said that my sermon was “intellectual and inspirational” and usually you don’t get those two together.  However, the under 40 crowd had nothing but positive things to say, and as far as the younger kids from the middle school group, they really liked it and one girl said it was better than the pastors sermon.  And another young girl said she didn’t fall asleep as she usually does when the pastor preaches.

    Since I finished Ricky Jones’s What’s Wrong With Obamamania? Black America, Black Leadership and the Death of Political Imagination I was able to embark on Jonathan Walton’s much hailed and respected book Watch This! The Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism and Walton gives some excursus on the history of the Word of Faith movement and it wasn’t stuff I didn’t necessarily know, but Walton’s tongue and cheek writing on this particular section provided me with some detail I was unaware of.  I said all that to say that in the face of theologies that aren’t community-oriented, such as some of those within the broad range of neo-Pentecostalism of which include the various neo-Charismatic and most certainly Word of Faith theology, my type of preaching as exampled in this last sermon is highly unpopular.

    Just ask Jeremiah Wright.

    I think the sad thing, as I go into a critique of the church is that mainline denominations, home to the silk stocking churches may have been preaching the appropriate community based messages, but they failed epically in bridging the gap between the lower and working class people and that of the middle and upper classes in the black community.  The old school Pentecostals attracted the lower and working class, but preached a message that more or less taught redemptive suffering and that everything you ever needed was going to happen in the sweet by-and-by and more or less to wear the suffering of today as a badge of honor.  Moving into the late 20th and now 21st century, the Black Church moved away from strict denominational lines and now, no telling what you may hear walking into a black church on any given Sunday.

    As a result, mainline denominations are becoming relics that are relishing on the glory years of the civil rights movement.  The black neo-Pentecostal churches (which broadly captures all of these non-denominational joints springing up in storefronts, all the way to the heavy hitters of Bishop T.V. Fakes T.D. Jakes, Creflo and Taffi Dollar and Bishop Eddie Long) are easy in attracting young membership, but sadly, when I’ve attended other black megachurches of relatively famous pastors, to use Bishop Joseph Walker of Mt. Zion Baptist Church, now with the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship and even attending the church of the founder and current presiding bishop, or to use the full appropriate name International Presiding Bishop Paul S. Morton‘s church of Greater St. Stephen’s Baptist Church down in New Orleans, all I heard was a message that was above all–safe.  It didn’t challenge anyone’s beliefs, it didn’t make the listeners think in a different way that they had never thought before, and it most certainly didn’t address any social, political or economic empowerment concerns related to the larger community, let alone the individual.

    I have a lot more to say, but I think this may be one of my longest posts ever.  I know no one’s going to read it all but probably my mother, but I just wanted to get it off of my chest and this is my blog so I can do that.

    I’m simply one young man speaking some truths attempting to empower a people trying to change the world one sermon at a time.

    Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 92 other followers