Archive | November, 2009

Prophetic Tradition Versus Priestly Tradition

23 Nov

So I learned a hard lesson when I preached in front of my peers the other week:

Not everyone can handle what you say across from the pulpit.

From being accused of plagiarism (yes, again) to being accused of not remaining biblically accurate, I got the whole gamut of concerns surrounding my sermon.  In a nutshell, I preached the topic “Don’t Make the Cave Your Community” from 1 Kings 19:1-10 (I wonder who’s going to steal this topic since I’ve put it online) and essentially the thrust of my sermon was that in the midst of a post-modern society that seems to be interested in the plurality of points of view, we as ministers must not get frustrated and run off to the cave and that we must seek to find ways to remain relevant to the community in which we were called to do effective ministry.  Yes, I had some zingers such as the hook from Drake’s “Successful” and yes, I did say “hoes.”  And there was the other quote that I alleged that ministers who run off and make a community out of the cave and who talk amongst themselves and fail to engage in the community that they surround they’re doing nothing more than “theological and intellectual masturbation.”  But zingers or not, they were germane to my topic.

That being said, some alleged that I failed to be biblical in my approach which is really just the churched way of saying “I didn’t see what you saw in the text.”

My approach to preaching is to inform the consciousness of the listener.  I don’t want my preaching to do nothing more than maintain the conscious of the listener but rather encourage them to have an encounter with the Divine in perhaps ways that they perhaps might not have been aware of.  Granted much of my sermon was typical social justice preaching–I mentioned healthcare three times in my sermon, I mentioned homosexuality twice, I highlighted HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and even broached the topic of abortion.  That being said, I was quite clear that I was addressing issues here in the physical realm.

So, I had one friend that took the “priestly” role as far as I see it.

That is he asked why didn’t I address the spiritual concerns more or less surrounding Yahweh versus Ba’al in the passage and that essentially I used the text as a spring board to address some issues.

Well, yes, I was quite aware of that.

But is that not what every preacher does?  I think the issue comes in as far as what issues are being addressed.  I daresay that generally in the preaching moment we expect to have issues of spirituality addressed and tie them into concrete examples of how we should apply them.  Perhaps it was because this was the first time I had to write two sermons at once and in the other sermon I was taking the stand point of not always theologizing the biblical text for the sake of making the Christian story work, that lead me to stray away from the easy out as far as sermon preparation is concerned.

Theologizing the text is easy.  Your average person at home in their own quiet time can do it, however, I think it stretches our realm of God when we seek to find other avenues in which to encounter God.  The east out as far as this biblical passage would have been that we as ministers need to tear down the false gods and get back to Yahweh which is the only true God.  And I could have easily highlighted spiritual warfare of fighting Yahweh against Ba’al and so and so forth.  That would have been easy, but at the end of the day, given the nature of my social issues that I did highlight, just how were those going to be addressed or even have their issues being raised.  Fact of the matter is that there is enough preaching out there that does the confessional approach to the bible, I prefer to take a bit more iconoclastic approach that destroys our typical images because in fact we begin to worship the religion and not have a relationship with God.

Also at play for me is that the Bible is not authoritative to  me in the traditional sense.

I hope that sentence doesn’t come back to haunt me in the future come time for ordination somewhere, but at least for now, it’s not.  To borrow a turn of a phrase another close friend told me, the Bible is only authoritative as it intersects the primary text of our own human lives.  That is to say that the Bible has many nice, good and quite helpful things to offer, but to go so far as to say that the Bible is the primary guiding factor in my life would be a gross miscalculation of who I am and who I be.  So it was quite easy for me to find a topic first as far as this sermon was concerned and then find a biblical passage that could support some of my ideas I had rattling around.  I don’t do that all the time, there are some passages that “preach themselves” so to speak, but then I have no problem with taking a topic and using a scripture to support it.  Some call that “prooftexting” particularly when certain circles of preachers criticize those who preach a prosperity gospel.

I said all that to say that I stand by the sermon that I preached and it’s theological, intellectual and God-centered integrity.  And indeed since I identify myself in as an iconoclastic preacher (already at the age of 25), I would quite easily fall into the prophetic tradition.

The prophetic tradition is based off of the Hebrew Bible understanding that the prophets, particularly what the Old Testament refers to as the major and minor prophets from Isaiah through Malachi all had a “thus saith the Lord” message that challenged the tradition and called out the people of Israel on their particularities that separated them from Yahweh and also on some social-economic issues as well.  Among the most famous is Amos who issues a “woe to those in ease at Zion” and famous for his oracle against the various religious practices and festivals that don’t impress God, but rather attempting to change their way of life.

But famous among the various prophetic oracles through this corpus of writings of the Nevi’im (the prophets) is the fact that many of them are chastising priests for their practices. Well, let’s be aware that priests are those that maintain the temple and are in charge of the burning of the offerings that are given over by the people to be offered up to God.  Now granted the priests lived mainly off of the offerings given over to Temple, but still throughout these “minor” prophets there are the prophets scolding the priests for not holding up their end of the bargain–particularly in Malachi 2 and 3 where the prophet is scolding the priests for not bringing in their tithes and not the people–despite what we get taught on Sunday mornings.

As a result you have the prophets versus the priests.

The prophets are speaking out a contrary word while the priests are trying to maintain a Temple system that may benefit them if they choose to.  So now you have in the twenty-first century those that pose the pastor as the priest and the tension of whether the pastor stands in the priestly tradition or the prophetic tradition.

It’s not an easy call.  Those that stand in the priestly tradition at minimum perpetuate the Temple system, or in modern terms, support the institutions of the church.  By nature of it being an institution there are many tacit assumptions that just go without saying.  The prophet is the one that criticizes the social and theological ramifications of said system as to whether or not they are helping or hindering the relationship to God concerning the masses.

Well, I tend to push it a bit further and look through the paradigm that we’ve been doing the same thing for a long time and nothing has changed.  Once we examine it, the root of what we’re pushing, this Jesus Christ issue, has not changed for some time.  While the traditional theology may have worked in the past, what we’re trying to change doesn’t seem to be responding to us merely repackaging the core message.  I’m all for changing the core message, but of course most rebuff at that for a plethora of reasons and with a myriad of rebuttals.

All of that aside, I must ask the question in what tradition to do you identify with the most?

Hurt People, Hurt People: The Homophobic Prophesying Rant of Donnie McClurkin

17 Nov

I actually got a tweet about this mess when it happened.

Two weeks ago while the historically black Pentecostal denomination of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) held their annual 102nd Holy Convocation in Memphis, Tennessee, apparently Donnie McClurkin, the gospel recording artist and ordained elder in the COGIC church took the microphone on the move of the Holy Spirit and became utterly transparent.  What transpired over the next 25-30 minutes or so was a ramble that was infused with testimony, confessional church dogma and homophobia.

Seriously, I don’t know where to start with it.

I will say this, Donnie was truly speaking from his context.

First of all there is the confessional approach to the biblical text that asserts the notion that the Bible is infallible and for many there is the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.  The former alluding to the definite spirit of the biblical text, the latter making the claim that there is no error and more or less the idea that we should still be following the Levitcal and Deuteronomic codes in the Old Testament.  As far as COGICs are concerned their church doctrine and statement of faith declares it to be infallible, but as typical Pentecostals and conservative church is concerned, they really operate on the spectrum somewhere between infallible and inerrant.  So, naturally, if Paul, in Romans one makes this reference against homosexuality, then why wouldn’t Donnie speak out against it?  And what better place to it than at the Youth Department’s service?

Donnie does a great job of upholding the tenets of the COGIC.

But also Donnie is speaking through the context of being abused.  This presents a whole other set of problems that no one in the blogosphere I heard really deal with.  I read the article on Rod 2.0 and another blog post from fellow blogger Luvvie who is known for her rants.  The author Rod, from Rod 2.0 is an openly gay male so of course he had issues with the blatant homophobia that was spewed from McClurkin’s mouth.  And both he and Luvvie have made the assertion that indeed McClurkin isn’t delivered from anything.

Well, I guess that latter part is up for debate.

But since I’m not attached to his hip, I really can’t speak on that, can I?

What I will say is that concerning his abuse is that presumably, the church knew about it and did nothing.  Or even if it wasn’t the church per se, someone connected to the church and did nothing about it.  What’s at issue here is a cycle of silence that Donnie is attempting to break.  On that level, I can thoroughly appreciate that he broached the subject, but rather addressing the church’s silence in the face of known child abuse , he decided to use it as a platform to spew some rant and ramble that was really an invective against homosexuals.

He made the claim about “being real” and that was indeed addressing the young people’s concerns about keeping it real.  Aside from that being a lie from the pits of hell, keeping it real with young people is when there is an open dialogue with them; not yet again another preacher yelling at them from the pulpit!  The pastoral care in me kicked in full gear as I was watching this.  What adults, particularly those of the Pentecostal persuasion tend to forget is that open dialogue from young persons does not come from simply saying “you know you can tell me anything” once or twice and certainly not from the preacher yelling invectives at the young people.

Then he said “I don’t eat sugar, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want sugar.”

To me that kind of debunks his main argument that he was indeed delivered from homosexuality which goes at the thrust of my major contention with a church’s stance on homosexuality.  Apparently many Pentecostals believe that homosexuality is a choice, or even moreso a spirit–an evil spirit in fact.  An evil spirit that must be prayed out, tarried out, worshipped out or even cast out.

Just ask Jeffrey.

or

Honestly, I really can’t wrap my mind around the rationale behind that.  I personally believe people are born gay.  I understand that in the context of the belief of the sovereignty of God–that God knows what’s going to happen before it happens.  God already knew what you were going to do before you do it.  Well what about free will and choice some might say?  My response to that is evidenced by McClurkin’s sugar analogy.  Just because you don’t act on something doesn’t mean that you’re indeed delivered.  I’m of the opinion that true deliverance (wow, whatever that really means) is probably when you can go back into a situation and not even be tempted.  As long as you’re being tempted, you’re just merely self-sacrificing your own personal urges.

Actually, I’m rather hedonistic in some regards with this.  My own personal stipulations are to not bring harm to yourself or others in the process.  As long as you’re being safe with what you do, by all means, have fun.  Even Martin Luther said “Sin, boldly!”

This what Donnie did, please believe was not a sermon.  This was a rant and invective that was laced with homophobia that furthered poisoned the minds of church leaders against embracing homosexuals into the church.  Honestly, what sane thinking gay person would want to be a part of that foolishness?  How can you preach such radical conservatism and then get mad when those same people you claim to love don’t want to join the church–and then get mad at progressive denominations such as the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists and various Episcopal churches that welcome and ordain homosexuals?  Donnie further closed the minds of an already closed minded people.

And then at the end, he compounded my confusion as if that was possible by saying that the only people allowed to lay hands were the ones who didn’t have a “struggle” and only those who were “pure.”

Again this points to one of my other issues not just with Pentecostal denominations but with the church in general, black and white.  I’m just really concerned about our preoccupation with sexual issues–specifically homosexuality.  Ask some people the biggest problem facing the church is sexual immorality–specifically homosexuality.  We act as though all of these other issues addressing the church with the plethora of other communal injustices that we’re dealing with are non-existent to the personal piety concerns.  Again, we act as though a gay person is an ineffective witness.  That gayness means that they can’t preach.  Or that gayness means that they can’t serve as an usher.

Essentially what the churches are doing is being complicit in the “downlow” black male culture that exists because they don’t feel enough of a comfort zone that exists in various facets of society.  Why would a black male, or black female, want to come out of the closet in a church setting that doesn’t affirm their lifestyle.  The church appears to be okay with a “downlow” lifestyle of any sort sexual or non-sexual that keeps the taboo act in secret just to save face to the people who are doing the same thing in their own privacy.

Pot, meet kettle.

Donnie was hurt as a young child, and sadly he has equated homosexuality with child abuse and child predators.  He has so internalized this problem and believed in “Jaaayyyyyzus” to work it out that if you watch in the third clip, he actually apologizes on behalf of the ones who abused him!  How hurt must one be for them to feel that they must apologize and excuse the one’s who did the abuse?!!?!?

Lord, we have a long way to go.

So I say, please ignore Donnie McClurkin and this rant he gave.  He’s a hurt individual who hasn’t worked out his own issues.

Father, forgive him, for he knew not what he said.

Clip #1

Clip #2

Clip #3

So after watching the YouTube clips, what say ye?

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Oh How ‘Precious’

14 Nov

Precious 1There are only two movies in my lifetime that I ever cried on–or rather allowed myself to cry on.  The reuniting scene of Celie and Nettie in “The Color Purple” was the first one at age ten when I snuck and finished watching the movie and was careful to keep my back turned so my parents wouldn’t know I cried over it, and last night the movie “Precious” prompted me to shed a tear.

In short, “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire” is the story of 1987 Harlem with an overweight, daresay obese, black, dark-skinned, teenage girl who has been impregnated twice by her father and lives in an apartment with here extremely abusive mother, named Mary, who not only hurls vehement verbal assaults against her, but indeed commits extreme physical violence against her own daughter.  This is the basic story line of a tranche de vie movie that doesn’t have a simple plot line per se, but seeks to tell a story.  The movie was adopted from the novel Push by the author Sapphire.

I had heard the hype about the movie and how it got rave reviews at the Sundance Movie Festival, and I heard two interviews on NPR from the director Lee Daniels and from the author Sapphire herself.  But much more I hadn’t heard prior to the opening weekend one week ago from the date of this blog post.  That being said, I had seen the trailers, and had heard that it shattered box office expectations last week with its limited release, and last night it was a sold out crowd in the movie house.

What has surfaced was a chorus of harsh criticism that at the base is alleging exploitation of the stereotypical “big, black and ugly” black woman.  Leading the pack has been Armond White with his online review or just as harshly Anthony Smith with his title “‘Precious’ Fails the Black Community” and of course some others throughout the online world have touted this as nothing more than “poverty porn.”  I think what this highlights above nothing else is the vast class differences amongst our own community.

Oprah and Tyler PerryAside from the run-of-the-mill hating that most blacks heap upon Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry for various and sundry reasons, what I noticed was that largely the black community doesn’t know how to handle a “Precious” motif.  Smith wrote

Yet in marketing the motion picture “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphired, the producer and director, Lee Daniels boldy affirms that, “I know this chick.  You know her.  But we just choose not to know her.” Rather by choice or circumstance, let me be the first to say that I do not know Precious, and I have a hunch that most other black Americans don’t know her, either.”

For those that “don’t know Precious” I must ask the questions why don’t you know her, and what’s so wrong with getting to know her?  In the grand scheme of things, why many (I won’t say most) black Americans don’t know “Precious” is because of the vast class differences in which many of exist.

Now the movie had interesting cinematography which made it borderline documentary to some sort of Disney channel show; showing the various mental breaks with reality that Precious had when she had her various low moments such as her raping her.  The movie went from the stark reality of life to her being some glizty and glamorous showstopper on the red carpet or dancing in a ball room–all accompanied by her light skinned boyfriend.  But, I think that’s reality.  Too many in the theaters actually laughed at those scenes because of the perceived idiocy of the idea of a big, dark skinned female being able to walk a red carpet, or to even have a light skinned boyfriend.  There was the ballroom scene and the imaginary boyfriend was licking her in the ear, and the audience responded with an “ewwww” especially the two young women sitting next to me.  I couldn’t help but wonder if a Shemar Moore was licking the ear of a Nicole Ari Parker if the “ewwwws” would have turned into sensual “ooooohs.”

What I’m saying is that society has made “Precious” a caricature and exploitative, not the director Lee Daniels and certainly not executive producers Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey.  And in Oprah’s defense, we all know her story, she was told as a youngster that she was “too big” and “too black” so why would anyone be shocked at her support of this movie.  I think this movie offends the sensibilities of too many middle class blacks.  It automatically makes them thankful for their current situation which really sets up a judgmental ideal of really saying “I’m glad I’m not the ‘other.’”  Moreover, middle class blacks in order to remain in relative comfort must view “Precious” as a caricature in order to maintain their own sanity and not be consumed by guilt.

And let’s be clear about the caricature status because it’s essentially declaring “Precious” as not real.  If middle class blacks can somehow see the “Precious” motif as not real, then the rest of the movie and the rest of life is viewed as mere hyperbole and unrealistic and really not worthy of our time and effort.  This is an easy jump for many middle class blacks who had to drive into the inner cities to movie theaters that actually were showing the movies because many of them were driving back to the suburban and ex-urban homes never to think about this movie again.  This idea is supported by Smith who writes:

This film is as dangerous as it is offensive, and it is not representative of any community, past or present. The narrative about a young, unloved victim is intellectually and socially dishonest. Daniels relies on overly objectionable imagery and perverse cinematic devices to provoke emotion from the audience, all the while offering no true explanation of events, no link between cause and effect, no solution and no opportunity to deliberate, just action — vile, disgusting, and inhumane acts of violence, apathy, abuse and rape. [emphasis added]

I think what’s at issue is that blacks are still struggling for a unified identity that always pits a “The PJs” versus “The Cosby Show” dichotomy.  While this movie highlights stereotypes such as Precious stealing a bucket of fried chicken–because her mother didn’t have food in the refrigerator–middle class blacks seems to forget that indeed this is a lived reality for many people.  We can get too caught up in trying to portray the Cosby’s not just for the sake of white sensibilities, but also for our own appeasement.  I’m of the school of thought that we must continue to hold the mirror up to ourselves and use it not just as a reflecting tool, but as a correcting tool.

If we would believe those of the Smith and White camps, they would have you believe that “Precious” is a machination of Perry, Winfrey and Daniels for the sake of capitalizing on black stereotypes just to make an easy buck and shift our collective concerns away from real issues.  Neither of them suggest indeed what the real issues are and come off as two individuals so secluded in the ivory tower that if “Precious” walked up to them, they’d dismiss her as a figment of their imagination.

Precious 2 - Mo'NiqueOn the other hand,I chalked up the roles of Ms. Rain, the welfare social worker and the obstetric nurse played by Paula Patton, Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz respectively as yet again real life.  All of the nice people in this movie were played by comparatively light skinned individuals.  Some took issue with casting as such, but first, I was so rocked by the performances of Mo’Nique as Mary, the mother of Precious and of Gabourey Sibide as Precious, that I didn’t even really notice skin color until I saw a tweet from Thembi who made note of it.  In real life, light skinned people tend to be in the upper ranks of the society.

Seriously, drive through the local hood of your city, town or hamlet and tell me how many light skinned people do you see standing on the street corner?

Granted this movie might have been cinematically schizophrenic from the relative high comedic moments of the other girls in the remedial reading class at the alternative school from both Joanna (who I might add with her dress looked more circa 2009 than 1987) and from the Jamaican student named Rhonda, to the low moments when you could clearly see Mary having had a break with reality and how Precious was forced to navigate the waters of living with a mentally insane, it was indeed, reality.  Some took issue that this movie had no ending and was very open ended, to those I simply ask, is that not life?  Life never truly answers questions, we want it to, we at times need it to, but just like Precious, we take what we have and we walk off into the unknown unaware of what the future holds, just desperately hoping and praying that we know the One who holds the future.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Which Comes First: Religion or Citizenship, Pt. II

11 Nov

black woman and flag

As I was writing the first post, I thought about the fact that there really is a segment of Christianity in this country that truly feels that politics and religion don’t mix.  That is to say, that all they need to do is preach Jesus, and him crucified, dead, buried and resurrected and all will be okay.  Some black preaching scholars, such as Cleophus LaRue in his book The Heart of Black Preaching and Olin P. Moyd in The Sacred Art don’t necessarily agree that by divorcing politics from the pulpit is standing in the black preaching tradition.  Most recently Obery Hendricks wrote the widely popular, yet criticised book The Politics of Jesus and that even gained him a spot with Bill O’Reilly along with local Atlanta pastor Timothy MacDonald in the midst of the Jeremiah Wright fallout spring of 2008.

The clip notwithstanding, black Pentecostals are a largely underrepresented, if not unrepresented group of black Christians who are a significant part of Black America.  The majority of them identify with the Church of God in Christ which today is finishing up their  annual pilgrimage (literally) to Memphis, Tennessee where their world headquarters is located for what is known as Holy Convocation which spans eight days the first full week of November of every year.  They’ve been in existence for now 102 years.  Other black Pentecostal denominations are Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW), Church of Christ (Holiness) and other smaller fellowships such as Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, such as Fire Baptized Holiness and even still Mt. Calvary Holiness Church (which is famous for their megachurch in Washington, D.C. pastored by Bishop Alfred Owens).  And there are many others which I haven’t mentioned.

To their credit, they often times ascribe to asceticism in the belief that they will get their rewards in the sweet by-and-by.  The major criticism that many social justice and non-Pentecostals blacks ask is “what about the nasty now-and-now?”  Historically speaking, you rarely heard about black Pentecostal ministers aligning themselves with the modern-Civil Rights movement and even still today, you rarely hear about black Pentecostal churches speaking about about local civil rights issues in various cities.  The big joke in ecclesiastical circles is that the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) solidified themselves with the Civil Rights movement because Martin Luther King gave his final “I’ve Been To The Mountaintop” speech at the famed Mason Temple COGIC which was the largest meeting place for blacks at the time and named after their founder Bishop Charles H. Mason.

Damn if that wasn’t a good speech.

Sorry, back to the topic at hand…

That being said, there is a significant section of the black populace that has no real issues with the political climate of this country.  They believe that if they do good, follow Jesus and all that other good church stuff, believe in this “kingdom theology” that indeed, somehow, God will work it all out. I daresay that taking that mindset still buys into the ideals of the Empire.

I say that because Pentecostalism in this country is a safe religion.

Pentecostalism doesn’t challenge the empire, or rather the government.  By believing that indeed “God will fight your battles” and you need do nothing but pray, tarry, tithe in addition to all of the other good church stuff, then you’re doing nothing to upset the government.  While I’ve visited a few Pentecostal churches, ranging from big megachurches to small storefronts, I’ve never directly heard from the pulpit the direct connection to materialism that I’ve heard far too often from some Baptist preachers and of course from those who make it on TBN and the Word Network.  Generally, I hear the sermons that are birthed out of the “holiness or hell” theology that generally is a call to some sort of personal piety.  However, while you never hear sermons about material abundance, you always hear this mantra that seems to be the catch phrase in this neo-Pentecostal age that says “Favor Aint Fair.”

To be honest, this whole two part blog was birthed when the choir director who I’m playing with asked me to learn Vashawn Mitchell’s “Favor (Aint Fair)

I can’t to explain, ain’t gon even try
He’s granted me special praise
and I don’t the reason why.
He’s got his hands on me, I got to testify
I can’t explain it but our God is able

Dont ask me how, don’t ask me why
When you see the rain falling, get under the clouds
He’s got his hands on me, I got to testify

Not that I’ve been so good, but He’s been kind
Don’t deserve his praise, but He still provides
but he keeps blessing me, I’ve got the victory

Favor, aint fair.  But it’s, on me.

We use this “favor aint fair” as an excuse to explain our material trappings and what God has done to bless us.  Kind of like in that old black and white movie with the all black cast “Cabin In The Sky” when Little Joe won the sweepstakes of $10,000 (a lotta money in 1941) and it was really the devil that had set him up with the money, but Joe had declared that it was a blessing from God.  Well, it similar.  We interpret our materialism as a blessing from God, so while we may preach a meek and mild and lowly Jesus, one who was so poor and broke, he didn’t even have somewhere to stay and was dependent upon the benevolence of others, the “favor aint fair” ideal explains why pastors and big time preachers have tailor made suits, live in the suburbs far from the communities their churches are situated, have three and four cars and fly off to conferences all across the country preaching and getting $50,000 in an offering.

“Favor aint fair” runs into a problem however when you start talking about why do bad things happen to good people.  In comes the Word of Faith movement that says it’s because you haven’t given enough money to the church and that your faith isn’t strong enough.

Perhaps favor wasn’t fair in the Old Testament where clearly Yahweh was aligned with the Israelites and was anti-anything else, but in the New Testament, clearly, I mean CLEARLY there’s soooo many verses that speak against “partiality” and encouraging others to not be a “respector of persons.”  So why would God do that if we’re not supposed to?

Yet again, this “favor aint fair” allows for Christians to engage in the full participation of the religion of Americanity and worship the twin gods of Capitalism and Consumerism.  I believe even as Paul mentions the “altar to the unknown God” in Acts 17 as he gives his speech in the Areopagus, that many of us do that with Christianity–we’ll leave the door open to get away with some stuff as a “just in case” mindset.  That just in case God is okay with me having the big house, then let me go ahead and get it.  Or you can fill in whatever material trapping you want.

I’m merely suggesting that we be aware of what we’re doing here when it comes to our religion versus our citizenship.

It’s easy for African Americans to say that we historically were and even now forced to choose between our culture versus being an American citizen, just ask W.E.B. DuBois and his excursus on “double consciousness” so it’s not a new question for us in this Second America, but rather, we’ve always thought of religion to be some pure entity directly from a deity.  I’m suggesting that for the most of us as Christians in this country, we take our cue from society and the secular–Americanity–and then somehow make God and the church fit into that paradigm.

Don’t feel bad though, we’ve been doing that since the first state run church was established with Constantine with the Edict of Milan (I think) in the early 300s when he did away with Christian persecution.  Perhaps the closest we came actually was the United States to breaking away from church and state, but that was mainly because the framers of the Constitution were damn near atheists (in actuality they were Deists) and for them they had already seen what religion had done.  However, thanks to the First Great Awakening, American Christianity already had a foothold in colonial life that easily spilled over after the establishment of the United States.  This American brand of Christianity that came out of the First Great Awakening laid the ground work for the dominion of this country in the name of God.  It gave fuel to the slavery movement down south (well, up north for that matter as well) and it gave rise to the argument behind “manifest destiny” that allowed for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the literal conquering of the already inhabited land.

Louisiana Purchase MapThis, believe it or not goes in part and parcel with the conquest stories found in the book of Joshua.  Do not the Israelites send out Joshua and Caleb to spy into the land much like the Merriwether Lewis and William Clark, bka. Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, they come back and then encourage people to settle the land (think Oregon Trail with the thousands of settlers moving out west) and they have many battles over the next 50 or so years literally killing off the inhabitants (think of the the numerous Indian massacres that happened out west).  And between the Christian canonical books of Joshua to 1 Kings, you have the former inhabitants become assimilated into the new dominant culture and you finally have the story of the victors with the pinnacle of the story being King George W. Bush David.

If you’ve never made those connections, don’t feel bad, this was not that one Sunday you skipped for the big game or to go shopping for a holiday weekend sale, because they didn’t teach that in Sunday school.  We’re not taught to think like that, because it’s considered anti-American Christian.  I mean, nowadays progressives and liberals side with the Indians, but these same progressives and liberals never once think about the Amalekites, the Amorites, the Gibbeonites, the Cannanites or the Perizites in the same way–because Joshua had a mandate from God to do what he did.

Hmm, I guess favor really aint fair.

What are your thoughts on this topic?  Have I just blasphemed God–or blasphemed America with this topic?  How hard is it to change your traditional ways of thinking on subjects such as this?  Or do you outrightly reject this notion simply because it goes against the core of your traditional and embedded beliefs?  What would it take for you to change your thoughts?

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

An Uppity Perspective: The 20/20 Rihanna Interview And Why Some Black Women Need To…

10 Nov

rihanna interviewThis is for those who don’t seem to get it:

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE BROWN, AKA CHRIS BROWN WAS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HIT ROBYN RIHANNA FENTY, AKA RIHANNA.  NO EXCUSES, NO EXPLANATIONS!

That being said, here goes.

As our respective Twitter followers discovered last Friday night, me and Thembi of What Would Thembi Do? got into a discussion surrounding the Chris Brown and Rihanna domestic abuse situation.  As I understand the situation, Chris Brown was wrong.  There’s no way he should have beat his girlfriend the way he did.

And that’s usually about where I get off on the bandwagon with people.

I get off because generally I go elsewhere with how to address the situation.  First for me, I always ask what did the woman do to provoke the man.  Yes, by far there are some crazy men like Blair Underwood’s character in “Madea’s Family Reunion” but then there are some men who are henpecked and just snap, or their are other men who seriously have been provoked by the woman beating on them or hitting on them unnecessarily.  Usually when I bring up this subject with black women in the blogosphere it somehow causes some of them to go into angry black woman territory.

And as a side note, I have a history of falling out with black women in the blogosphere.  Just ask about Christian Progressive Liberal over at Jack and Jill Politics.  Had to do a whole blog about that.  And believe it or not, we fell out on the same subject of Chris Brown and Rihana.

Anywayz…

It seems that when I admit a fault about black men–those who can’t keep their hands to themselves–that the women acted as if, pardon the pun, their shit don’t stink.  I’m not at all advocating a black woman who should be docile and quiet, but there are times when black women I think ought not be so provocative.

That’s IMO.

black queenFrom hearing younger black women and older black women at my school, black women have been severely hurt and traumatized by the society we live in.  They’ve had the double negative of being black and being a woman in a world run by white heterosexual men.  You easily hear stories about black female angst however.  Take Lorraine Hansberry’s “A Raisin in the Sun” or “The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pitman” or even the famous choreopoem “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf”  and not to mention the world famous “The Color Purple.”  But often times, those works of art that we in the black community hold near and dear to us elevate black women at the expense of black men.

I remember my mother when I was about nine or ten and watched “The Color Purple” for the first time that my mother was quite clear that she had a problem with their being not one good black man in the entire movie–not even Shug’s daddy who was a preacher because he put her out when she was a young girl.  Now, as I got older, I see why the black feminist and womanist movement exist, but this idea that “we don’t need men” is detrimental to the black community and ultimately the black family.

Usually the black trumps the man when they say “we carry your babies for nine months and go through labor.  If it wasn’t for us there wouldn’t be you!” and storms out the room.

What kind of asinine thinking is that?

Hell, what’s wrong with saying that we both help in the pro-creation process and that we need each other?  I guarantee that if there weren’t any men, women wouldn’t be falling on each other expecting babies to magically appear.

Black women have their own set of issues that, from my point of view, generally some how come around to placing blame on someone.  Namely the black male.  I’ve never heard an argument here in grad school or undergrad that spoke about the powers that be or anyone else, but generally spoke to how black women have to go it alone with jobs, kids, and other issues and that if the black man stepped up to the plate everything would be alright.

Well, I have news for you sistas: even if more black men stepped up to the plate, we’d still have issues because both genders have their own specific issues that need to be addressed communally and not individually.

#1 First for me is the idea of gender roles. Black women still want to be Miss Independent, but then still want a man to open the door for them and pay for their meals–without questions.  I’m all for equal pay in the workplace and that sexual harassment is just abominable, but then attractive women know how to play the game and use their beauty to get what they want.

Let’s just admit it’s a double standard.

Which brings me back to the domestic abuse case surrounding Chris and Rihanna.  We easily take on Rihanna as some petite, fragile creature who’s a woman = she can’t defend herself and how dare the big bad and burly Chris Brown hit and such a delicate and beautiful young woman.  Well, I wanna know what happened to the women’s empowerment platform?  Couldn’t she have knocked him back or scratched him up or something?

Juanita Bynum and Thomas WeekAnd I know the black community had a totally different reaction to the Juanita Bynum and Bishop Charles Weeks III incident.  It was much more common to hear on the morning black radio shows of Tom Joyner, Steve Harvey and Ricky Smiley about Juanita Bynum possibly having incited her husband to pushing her to the ground.  Seriously, what’s wrong with that image?

In all seriousness, gender roles really are asking one to define what is masculinity and what is femininity.  As I’ve discussed concerning the skinny/fitted jeans and metrosexual fashion, those traditional paradigms concerning masculinity are changing and are being challenged.  Fact of the matter is that some black women said they’re not attracted to it–I still think it’s code for “he’s too gay” and whatever else that means.  By the same token, some women are.  What I will say is that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with communally, not by going off somewhere to address it.

#2 Be aware of outside forces. Yes, black women have gotten the shaft, the ROYAL shaft, but I beg the sistas to be aware that so have the men.  While women have the gender privilege of always going off, and voicing their opinion ad infinitum and even being the stereotypical nag, black men have the gender privilege of being quiet and holding it all in.  Black men of my dad’s generation and definitely older, can easily count on their one hand the number of times they saw their father’s cry, and still have fingers left.  Black men were required to endure just as much as black women were–just different trials.

While black women were forced being raped physically in the antebellum and Jim Crow days of the South, I think it was just as much of an emotional and spiritual rape for black fathers and men to know about it and not be able to do anything–and frankly I don’t know which one was worse or if they should even be compared.

That being said, historically, there’s been tracked pathologies as to the government breaking up the African family, all the way from slavery to at least the 1960s.  I mean, in order to receive a public aid check, the black male couldn’t be caught living in the house with the woman.  Which means that there was always some kind of cat and mouse game that had to go on with the father whether he could actually live there, sleep there or just come and visit–whatever the case, the black man wasn’t at home like he should have been.  And even if he was, it was hard as hell for him to get a job that would easily support his wife and kids.  Far as I know, black families have always been double-income families.  Don’t know of many black stay-at-home mothers.

I mean, just think in “Good Times” where you had a black man killed by the system and everyone focused on the woman–not saying she didn’t need anything–but it was done so at the expense of the black man: hell he was dead!

So now, when we see the after effects of black men not being in the home, we have this cycle of violence that Thembi appropriately pointed out that must be stopped.

I really don’t have time to go into the details of the crack/cocaine conspiracies, the lack of opportunities, the lack of education, mistrust from the police, the failure of public housing and just how humanity has failed black males to fully give voice to the myriad of concerns surrounding black males.  But I will say this, it’s not as simple as it seems.

#3  Be willing to work together. I’ve never heard a black man say that he doesn’t need a woman, but I’ve heard a few black women say “I don’t need a man.”  And then black women wonder why some black men are running to white women.  Well, why in the hell would I want to get with someone who said she don’t need me?!!?

Commone sense people.

Black women need to understand that we’re on the same team fighting for them; that black men are not the enemy.  Stop pushing us away and we’ll stop going to others looking for comfort.  It’s true, other races don’t give us as much guff for being men, and moreover for being black men.  On a practical basis, again, why would I want to get beat up for being a man?  Seriously, I wanted to tell Yvette in “Baby Boy” to “shut the fuck up” in Bernie Mac style (check minute 2:55) a couple of times, despite Jodie being the epitome of an immature black male.

Also, black women need to realise that some times black men marry white women because they actually grew up in white neighborhoods.  I have a cousin who went to school in Iowa and he married a white woman–big whoop! I’da been more shocked if he had married a black woman.  At the end of the day, they have a marriage that works and they have four kids who are my blood relatives–anyone who sees it as different needs to get their mind checked.

Let black women tell the story over 50% of black men are in interracial relationships.  Only 6.6% of black men have married a white woman of the 8.4% of black men total who are in an interracial marriage.

Of the issues that are numerous in the black community, separating the genders isn’t going to address these issues.  By telling black men to go off and get their ish together then come back and holla at the sistas is a recipe for disater unparalleled.  I guess for me, doing the opposite of what was done to you–the oppressed becoming the oppressor–does nothing but perpetuate a vicious cycle on some phantasmagoric merry-go-round from hell that spins so fast no one can get off.

*************

For interested parties, this was really the timbre of the discussion that spurred from me and @thembithembi from What Would Thembi Do? as we were all watching the 20/20 interview with Dianne Sawyer interviewing Rihanna.  Make sure to check out her blog and much love and respect to her.

*************

For my actual take on the Chris Brown and Rihanna situation, that interview didn’t change much of my original take on the situation.  To know how I felt check out my earlier posts “Things I Learned From Chris Brown and Rihanna” and “Oh, P.S., On a Final Note…Since I Have The Floor.”

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Which Comes First: Religion or Citizenship?

9 Nov

black woman and flag

It’s kind of like the Civil War where brothers fought across the Mason-Dixon line.  I don’t want to stain my faith.  I don’t want to stain my fellow Muslims and I don’t want to stain my country’s flag.”

– Ardi Arkun, 32, of Lindenhurst, N.Y., who joined the Marines in 2000 and was deployed to Iraq, on the complicated position of soldiers who are Muslim.

After Paul and Silas had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.  And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three sabbath days argues with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead saying, “This is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you.  Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.  But some Jews became jealous, and with the help of some ruffians in the marketplaces they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar.  While they were searching fro Paul and Silas to bring them out into the assembly, they attacked Jason’s house.  When they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some believers before the city authorities, shouting “These people who have been turning the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has entertained them as guests.  They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying there is another king named Jesus.”

–Acts 17:1-8, New Revised Standard Version

I woke up this morning and saw the first quote on the New York Times mobile email I get sent to my phone about 6:45 every morning.  And it yet again dawned on me on the duality that many people are forced to live in as citizens of an empire.

Let’s be clear, any of us living here in the United States of America are not merely citizens of a country, nor a kingdom, but indeed an empire.  Think about it, when your country has to spend vast amounts of money on the military, it is indeed an empire.  Generally empire’s are not thought of well outside of the empire–and our international image still has a long way to go.  Historically empires have been seen as some ad-mixture of political and most certainly military domination of an entire region that encompasses one or more different types of ethnic backgrounds.  That is to say, the United States from the beginning was an empire in the making; clearly this country is a melting pot.

Now, I’m not going so far as to say that the United States is an empire of old just running roughshod over any and everyone unchecked–although you could ask certain ethnic groups that question and they’d probably spit in your face–however, I am quite clear that the U.S. is a new updated, 21st century model of what an empire is.  Empire 2.0 if you will.

That being said, I think it’s awful that we live in conditions where one is forced to check their religion at the door for the sake of citizenship.  Which therefore means that the gods of Americanity, Capitalism and Consumerism are supreme to the individual deity that the First Amendment guarantees.

Work with me here.

Without the shadow of a doubt, we, as American citizens worship the supreme god of Americanity, lock stock and barrel.  We give over tithes and offerings every time we walk into a mall.  We sacrifice our morals and our basic standards just to appease the gods when we walk into the altars WalMart and Target and watch our money be burned up–we offer the best to them.  And then in typical imperial fashion, we’ve allowed our individual religion to be tainted and understood in the terms of Americanity–that’s why we have the Word of Faith movement, prosperity gospel, this “kingdom theology” and good-God, yes, even Joel Olsteen.

Americanity allowed Joel Olsteen to get on “The View” last week and declare that God wants us to have homes, cars and a good job and promotions on that job.  Really?  Once we begin to equate God’s blessings with our “stuff” we’ve missed the boat.  If we interpret the John 10:10 passage about Jesus coming that we might have life “more abundantly” as to mean material goods, then we’ve totally succumbed to the god of Americanity.  How is it that God is happy is when we get a new car, or get a new house, or get a new job with better benefits–or are we really saying that if we’re happy first, then God is secondary in the equation.

Any time we participate in the consumerism and capitalism of this society, we’re acting as accessories to the crimes against humanity that this empire, and that this system has allowed to promulgate unchecked and unregulated with no end in sight.

I highlighted the Acts 17 passage, not just because I preached it last week in class entitled “It’s Time to Act Up!” but rather because it highlighted the issue of dual citizenship with Jews living in Rome, but acting in the interest of the Roman Empire, rather than engaging in their Jewish ancestry and listening to Paul.  And as if merely ignoring him wouldn’t have been bad enough, they decided to offer him up as a human sacrifice to Roman just in order to prove their Roman citizenship over their Jewish ancestry.  For those Jews, being Roman was more important than being Jewish.

That’s a question many of us non-Anglo-Saxons are forced to ask every day: is our American citizenship more important than our African roots?  And as highlighted by the first quote, now Muslim-Americans are asked to weigh their religion versus their citizenship.  Despite Arkun’s analogy of the Civil War and the Mason-Dixon line division that some families had to endure, their moral dilemma was quite clear, it was the preservation of the Union versus the immorality of slavery; now the lines are much more blurred.  Muslim’s have full citizenship here in this country, but still face discrimination in the workplace and still must endure xenophobic comments from members of Congress following the massacre at Fort Hood last week when former Democrat and former Vice-presidential candidate turned Independent fool Joseph Liberman most recently went on Fox News Sunday and said that the actions of lone gunman Major Nadal Hasan should be investigated to see if his actions should be seen as terrorism.

To those that outright say that their religion comes before their citizenship, I would say, “That’s what they want you to believe.”

Michael SteeleFact of the matter is that for the Christians, at least, if we really followed the teachings of Jesus as outlined in the Gospels (and not Paul necessarily) we’d be labeled anarchists.  Honestly, do you believe that a government killed a man for preaching about love?!?!?!!?  No, they killed him, or in church language, crucified him, because he was challenging the empire saying that he was the king and Caesar Augustus was like “Hell naw.”  What I think is scary about it is that I’m sure the historical Jesus was barely a blip on the radar of Caesar Augustus all the way in Rome–it was really the kin folk, the “us folk” that surrounded Jesus who did more damage to him–which one could really interpret as the other Jews and the Pharisees and the Saducees–and lead more to the execution.

I mean, Paul, Silas and Jason were accused of turning the world upside down.  The religious factor is scary to an empire because it threatens the very nature of its existence.  Why do you think the Black Liberation Theology (with all of its gaping pot holes) was labeled anarchist and nationalist by FoxNews?  Or why do you think even black people had such vast problems with Jeremiah Wright–the majority of us black and white have been trained to think America first, with all of its issues, and then somehow make our religion, namely Christianity fit into the tradition of Americanity.

That’s why the Muslim faith is seen as so other, it fails to conform to American standards.  So it’s outrightly rejected from the beginning by most of us.  It’s so “other” to us, we only recognize Islam when we talk about terrorism–which is a sad state of affairs.

I say all of this to say, on the surface, we’re really asked to pick our citizenship before our religion.  Our citizenship however has become the religion of Americanity where we worship the gods of Capitalism and Consumerism.  We play our parts in the imperial religion and we generally don’t question it because we’ve been so acculturated from birth with messages that support the rugged individualism of capitalism and that tell us to buy, buy, buy and then buy some more so that we can fit into the rest of the mold of this country.  And for far too many of us, when we hear that message connected to God and Christianity, it’s a done deal as to what we really believe and really do.

Stay tuned for Part II

In what ways do you see how our citizenship and our loyalty toward America is directly tied into our religion, namely Christianity?  In what ways do you see Christianity being non-related to each other?  What are thoughts on this topic in general?

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

 

 

Spiritualizing the Secular: An Open Letter to the Clergy of America

1 Nov

halloween-photography-tips-1

Fellow clergypersons,

So it just hit me randomly this year that we, as self-professed American Christians really do worship the religion of Americanity rather than being true Followers of the Way.  That is to say, we’ll follow what American capitalism says, dress it up in Christianity and the Bible and be okay with that.  Here’s an example:  we clearly associate God’s blessings with materialism.  We recognize that God has blessed us when we receive a promotion, a new car, a new or bigger house or whenever our societal standings move upwards we thank God.

That’s problematic for me.

I’d be the biggest hypocrite if I didn’t acknowledge the fact that I do mumble silent thank yous to the heaven just about every time I step into my car with 152,000 miles on it now that has helped me maintain my current societal standing.  Throughout the synoptic Gospels, particularly in the parables, Jesus is generally critiquing the social structures–I mean how often to many of us resonate with the self-righteous man by saying “Thank you God for not letting me like everyone else” which is really saying “Thank you God for not letting me live in the projects” or “Thank you God for not letting me have to take the bus to work, but thanks for the C-class Mercedes by the way.”

I believe we place our spirituality on the wrong things.

Which brings me to the business of Halloween.

As this date, November 1st has marked the beginning of the new holiday shopping season, we still here the traditional church and religious murmuring about how Halloween is of the devil and many churches opt for a “Hallelujah Fest” rather than a “Halloween Party.”  This is to offer a “safe alternative” to trick or treating or other Halloween parties.  I grew up in a family that didn’t celebrate Halloween, so much to the fact (and I doubt my mother remembers this) that I wasn’t allowed to go to my grammar school’s annual roller skating party because it was essentially a Halloween party–but my parents did let me go my 6th grade year which was my final year at that school.

What puzzles me is that these same Christians and church folk who complain about secularization or rather the commericialization of Christmas have only two months prior spiritualized a secular holiday.

Lemme break it down to you.

These same Christians do all kinds of research about All Hallow’s Eve and the true history of Halloween and try and find all types of underworld and netherworldly connections associated with a date that had more to do with agriculture and seasons changing than anything else, but then preach Jesus was born on December 25th in a manger failing to do the historical homework on Christmas.  I mean just Wikipedia Christmas and you’ll see the plethora of meanings behind the date “December 25th.”

I say all that to say, Christians need to let Halloween be Halloween.  It’s not harming anyone, particularly us in the black community.  You don’t really hear about “us folk” running off to be Wiccans or joining some weird satanic cult that still believes in human sacrifices and what not.  I mean given what comes on the evening news, I doubt letting the church group of high schoolers go to a Six Flags “Fright Fest” is going to suddenly “send the wrong message.”  If nothing else, sitting around with flashlights and jack-o-laterns telling ghost stories about the “Headless horsemen” and the “Ghost at West End Lake” probably do more for stimulating a child’s imagination than anything else.  What sends the wrong message is the fact that churches still have parties around Halloween which ultimately mean that churches are turning over their monies to the god of Capitalism because parents are going to still buy costumes, just not the ghosties and goulies, and churches are going to still buy tons and tons of candy.

So what message are you really sending?

Why waste time spiritualizing the secularism of Halloween?  It really doesn’t need it, especially since we still practice the hedonism of both Halloween by throwing our Hallelujah Parties and don’t think we’re going to ever cancel Christmas.  I mean, year after year churches decry the commercialization of Christmas–FOR REAL?  I think it’s just good church hype so pastors and preachers can have a sermon topic.  Seriously, since the creation of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer in the 1930′sand particularly following the consumerism of this country post-World War II, Christians have been fighting a losing battle on that front.  It isn’t getting worse, but it certainly isn’t getting to be a smaller problem.  I mean, Christians are quite aware of the significance of Christmas–and Halloween–we need not hear tirades from the pulpits about it either.

So as we go into the holiday season of 2009, let’s be aware of what message we’re really sending.  Are we celebrating the birth of a man who was so radical that his mere existence dominated religious thought 2,000 years after his death or are we really using this as another excuse to offer up our money as sacrifices to the twin gods of Consumerism and Capitalism?  Are our mouths saying one thing but our actions saying yet something else.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers