From Prophetic Anger to Apocalyptic Hope (by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove)
The recent controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright has initiated a new conversation about race in America. It has done so by making clear to white America what almost every black American knows—that 40 years after the civil rights movement, there are still two Americas. More pointedly for Christians, it is manifestly evident that we have two churches. After the integration of schools, the military, and the workplace, the church remains the single most segregated institution in America.
Across this divide, black Christians necessarily maintain a double consciousness, knowing how to talk to their white brothers and sisters while also keeping alive the distinctive language of the black church. White Christians, however, are taken aback when they hear the "angry" tone and anti-American sentiments of prophetic black preaching. It is hard for us to believe that such rhetoric could be called Christian.
Like any pastor, Rev. Wright has been wrong. (I do not, for example, think it is prophetic to say that whites created the HIV virus.) But we would do well to remember that the same pastor who Barack Obama has distanced himself from also gave him the phrase "the audacity of hope." While it has made for a good book title, its origin in the prophetic tradition of black preaching points us to the peculiar nature of Christian hope.
Apocalyptic hope is one of the distinctive marks of black preaching. We pay lip service to this tradition in our annual Martin Luther King Day services, but we are tempted to water it down. We overlook the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. spent the last year of his life criticizing America's role in the Vietnam War. It is almost never mentioned that on April 4, 1968, just hours before he was assassinated, King phoned Ebeneezer Baptist Church to say that his sermon title for the next Sunday would be "Why America May Go to Hell."
Black anger is not now nor has it ever been absent from prophetic black preaching. Like Jeremiah Wright after him, Martin King preached to a church that knew firsthand the extent of injustice in this nation. Many things have changed in forty years, not the least of which is the fact that a black man is seriously contending for the presidency of the United States. But the black church knows that the wealth disparity between blacks and whites has not changed since 1965. Black Christians in America know that nearly one half of their sons will not finish high school and a third of them will go to prison. Divorced from our black brothers and sisters, most white Christians do not know this reality.
But if we learn to tell the truth about race, what can Christian hope look like? It cannot be the hope of false prophets who say, "'peace, peace' when there is no peace," pretending that blacks and whites do not continue to suffer from a racial wound. But neither can our hope be entirely satisfied with progressive politics that calls us to move forward by getting along. Apocalyptic hope is audacious enough to admit that the problem is deep in all of us and the only solution is a love that comes from beyond us.
In the civil rights movement, no one was angrier about the plight of black people in this country than James Baldwin. His gift with words only served to sharpen his criticism and make his attack on white power more pointed. Yet, it was James Baldwin who wrote in a letter to his nephew, "the really terrible thing, old buddy, is that you must accept [white people] … for these innocent people have no other hope. They are, in effect, still trapped in a history which they do not understand."
One great gift of the black church that has been largely overlooked in the case of Rev. Wright is the tradition's ability to hold together apocalyptic criticism with radical love. This is the double miracle of the black church: that after hearing the gospel from their oppressors, black people found liberation in Christ and then loved the so-called Christians who had been their enemies. If the Enlightenment reduced our confidence in a God who performs miracles, the story of the black church alone should be enough to restore it.
What we need to heal the racial wound in America is nothing less than a miracle. Barack Obama cannot fix us, and thank God, he is honest enough to admit it. We Christians would do well to take a cue from his frankness and remember that judgment begins with the house of God. We should have the audacity to hope that racial divisions could be transgressed within the church so that the world might know another way is possible.
Such hope may seem apocalyptic from where we stand, but the resurrection of Jesus is a reminder that the end of all things has already interrupted history. On this side of Easter, we're invited to live a way that wouldn't make sense if miracles don't happen.
Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove is the author of Free to Be Bound: Church Beyond the Color Line (NavPress, 2008).
Add to:
Category: Black Churches, Race
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Like so many people, I was also moved by Obama's words and blogged about it here: This Speech Mattered
I was moved by his honesty in naming the continued suffering of people in this country on account of race. I was moved also by this part of the speech in which he validated the concerns of white people that have often been brushed aside by, well frankly, by people like me. Obama said:
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
He talked about how these things are also not discussed in polite conversation and they need to be. How marvelous would it be if moved, as a country, to address the need for reconcilliation through honest dialogue!
And the heavens will open up and . . . I know, I know.
Love,
JimII
Posted by: JimII | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM
Barak Obama gave a speech on racial relations because he was forced to by his close association with his racist pastor. His wife has made comments that also attest to the Obama's true feelings.
In my opinion, he condones and believes everything his preacher lays out and for him to say he doesn't is classic political maneuvering.
He will never be elected as President because of his views on race.
"It is hard for us to believe that such rhetoric could be called Christian"
It cannot be called Christian. It is called racist. And please spare me the definitions of the word. As with the Supreme Court ruling on obscenity, I know racism when I see it.
The bigger problem is this, instead of Sojo and the UCC continually trying to justify this hatred and behavior, by pointing out like minded stuff on the extreme right, why can't we all try to meet in the center and be proud of our country and how far it has come in race relations over the last 40 years?
Why can't we celebrate and not denigrate?
Why can't the left understand that sometimes you need to teach people to fish?
Why can't the right undrestand that sometimes you need to offer a fish dinner?
For this country to work we need both ends of the spectrum and need to stop the political posturing.
God does certainly Bless America with bright Godly people who have done wonderous things throughout the country and the world. These benefits far outweigh the injustices in my opinion.
We need togetherness, not divisivness
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 28, 2008 11:56 AM
Well, it seems we've made progress here, but we've got a way to go before the Wright problem is fully understood...
The recent controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright has initiated a new conversation about race in America. It has done so by making clear to white America what almost every black American knows—that 40 years after the civil rights movement, there are still two Americas. More pointedly for Christians, it is manifestly evident that we have two churches. After the integration of schools, the military, and the workplace, the church remains the single most segregated institution in America.
Actually, most whites have been aware of the separation between the "black" and "white" churches for some time. (I use quotation marks because in a larger sense there's only one church, even if its members meet in a lot of different places for a lot of different reasons, some good, some not so good. But I digress...) What's new is the realization of the gap in rhetoric between evangelicals and some "black" congregations.
Across this divide, black Christians necessarily maintain a double consciousness, knowing how to talk to their white brothers and sisters while also keeping alive the distinctive language of the black church. White Christians, however, are taken aback when they hear the "angry" tone and anti-American sentiments of prophetic black preaching. It is hard for us to believe that such rhetoric could be called Christian.
Why the scare quotes around "angry"? Am I to take it that the anger isn't genuine? If the anger isn't real, is that good or bad?
Like any pastor, Rev. Wright has been wrong. (I do not, for example, think it is prophetic to say that whites created the HIV virus.) But we would do well to remember that the same pastor who Barack Obama has distanced himself from also gave him the phrase "the audacity of hope." While it has made for a good book title, its origin in the prophetic tradition of black preaching points us to the peculiar nature of Christian hope.
Like I said, there's progress: we now know what the HIV accusation isn't. The next step is to call it what it is: slander. But one step at a time, I guess...
Apocalyptic hope is one of the distinctive marks of black preaching. We pay lip service to this tradition in our annual Martin Luther King Day services, but we are tempted to water it down. We overlook the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. spent the last year of his life criticizing America's role in the Vietnam War. It is almost never mentioned that on April 4, 1968, just hours before he was assassinated, King phoned Ebeneezer Baptist Church to say that his sermon title for the next Sunday would be "Why America May Go to Hell."
But certainly we can recognize the subtle difference between issuing a warning ("Why America May Go To Hell") and egging on wrath. (encouraging the congregation to sign "God D**n America)
Black anger is not now nor has it ever been absent from prophetic black preaching. Like Jeremiah Wright after him, Martin King preached to a church that knew firsthand the extent of injustice in this nation. Many things have changed in forty years, not the least of which is the fact that a black man is seriously contending for the presidency of the United States. But the black church knows that the wealth disparity between blacks and whites has not changed since 1965. Black Christians in America know that nearly one half of their sons will not finish high school and a third of them will go to prison. Divorced from our black brothers and sisters, most white Christians do not know this reality.
I beg to differ: most white Americans, certainly most white conservatives (not to mention black conservatives) are aware of these facts, as well as the alarmingly high rate of out-of-wedlock births in black communities. That we reach different conclusions on causes and solutions does not mean we are unaware of the problem.
But if we learn to tell the truth about race, what can Christian hope look like? It cannot be the hope of false prophets who say, "'peace, peace' when there is no peace," pretending that blacks and whites do not continue to suffer from a racial wound. But neither can our hope be entirely satisfied with progressive politics that calls us to move forward by getting along. Apocalyptic hope is audacious enough to admit that the problem is deep in all of us and the only solution is a love that comes from beyond us.
But neither can hope be based on the rants of "prophets" who are prone to spread paranoid conspiracy theories. Apocalyptic hope must be strong enough to call for all to speak honestly -- even the aggrieved.
In the civil rights movement, no one was angrier about the plight of black people in this country than James Baldwin. His gift with words only served to sharpen his criticism and make his attack on white power more pointed. Yet, it was James Baldwin who wrote in a letter to his nephew, "the really terrible thing, old buddy, is that you must accept [white people] … for these innocent people have no other hope. They are, in effect, still trapped in a history which they do not understand."
There's an important truth here, deserving of several essays in itself: at some point blacks will have to forgive whites. I realize that will be hard, but this is not just for the sake of whites, but of blacks as well. Anger, even just anger, can harden into hate over time, and hate distorts judgment and leads to shameful and self-destructive acts.
One great gift of the black church that has been largely overlooked in the case of Rev. Wright is the tradition's ability to hold together apocalyptic criticism with radical love. This is the double miracle of the black church: that after hearing the gospel from their oppressors, black people found liberation in Christ and then loved the so-called Christians who had been their enemies. If the Enlightenment reduced our confidence in a God who performs miracles, the story of the black church alone should be enough to restore it.
Which brings us back to the question of Wright: is he genuinely part of this tradition? The apocalyptic critism is there all right, how about the radical love? I'm not so sure about that.
What we need to heal the racial wound in America is nothing less than a miracle. Barack Obama cannot fix us, and thank God, he is honest enough to admit it. We Christians would do well to take a cue from his frankness and remember that judgment begins with the house of God. We should have the audacity to hope that racial divisions could be transgressed within the church so that the world might know another way is possible.
I'm not so sure Obama has been all that frank with us yet. For instance, yesterday he reportedly said that he would have left Trinity UCC if it weren't for the fact that Rev. Wright was expected to retire soon. I find that hard to square with his statement that he would no sooner abandon Wright than abandon the black community itself.
Such hope may seem apocalyptic from where we stand, but the resurrection of Jesus is a reminder that the end of all things has already interrupted history. On this side of Easter, we're invited to live a way that wouldn't make sense if miracles don't happen.
So perhaps we should unite around Christ and leave the politics alone for a while?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 28, 2008 12:20 PM
"There's an important truth here, deserving of several essays in itself: at some point blacks will have to forgive whites. I realize that will be hard, but this is not just for the sake of whites, but of blacks as well. Anger, even just anger, can harden into hate over time, and hate distorts judgment and leads to shameful and self-destructive acts."
Wolvie,
I am really tired of this sentiment. In case you have not noticed many and I would guess most black Christians have forgiven whites repeatedly. This is not a one time forgiveness issue. This is a daily issue for us. We do not have the luxury of ignoring history like you do. It's an ever present reality for us.
There is a double standard here. It's a big one. Whites want to be forgiven when they don't want to step into the pain of Black Americans. You all can you know? Its hard but possible. It will take you dying to yourself in a way that is probably new to you.
But you all must do that and nothing will change until you do. In order for whites to heal from the sin of racism they too must die to themselves and most of them have not, or won't because the work is too hard for them or because of cultural issues feel like they have no reason to.
"Which brings us back to the question of Wright: is he genuinely part of this tradition? The apocalyptic critism is there all right, how about the radical love? I'm not so sure about that."
Ezekiel ate feces, Elisha called bears down on youths, Isaiah walked around naked for years.... They are all part of the prophetic tradition and the radical love they showed was for God and his justice. Just because you are unsure of it doesn't mean others aren't. It's there and it is powerful and uplifting if you only you might see it.
Look at the aid and development to the inner city Reverend Wright instituted and tell me its not there.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 12:39 PM
In hopes that someone from your magazine reads this, I am posting the latest on Obammas faith... as spoken by himself yesterday on the campaign trail. This needs to be exposed to all believers so they know that Obama is NOT Born again. He says so himself in this clip
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=73553
Posted by: David brubaker | March 28, 2008 12:49 PM
I beg to differ: most white Americans, certainly most white conservatives (not to mention black conservatives) are aware of these facts, as well as the alarmingly high rate of out-of-wedlock births in black communities. That we reach different conclusions on causes and solutions does not mean we are unaware of the problem.
Actually, it does. Conservatives, befitting their "lone-ranger" approach, generally isolate behavior from social conditions and tell folks that if they just "shape up" things will change. But the reasons why things are bad in the hood are directly connected to the loss of hope that things can be different. Furthermore, if you look at your various "at-risk" neighborhood you will find few business other than bars, check-cashing places and pawn shops. Folks need goals to work for; if they don't see them on a daily basis they have no chance of changing ("Where there is no vision, the people perish").
Which brings us back to the question of Wright: is he genuinely part of this tradition? The apocalyptic critism is there all right, how about the radical love? I'm not so sure about that.
The New Republic recently published the full text of one of his sermons, and I for one couldn't miss it. You see, the broadcast news media have usually missed the broader context in which he was speaking when he made those incendiary remarks in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 1:06 PM
White America has largely left black America to rot in the HIV crisis.
White America has other priorities - militarism, foreign empire-building, Wall Street bailouts.
Just picture black folks trying to escape New Orleans' Katrina flooding across that bridge, turned back by shots fired by white cops "protecting" white suburbia outside.
That's a picture of a big white belly holding a riot gun, stomping on an anorexic black one, forever, to paraphrase Orwell.
It's all about preserving comfort zones.
And white America *demands* forgiveness, else blacks aren't good Christians? That's just more racism - "Accept your proper place, boy, and forgive your betters."
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 28, 2008 1:18 PM
This needs to be exposed to all believers so they know that Obama is NOT Born again.
Big deal. The only "born-again" in this presidential race was Mike Huckabee.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 1:26 PM
David,
you do realize that there are other branches of the Christian tree like say Coptic, Orthodox, Catholic, Maronite... They are far older and still orthodox and they don't have to cling to a false label like being "born again" to attest to some standard of righteousness. As if righteousness could be claimed by being born again. Righteousness is faith in God, not a title or purely spiritual experience.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 1:51 PM
"This needs to be exposed to all believers so they know that Obama is NOT Born again. He says so himself in this clip..."
The link is to Don Wildmon's American Family Association website. The story's editorialising twists Obama's words.
AFA is politically right-wing Republican. I happen to agree with *some* of their moral positions, but *few* of their approaches.
Do you really expect Obama to say categorically, which is what they wanted (actually they are just looking to "get" him on something, much like the Pharisees with their questioning of Jesus, rather than seeking truth) that he asserts his grandmother is in Hell based on AFA's theology narrowly applied with lots of unwarranted assumptions to boot? Can YOU say categorically who'll be in heaven or not?
You know, Jesus says at the last day, there will be many who will say that they did many works in His name - and yet, He will say, "Depart from me, ye accursed - I never knew you." And on the other hand, he says that those who hear Him, and do His will, will be acceptable. Now how do we know, by that statement, just who is to be excluded, or who is to be acceptable? We can't really say about anyone else, for we cannot see into another's heart - only, hopefully, our own. And are we doing His will?
Obama gave an acceptable answer in this, as is proper, that narrowed the scope of responsibility about such questions to himself, and refused to stand in for God's judgment of others' fate.
We don't know just whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Take care, he who thinks he stands, lest he fall.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 28, 2008 1:54 PM
Sojourner,
Thank you. I agree with everything you said.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 1:55 PM
Biblically speaking, the new birth (or, as an alternative translation has it, being "born from above") has to do with baptism, not with some kind of conversion experience. Check out John 3:1-21, and pay special attention to verse 5.
Moreover, many Christians experience several "conversions" throughout their lifetimes, and for some it's a long process, not a specific event that can be dated. "Born again" is too often used to try to fit people into some kind of preconceived mold. Problem is that the Holy Spirit simply doesn't work in such a predictable way for each individual. Remember Narnia? Aslan is not a tame lion.
And if someone asks me, "When were you saved?" my answer is, "2,000 years ago on a place called Calvary."
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 28, 2008 2:39 PM
Hartgrove wrote: More pointedly for Christians, it is manifestly evident that we have two churches. After the integration of schools, the military, and the workplace, the church remains the single most segregated institution in America.
Someone wrote either in a blog or in a comment last week that on any given Sunday morning Amercia is more segregated than at any other time during the week. And this is so obviously true, yet I don't sense any ground swell of a sense of urgency to change this situation. I believe whites like to go to church and "feel comfortable" worshipping with other whites, and blacks, asins, hispanics, etc, seem to think like-wise. To many like myself it doesn't matter one bit who is sitting in the pew next to us, for we come together with all believers with a focused attention on our Lord and Saviour. Yet, I don't know first hand of any campaign out there where other races are being targeted as groups sought after to increase diversity in a particular church or denomination. Should there be? I suppose in order for us to meet the objectivse that Hargrove states below some things will most certainly have to change.
"But neither can our hope be entirely satisfied with progressive politics that calls us to move forward by getting along. Apocalyptic hope is audacious enough to admit that the problem is deep in all of us and the only solution is a love that comes from beyond us."
Posted by: Doug | March 28, 2008 2:49 PM
Biblically speaking, the new birth (or, as an alternative translation has it, being "born from above") has to do with baptism, not with some kind of conversion experience.
That's not true, either. Actually, Jesus was saying to Nicodemus (and the context should be clear from the conversation) that, effectively, unless you adopt God's viewpoint you will not know what He's doing in the here and now. -- it's not at all about the afterlife.
But let's get back on topic. This is about the prophetic nature of the black church that most white Christians don't yet get (but some do). I grew up in a conservative white church, and it wasn't until I left did I understand just what a prophet was -- before I was told that he/she simply was someone who foretold the future. (I have come to recognize that, as much as I appreciate Reformed theology, everything is so cut-and-dried there's virtually no prophetic tradition and -- as important -- no input from "unapproved" sources.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 2:59 PM
Yeesh! White America is getting a little beat up in this blog isn't it? I had no idea I was so interested in Wall Street.
As to if Rev. Wright is part of the problem, the article on the Secretary of State sheds some light too.
"Rice's success drew heated criticism in 2003 from Reverend Wright, who dubbed her "Condoskeeza" in a sermon."
Please -- put the above in a context where I can respect the man.
Posted by: frankie | March 28, 2008 3:04 PM
Sojourner,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree 100%.
Posted by: Questzal | March 28, 2008 3:15 PM
I believe whites like to go to church and "feel comfortable" worshipping with other whites, and blacks, asins, hispanics, etc, seem to think like-wise. To many like myself it doesn't matter one bit who is sitting in the pew next to us, for we come together with all believers with a focused attention on our Lord and Saviour.
You have to understand that, in many cases, church represents "tradition" -- it's less that people aren't willing to worship with those of other races than they simply don't want to change their views of God; the house of worship often turns into a mere comfort zone that merely reassures you of your prejudices rather than motivates you into action.
My own church faced that very dilemma, but rather than try to force people into its mold it decided to adjust the way it did ministry, moving toward more "colorful" styles of worship. The church has become racially integrated and, frankly, no one wants to go back to the way things are. I talked to the senior pastor over the weekend about one of the recent blog entries, "For Whites Only: ..." -- apparently Sondra Shipley grew up in my church -- and he completely agreed with the gist of it. Even though he's a white conservative Republican, he's "down" with the black community and meets regularly with pastors from black churches.
That leads to another issue to be addressed, one of authority -- who gets to lead the church, who's in the pulpit, what kind of music etc. Will a white congregation call an elder or -- gasp! -- a pastor who isn't white or more like "them?"
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 3:17 PM
Rice's success drew heated criticism in 2003 from Reverend Wright, who dubbed her "Condoskeeza" in a sermon.
I don't know what Wright actually said, but I knew what he meant. For decades the conservative apparatus has tried to "reach out" to the African-American community but without dealing with any of the issues that keep it in a more vulnerable state, and one of those was to place conservative blacks such as Rice in high positions whether they deserve them or not. Rice was a disaster with the National Security Agency, so she was moved over to the State Department.
But there's more. She grew up in Birmingham, Ala. -- one of her childhood friends was killed when the Ku Klux Klan blew up that church in 1963 -- and yet her father, a college professor, disdained the civil-rights movement. She was otherwise sheltered from all that, so in one sense she reaped the benefits of something she had nothing do to with and doesn't even acknowledge.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 3:27 PM
To piggy back off of Rick's comments...
Frankie,
He could be talking about selling out to her white conservative employers. I would never call another black person that but in context it makes sense. Condoleeza has made a great deal of money by being "in bed" with conservative policies. I am not taking anything away from her accomplishments. She is brilliant, speaks Russian... It's just the policies she supports under Bush and other conservatives hurt black people.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 3:29 PM
David Brubaker - I don't think Obama said what you think he said. He said Jesus died for all our sins, and he believe that he, Obama, will receive a heavenly reward for accepting Christ as his savior. He then said that others, Muslims, Jews, etc, are also "children of God". I don't know exactly what he meant by that, but we are all children of God, Christian and non-Christian. That doesn't mean we're all going to heaven though. I'm assuming, unless he said otherwise, that he meant that God loves and cares for all humans.
Sojourner Truth - I appreciate much of what you write here. It's generally well thought out. Your use of the term "white America" though is, I think, part of what irritates many white people about Wright's comments. He and you are lumping all white people together as if they all think and act alike. Yes, there are white people who are greedy, who enjoy war, who are racists, just as there are black people who manifest all the same characteristics. But when you and Wright say "white America" it's extremely offensive.
I am sure Wright has been passed by a cab that didn't pick him up, but to blame white people for this is ridiculous. It's the fault of that individual cab driver (he probably wasn't even white), not an entire racial group of people.
Posted by: Eric | March 28, 2008 4:31 PM
But when you and Wright say "white America" it's extremely offensive.
Well, who dominates American culture? Certainly not "people of color" (today's PC term). I was on another blog addressing this same issue and another person announed he was a Christian -- he didn't identify his race --while I was a black Christian. I reminded him that, whether he liked it or not, he was part of a race, which was part of what he was. It has been said that the biggest thing about "white privilege" is that you don't even have to think about it, and I understand that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 4:42 PM
Rick - I agree with what you said, but it doesn't excuse people for saying "white America" is interested in Wall Street bailouts or militarism or something like that. You can say that the people who lead America in the government are interested in those things, and most of them are white, but when one says "white America" it implies that all white Americans are interested in them.
If people want to have a "conversation about race" we can't be lumping all people of one race into a group and saying "X racial group does Y". We have to take people as individuals, and yes, one's race does partly make up who they are as an individual and we shouldn't discount that.
Posted by: Eric | March 28, 2008 4:54 PM
"It has been said that the biggest thing about "white privilege" is that you don't even have to think about it, and I understand that."
Very true Rick. It's taken me years (I'm a white male) to begin even to understand white privilege just a bit; I doubt I'll ever understand it very well unless I spend a great deal of time in a predominantly non-white community, with the police often following me when I'm driving, a clerk shadowing me around a convenience store to make sure I don't shoplift; a woman hesitating to get on an elevator with me if no one else is around, etc.
Or if I'm the only white in a class, and every time the instructor mentions race all the other students glance at me out of the corner of their eyes; or every time race comes up the instructor expects me to be the spokesperson for my race.
THe same way I'll never completely understand "male privilege" until I have loads of women constantly leering at my genitals, talking to me in patronizing tones, chatting with my spouse and not even looking at me, women students in my class talking over me when i try to offer comments, etc.
Posted by: carl copas | March 28, 2008 4:59 PM
We have to take people as individuals, and yes, one's race does partly make up who they are as an individual and we shouldn't discount that.
It doesn't work quite like that. I learned that in the 1980s from a friend of mine who comes from a "white trash" background (that I was unaware of until I met her family) and who considered herself quite liberal. However, she said she took a quiz on diversity and it opened her eyes as to just how racist she was. We ran around in some of the same circles and I realize that she got better treatment than I did.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 5:09 PM
"We have to take people as individuals, and yes, one's race does partly make up who they are as an individual and we shouldn't discount that."
I don't agree with that at all. You are part of a family right? You have characteristics of both parents in you right? You may be distinct from them but I am willing to bet that they make up a great deal of how you think and why you think the way you do. It's the same thing with race, or gender or sexuality or...All these components make us who we are and create a social identity. That social identity has a history. That history and conduct led to damage for the children of the African diaspora and the European brothers and sisters. We need to talk about that if we have any hope of dealing with that and moving on. guess what? that means looking at group dynamics too.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 5:20 PM
Thank-you Jonathan for pointing to a God so gracious to give the world (including me and the rest of white America)a wonderful gift through the Black church--not out of its perfection but of God's loving generosity and mercies. Thank-you for writing so clearly with patience and care.
I accept it as a good gift. Blessings....
Let justice roll down like a river;
and righteousness like a quiet stream.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 28, 2008 6:56 PM
Thank you again, Rick and Payshun, for continuing to explain what it means to be black in a racist society. Your patience is appreciated, at least in this small corner of cyberspace
Meurig
Posted by: meurig | March 28, 2008 7:17 PM
Payshun and Rick - I understand about group dynamics. As we're both said, our race influences who we are, but there are other aspects of our lives that influence who we are too, perhaps even more. What "group" you're made up of does matter.
My point about the phrase "white America", which you're now ignoring, is that it's very offensive. Saying white America is interested in militarism is the same thing as saying black America is interested in dealing drugs. Both statements are offensive. You can't have constructive conversations about race and insist on making comments like that.
Posted by: Eric | March 28, 2008 7:19 PM
Eric I can see your point and considering it was a white man that said it I think you need to take your offense off with him. Are all white people interested in militarism? Of course not was it fair to say no. I can concede that.
I agree with you that my spirituality influences everything including my race. W/o my relationship and mystical understanding of Jesus and his Spirit I would not be here today.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 7:42 PM
jonathan wilson-hartgrove; what am i, a white man, to do? i love, i forgive, i understand, yet you accuse me of not doing enough. so i get frustrated and begin to see what you are doing. what?
am i being to simplistic to say blacks do not finish high school because they quit? blacks go to prison because they commit crimes? how can the white guys resolve this? the continued misunderstanding is not that whites don't understand your prophetic apocalypse, i don't see it. i agree with james baldwin - blacks must accept whites... as i believe whites have accepted blacks. and they ,whites, are not trapped in history they don't understand but instead are trapped by blacks who hold history against them. it may end with your love that comes from beyond. when Jesus arrives for sure. meantime, efforts to point and blame, and explain and excuse and accuse divide. micromanaging racial feelings and reliance on corrupt politicians will not resolve anything. this is another sojo comment that goes nowhere and encites feelings and misunderstanding.
the nice thing about this country is that we have the freedom to pretty much do what we want. is this wrong?
i think about the hispanics, orientals, native americans, and other racial groups, many of whom had similiar experiences as the blacks, in this country and try to understand what a perfect integration would look like. why is it that the blacks think that they are so different than all the rest of us. and don't use the slavery thing unless you can tell me specifically how you personally have been affected. and feelings don't count because we all have lots of feelings about a lot of things. and don't blame evangelical christians because they try the hardest to "understand".
enough already, i just don't see the justification for perpetuating the feel sorry and try to understand the "poor blacks" theory.
Posted by: jerry | March 28, 2008 7:45 PM
Eric--Frankly Eric, if you think black America is interested in dealing drugs, and you truly desire a constructive conversation, you can say that; and talk it out. It is fully worth pursuing why one would assert black America is interested in dealing drugs, where the idea comes from, to what extent it represents reality, and how it might relate to the broader culture's relationship to drugs, the definition of crime, the war on drugs, etc. etc.
If it is asserted out of a conscious or unconscious desire to hurt or advance a racist stereotype that has been used in a systemic way to cause severe harm then I believe you are correct in concluding such a statement does not lead to constructive conversation.
So are you willing to constructively converse???
Many people believe much of our nation holds militarism to be part of our faith. Meaning, that which we ultimately place our trust in. It is possible we, in Biblical language, trust in chariots instead of placing our full, ultimate trust in God. It explains why one nation feels compelled to spend more than the rest of the world combined on its military; and why it maintains weaponry that could destroy all living things on the planet many times over.
Assigning this trust in militarism to "white America" is not a slur against white persons. It is a critique of the dominant culture in our society. It is the culture created and defined by a group who with intent, persistence, cruelty, arrogance and power defined itself to be supreme. And that culture labeled its supreme self as "white."
A critique of "white America" is a critique of America. The privilege of dominance is to not have to apply an exclusive label to one's self. We are just the norm. We are American. We are the standard.
The critique notes there are other Americas that do not embrace the same cultural values. i.e "It is not the diversity of America that believes we find safety nor our purpose and meaning in weapons. But rather an element of the dominant culture that holds to that. And to distinguish it is the dominant culture that is being critiqued, the label is applied that was created by the dominant culture to specify others were not equally a part: i.e. 'white'
I too am offended. I am offended there is an America we defined as white, exclusive of the full humanity and dignity of other humanity.
Constructive conversation requires the will to speak with intent to increase understanding and reconciliation; it requires the willingness to listen with intent for reconciliation. When one comes from the dominant culture (like I do) it often works better to listen, listen and listen--before saying I am offended by something.
Are you willing to have constuctive conversation?
Posted by: Letjusticerolldown | March 28, 2008 7:57 PM
Don,
"Biblically speaking, the new birth (or, as an alternative translation has it, being "born from above") has to do with baptism, not with some kind of conversion experience. Check out John 3:1-21, and pay special attention to verse 5."
Look again, Don verse five is not about baptism. The Greek construction is describing one thing with "water and Spirit" (it's redundant). The context is being born from above. Not adopting a viewpoint, but actually have a spiritual rebirth.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 28, 2008 7:59 PM
Jerry: "why is it that the blacks think that they are so different than all the rest of us."
"_the_ blacks" The article in front of "blacks" speaks volumes about lumping millions of African Americans individuals together in an undifferentiated mass. As well, the question asked is tragic testimony to ignorance, the unconscious smugness of white privilege, and racial insularity.
But at least the question is asked. Now, is the person who posed it ready to listen?
Posted by: carl copas | March 28, 2008 8:36 PM
Carl,
he is not ready to listen but that's ok. Got to start somewhere.
Jerry
you are one of the few people to think that liberals and others are continuing the victim mentality among blacks and when we challenge that (at least I do) I get labeled as a separatist. I don't understand how that works when I go to a white church and I still post on this blog. But whatever...
I learned to overcome the victim mentality from black liberation theology. Yet conservatives by and large see the theology as heresy while they defend any number of heretical teachings (think dispensationalism and cessationism...) Claiming that I have been thru something doesn't necessarily mean that I am still a victim. What it does mean is that I am a conqueror and healed. It's a place to be grateful and say where God has brought me from. I hope you understand that.
Don't call Asians orientals. It's demeaning. It's like calling them a rug or vase. It's not about being PC here its about respect. You would not want me calling you a "cracker" or any number of derogatory things... It's the same thing in calling an Asian person an Oriental.
One more thing, understanding black experience may be over your head. I know it's over a lot of white folks heads. But if you did step into that pain and asked the Holy Spirit to guide you through it you might be surprised what you would find. It might show you a strength that you have not seen before.
One more thing white folks have never gotten over racism at least not most of you. so the idea that black folks are always holding it against you is ridiculous. If anything you want us black folk to stop bringing up that way you and others like you can pretend it never happened and think that we are over it. White folks by and large have never really taken themselves to task for what their ancestors did and no the Civil War doesn't count. It was never exclusively about justice for Blacks.
One more thing 1'st Nation folks have never gotten over the genocide that happened to them either. The Sioux, Navajo and countless other nations still bare the scars of what our government and ancestors did to them. They are the only other people groups that can relate to what we are going through from this national perspective.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 9:08 PM
Its not prophetic. Its pathetic!
Don
Posted by: don costello | March 28, 2008 9:11 PM
I need you guys' guidance on a new tack.
I submit for your correction:
I have heard that Rev. Wright is a proponent of Black Liberation Theology. All this talk about Black and White is being over-personalized. The trouble with the world, from creation forward, is that "White" has always dictated to and oppressed "Black" by means of defining "Black" as other, unacceptable and inhuman. Therefore persons from "Black" who join "White" are complicit with the ancient oppressors.
Does this not provide a lens by which to interpret much of the actions of the Media (White) toward Rev. Wright (Black) and why Sen. Obama can not, and should not, abandon this crusade for understanding.
Don, Payshun, ST, Letjustice, Wolverine, Rick, meurig; your thoughts?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 28, 2008 9:48 PM
All I know is, I could never vote for someone with such a racist Grandma...
Posted by: debarrio | March 28, 2008 9:49 PM
"Black anger is not now nor has it ever been absent from prophetic black preaching."
I'd have to disagree with you. Read, "Jesus and the Disinherited" by Howard Thurman. First pub. 1949.
Your use of "black anger" and "double consciousness" labels are also problematic. Why can't Rev. Wright be judged like all the rest of us--an imperfect Christian? Rev. Billy Graham made this statement related to the release of tapes (30 years old) of his anti-Semitic comments to Nixon.
"...., I cannot imagine what caused me to make those comments, which I totally repudiate. Whatever the reason, I was wrong for not disagreeing with the President, and I sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended.
As I reflect back, I realize that much of my life has been a pilgrimage -- constantly learning, changing, growing and maturing. I have come to see in deeper ways some of the implications of my faith and message, not the least of which is in the area of human rights and racial and ethnic understanding.
Racial prejudice, anti-Semitism, or hatred of anyone with different beliefs has no place in the human mind or heart. I urge everyone to examine themselves and renew their own hearts before God. Only the supernatural love of God through changed lives can solve the problems that we face in our world.
Of greater import or concern than any tapes made in the White House, each of us must face the fact that God has "tapes" that record not only our actions but also our thoughts and our intent. Every moral choice we have ever made is on His "computer." On the appointed day of God's judgment there will be nothing in any of our hearts that will not be disclosed. That is why we all need God's forgiveness."
As believers we need to transcend race, faith, doctrine, nationalism, and religion in our judgments and solutions.
Posted by: Stephanie Berry | March 28, 2008 10:35 PM
Look again, Don verse five is not about baptism.
Off topic, yes, I know, but I think I have to respond to this.
Jeff, historical interpretation of John 3:5 tells us that it is indeed about baptism, at least in part.
Here are a few examples from 'evangelical' interpreters of the past:
"The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water, v. 5. To be born again is to be born of water and of the Spirit, that is, of the Spirit working like water... That which is primarily intended here is to show that the Spirit, in sanctifying a soul, (1.) Cleanses and purifies it as water, takes away its filth, by which it was unfit for the kingdom of God. It is the washing of regeneration, Tit. 3:5. You are washed, 1 Co. 6:11. See Eze. 36:25. (2.) Cools and refreshes it, as water does the hunted hart and the weary traveller. The Spirit is compared to water, ch. 7:38, 39; Isa. 44:3.. It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism, which John had used and [Jesus] himself had begun to use, 'You must be born again of the Spirit,’ which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace... without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven."
--Matthew Henry, 1706, emphasis mine
"A twofold explanation of the 'new birth,' so startling to Nicodemus...this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36:25-27), which Nicodemus might have been reminded of had such spiritualities not been almost lost in the reigning formalism. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into 'the kingdom of God,' the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5)."
--Jamieson, Fausett & Brown, 1871, emphasis mine
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit - Except he experience that great inward change by the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it."
--John Wesley, 1765
I'm sure I could find many additional examples, but I'd have to do a lot more digging.
You may be right with your understanding of the Greek text, but historically, the church has always seen baptism as one element of the new birth.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 28, 2008 10:43 PM
Stephanie:
Might I posit that a person's pilgrimage toward Rev. Wright's position is as valid as another's which may lead away from him?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 28, 2008 11:31 PM
"The trouble with the world, from creation forward, is that "White" has always dictated to and oppressed "Black" by means of defining "Black" as other, unacceptable and inhuman. Therefore persons from "Black" who join "White" are complicit with the ancient oppressors.
Does this not provide a lens by which to interpret much of the actions of the Media (White) toward Rev. Wright (Black) and why Sen. Obama can not, and should not, abandon this crusade for understanding."
I'm immediately drawn to what happened when Moses drew the ire of his brother and sister when he married a black woman.
They were incensed. They pilloried him for that, and stood before God, indignant, challenging, "Are we not prophets, too?"
God didn't reject them; He said, "Yes, but my servant, Moses, him I speak with face to face."
The man who became one flesh with the black woman was also the man whose face shone with the reflected Shikena glory.
Moreover, God made Miriam whiter than white - with leprosy.
And only the intervention of His servant, Moses, who approached God face to face, healed her from her sick kind of whiteness.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 28, 2008 11:38 PM
ST: I knew I could count on you to come up with something profound. Thank You!
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 28, 2008 11:55 PM
I certainly would not have used the fiery rhetoric Dr. Jeremiah Wright used in criticizing America from his pulpit. But I have to admit I agree with some of the criticisms he expressed. For starters, God must be very displeased with how America treated Native-American Indians and enslaved Africans for several centuries via an evil institution called slavery. And during my lifetime, it was America's toleration of segregation, Jim Crow, the precedent-setting dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and currently the unwise invasion and occupation of Iraq.
If the Old Testament prophets were alive today and living in America, I believe they would be persons of hope who would deliver some harsh criticisms of our country. As individuals and as a nation, in a cause and effect way, we pay for our sins and the sins of our ancestors. Prophets who speak truth to power are unpopular and often say things we don't want to hear. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a modern day prophet who told it like it was in a spirit of love, knowing all along that what he said and did would probably cost him his life.
Despite our many, glib "God Bless America" pleas, America's past and current national sins keep her from earning a God's most favored-nation status. We will make a huge mistake if we allow Dr. Jeremiah Wright's fiery rhetoric to negatively influence our evaluation of Barack Obama, a gifted statesman who loves God, America and all its people.
Posted by: Paul Whiteley Sr. | March 29, 2008 1:41 AM
Stephanie,
David Walker (Mid 19'th century) reporter and devout Christian spoke about anger, rage and other things in his writing. I highly recommend reading his Appeal. You can find it in a library or something. Frederick Douglass was another one that had rage, and then to top it all of off we have the amazing, and wrong prophetic voice of Nat Turner. Rage and anger have been a part of the black prophetic tradition for a long time.
Of course we have people like WEB Du Bois, Mary Stewart, Phyllis Wheatley, Martin Luther King Jr, Medgar Evers, and Howard Thurman. Those folks spoke justice and were sometimes angry. I don't think we need to neuter famous black Americans and pretend that anger in the prophetic tradition was nonexistent. It's a bit reductionist.
I personally believe my race and ethnic identity are transcendent. By living I transcend the old ways of race and death. I am whole mortal and divine being made in the image of my Father and my race is part of the redemption process. I cannot and will not simply dismiss it (neither did you ask me too.) But when you said we need to transcend race, you did not explain what you meant by that. I am transcendent, I don't understand how I can be more so when the Holy Spirit himself is showing me this path.
Pastor said:
"I have heard that Rev. Wright is a proponent of Black Liberation Theology. All this talk about Black and White is being over-personalized. The trouble with the world, from creation forward, is that "White" has always dictated to and oppressed "Black" by means of defining "Black" as other, unacceptable and inhuman. Therefore persons from "Black" who join "White" are complicit with the ancient oppressors.
Does this not provide a lens by which to interpret much of the actions of the Media (White) toward Rev. Wright (Black) and why Sen. Obama can not, and should not, abandon this crusade for understanding."
I am a proponent of liberation theology, black Latin, whatever... I have been an adherent of it for nearly a decade. I am not complicit in my oppression when I join white people in anything. I am transcendent and revealing just how powerful the gospel is when I join with any other ethnicity. That blessing is not limited to when I join different cultures from my own it includes my time when I spend with my own people too.
The question does this provide a lens for you? If so how?
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 29, 2008 11:07 AM
P:
Thank you for responding
I thought that perhaps this "lens" would:
1. Help explain Rev Wrights reticence for defending himself,
2. Lend understanding to his belittling of Ms. Rice,
3. Help explain the media's insistence on charicaturing Rev Wright,
4. Help show why Obama and whites in his congregation sympathize with Rev. Wright,
5. Diffuse the "personal offense" being taken by so many whites (and blacks.
My limited understanding of Black Liberation Theology" is that it is a theology of struggle and suffering that can inspire hope and action. I would love to hear more from you as an adherent.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 29, 2008 3:06 PM
" Ezekiel ate feces, Elisha called bears down on youths, Isaiah walked around naked for years.... They are all part of the prophetic tradition and the radical love they showed was for God and his justice. Just because you are unsure of it doesn't mean others aren't. It's there and it is powerful and uplifting if you only you might see it."-Payshun.
Would you care to provide the reference of what Scripture or readings you learned this from. I'm just curious, as i'd like to be able to double-check that's all. The part I want the references are is about what you've said about Ezekiel, Elisha, and Isaiah.
Posted by: jwlnler | March 29, 2008 3:10 PM
It’s really unfortunate that such an influential and gifted speaker like Rev White chooses to perpetuate this societal victimization that continues to hold back many in the inner-city black community. Why aren’t African refugees and immigrants that come to America similarly repressed by “White America?”
“Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change. The power he finds in his victimization may lead him to collective action against society, but it also encourages passivity within the sphere of his personal life.”
-Shelby Steele
Posted by: DITE | March 29, 2008 3:39 PM
payshun; you go to your church because you like the people there and the services. same for me in arizona and not all the people in my church are white. you like to keep telling us about the racial makeup of your church...hmmmmm. i use the term oriental to refer to all people who come from the orient. Asian? my chinese friends don't know that word. and are not offended by words. nor am i. you can call me anything you want. i know who i am. i guess i could wallow in the history of my ancestors who were persecuted in europe and in the u s. but why? does bond servant mean anything to you? us honkey white folks are to hardheaded to be bothered by name calling. as an aside, how do you see the foul way that your rappers talk about you black folks. and how are us white folks to deal with that? can we do that too?
you and carl are just so much more hip on this racial question that i am, i guess i will just shut up. and by the way, i didn't say anything about liverals. that's just your assumption which is why you and carl and rick and jonathan wilson-hartgrove make so many misstatement,,,your assumptions. and who by the way is lumping all white folks into one category. your family argument is not valid. and carl; your accusation that i lump all blacks together matches your lumping of all whites. your wordsmithing speaks volumes about ignorance of societal feelings and makeup and exposes major bias toward political correctness regardless of consequences. at face value you are a great guy with great understanding. wisdom? problem solver? negotiator? where is colin powell, oprah, cosby, marshall, king and all the other reasoning leaders when we need them? lots of us have moved beyond personal histories toward the love we all want.
what happens when a person accepts Christ?
p; i am listening. i, also am transcendent.
why is it you two don't answer the tough questions that myself and others ask? is it because your ideology doesn't have the answers, doesn't want to answer. and don't ask me to repeat them, just go back and read them. by the way, i love to read your stuff and show it to ALL my friends.
Posted by: jerry | March 29, 2008 4:24 PM
Why aren’t African refugees and immigrants that come to America similarly repressed by “White America?”
Two reasons. One, most of the refugees are sponsored by someone here and thus, in one sense, already on the way to assimilation. Two, many who come here, especially students who come from abroad, are the elite in their countries and not always aware of the history of race in this country. One of my close black friends here, who just got his Ph. D. in physics, comes from Trinidad where "blacks run everything."
That said, if those people came from, say, South Africa of what used to be Rhodesia, things would be different.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 6:04 PM
I apologize for the length.
"I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I have heard a sermon on the meaning of religion, of Christianity, to the man who stands with his back against the wall. It is urgent that my meaning be crystal clear. The masses of men live with their backs constantly against the wall. They are the poor, the disinherited, the dispossessed. What does our religion say to them? The issue is not what it counsels them to do for others whose need may be greater, but what religion offers to meet their own needs. The search for an answer to this question is perhaps the most important religious quest of modern life." Howard Thurman, "Jesus and the Disinherited". Howard Thurman struggled to understand the human condition and the "religion of Jesus".
The focus on race in this discussion, for me, forces us into a defensive role, generalizations, and into our identity corners. I certainly wouldn't argue that African Americans don't get angry, but that that anger is not the basis of prophetic preaching.
For Payshun. My question would be who are your people? I'd argued that the challenge is for us to walk authentic in humanity. I certainly wouldn't associate any complicity (your words) in the interaction between different identity groups. I don't understand your point.
Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC are part of a predominately white denomination. His preaching style is studied in theological seminaries across the country. I don't think that black anger and rage (your word) are critical to understanding his prophetic preaching, his church, or ministry.
Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" describes the "anger and rage" you refer to differently. The language is a bit dated but the perspective in this letter is still very relevant and I recommend the entire letter. "The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action."
For Pastor Jeff. I'm certainly not in the position to assess the validity of anyone's personal pilgrimage. I would offer that IF Rev. Wright's ministry was rooted in anger it could not have inspired or led Barack Obama or anyone else to Jesus.
Regarding your specific points:
"I thought that perhaps this "lens" would:
1. Help explain Rev Wrights reticence for defending himself "
Perhaps he doesn't have to defend himself to those who know him, because they know him in context. That's why I referred to Rev. Billy Graham, the fact that between the time he made the anti-Semitic comments,1972, and when the tapes of them were released, 2002, his actions spoke to a changed heart. That is enough for those who love and respect him. It wasn't enough for those who were the target of his comments. It's hard to take back words. The pain can be piercing especially when you have personal experience with the speaker. I'm not sure Rev. Wright could defend his words because they are forever out of context.
"2. Lend understanding to his belittling of Ms. Rice."
She represents a political view and in this context, it is her politics that are under attack. Secretary Rice is a political personality and commentary related to her is political. It's probably not fair but it is what it is.
"3. Help explain the media's insistence on charicaturing Rev Wright,"
The media is reacting to its own media production. The presentation of Rev. Wright was presented in a sub-text of America's hot buttons. It was designed to present contrast to Barack Obama's audacity of hope, affirmation, and change message. This was my point, we can choose to stay in the sub-text of human division or not.
"4. Help show why Obama and whites in his congregation sympathize with Rev. Wright,"
Hmm. I'm not sure they'd agree with this point. I've heard Rev. Wright preach and I think they would say, assess him in context and you will be inspired.
"5. Diffuse the "personal offense" being taken by so many whites (and blacks."
My point from the beginning. I can't have this conversation as a Black woman and shouldn't have to. My race is not my theology. I can have it if it focused on the power, possibility, and promise of God.
Posted by: Stephanie Berry | March 29, 2008 6:30 PM
where is colin powell, oprah, cosby, marshall, king and all the other reasoning leaders when we need them? lots of us have moved beyond personal histories toward the love we all want.
Not one of these people have abandoned their history the way you want us to. Not one! In fact, Colin Powell was popular among African-Americans only as long as he challenged the conservative agenda; when he became the "good soldier" he lost his audience.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 6:31 PM
Stephanie:
Thanks for an excellent post. If we were to have a face to face I think we would see how much agreement we have. I don't think that Rev. Wright needs to defend himself for anything he said. The act of defending himself is a.) allowing the "White" power structure to dictate the playing field and b.) it is anti-prophetic (I'm picturing Hosea, Jeremiah or Jesus apologizing for their "offensive" words or actions). Obama is a shining example of "fruit that remains" in Rev. Wright's ministry for which neither should apologize. I choose to not believe that someone as sharp as Sen. Obama was your average American church-goer that doesn't quite get the pastor's message. I think that Sen Obama fully understands the theology and it informs his excellent understanding of the race issue. I think he knows that knee-jerk America can't get past the complexities and is just telling them what time it is rather than explaining how the watch works.
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 29, 2008 7:29 PM
comon rick; white people have not abandoned their histories. they simply don't throw them out at people. using my personal family history to try to influence someone is stupid. what can possibly be gained? if someone asks okay. have you ever known a person who is constantly complaining? well, that's kinda what i hear from black folks who use slavery to gain.....what? political correctness has opened the door for all who have a social complaint. we're all aware of the problems. so lets solve them and stop being divisive. what do you mean "...the way i want you to abandon your history". get real mindreader dude.
Posted by: jerry | March 29, 2008 8:56 PM
Jeff, I have no doubt we could have a fruitful dialogue. I have been thinking about this reaction to snippets of Rev. Wright's sermons/speech and I think it was a pretty well design and orchestrated attack on Senator Obama's. It was designed to contrast Obama's message and to make America question the sincerity in the audacity of hope. It contained references to every American hot button to upset blue states, red states, whites, blacks, and Americans in general. So I can understand the initial reaction. I think Senator Obama responded with a keen understand of the design and expectation of the attack as you point out, and with a sincere believe in "we the people" to understand his vision for America. Hopefully, we will be more attune to this kind of manipulation in the future and ignore it?
Posted by: Stephanie Berry | March 29, 2008 8:59 PM
I was born again on Oct 3, 1963.
I was born again again on Feb. 12, 1964.
I was born again again on May 19, 1965.
I was born again again on Sept 2, 1965.
I was born again again on April 16, 1966.
I was born again again on June 13, 1967.
I was born again again on March 23, 1968.
In the church I was raised in, it was kind of like renewing your library card.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 29, 2008 9:22 PM
Stephanie:
Please excuse my prodigious postings, but this is an issue that hits close to home for me as a pastor. I think I could more readily ignore it if I didn't see the negative effects of false accusations about Rev Wright and Obama almost daily from colleagues and parishioners alike. The best things that have happened are helpful discussions such as these, and the exposure of the dearth of depth prevalent in the evangelical pulpits of America today. Hopefully the days of shallow platitudes masquarading as unifying "Christian" principles ("Can't we all just play nice in the sandbox, sing "We shall overcome" and say "Jesus is Lord" 3 times) is at it's apex and we can begin to have respectful, mature Christian dialogue.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 29, 2008 9:40 PM
Don,
Great quotes, but they are wrong. The Greek doesn't allow the translation you advocate, not to mention it doesn't fit the context.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 29, 2008 10:08 PM
white people have not abandoned their histories. they simply don't throw them out at people. using my personal family history to try to influence someone is stupid.
That history doesn't include generations of exclusion for whatever reason -- even the immigrants managed to assimilate within a generation or two, and skin color had everything to do with it. Decades ago I was asked to leave a campus fellowship solely because I was black -- and this group had people of Italian, Eastern European and Arab descent in it.
And BTW, most African-Americans are informed by the civil-rights movement, which many lived through.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 10:50 PM
Great quotes, but they are wrong. The Greek doesn't allow the translation you advocate, not to mention it doesn't fit the context.
Well, what you are saying is that you have issues with John Wesley, Jamieson, Fausett & Brown, and Matthew Henry. Along with the entire body of Christian interpretation of this verse from the early centuries, almost all all of whom recognized that baptism and the new birth are intertwined, based on John 3:5.
Since I don't know you and don't really know what your knowledge of Greek really is, I hope you will forgive me if I rely on and trust the historical interpreters rather than what you are saying here.
I'll close with another one, from the Fourth Century this time. This excerpt comes from a sermon, and the one who delivered it is regarded as one of the greatest preachers of all time. And by the way, his native language was Greek, so you can take up your understanding of Greek words with him.
:-)
Peace,
Don
"When Nicodemus fell into error and wrested the words of Christ to the earthly birth, and said that it was not possible for an old man to be born again, observe how Christ in answer more clearly reveals the manner of the Birth, which even thus had difficulty for the carnal enquirer, yet still was able to raise the hearer from his low opinion of it. What saith He? ‘Verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’ What He declares is this: ‘Thou sayest that it is impossible, I say that it is so absolutely possible as to be necessary, and that it is not even possible otherwise to be saved.’ For necessary things God hath made exceedingly easy also. The earthly birth which is according to the flesh, is of the dust, and therefore heaven is walled against it, for what hath earth in common with heaven? But that other, which is of the Spirit, easily unfolds to us the arches above. Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful the sentence. ‘It is not (possible),’ He saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit, to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.’
"That the need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; ‘Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?’ (Acts x. 47)
"What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. There are also other points of mystical teaching connected with the matter, but for the present I will mention to you one out of many. What is this one? In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; 671 then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfilleth all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, ‘We are buried with Him by Baptism into death’: and again, ‘Our old man is crucified with Him’: and again, ‘We have been planted together in the likeness of His death.’ (Rom. vi. 4,
5, 6) And not only is Baptism called a ‘cross,’ but the ‘cross’ is called ‘Baptism.’ ‘With the Baptism,’ saith Christ, ‘that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized’ (Mark x. 39): and, ‘I have a Baptism to be baptized with’ (Luke xii. 50) (which ye know not); for as we easily dip and lift our heads again, so He also easily died and rose again when He willed or rather much more easily, though He tarried the three days for the dispensation of a certain mystery."
--Taken from “Homily XXV” (on John 3:5); from John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. John
Posted by: Don | March 30, 2008 7:10 AM
"Decades ago I was asked to leave a campus fellowship solely because I was black -- and this group had people of Italian, Eastern European and Arab descent in it."
Rick, I feel those of us who did not share the history that ended up on the cutting-room floor of the white history channel movie need to have those scenes restored for the real Director's cut.
I know you've forgiven if not forgotten - and it's only to be forgotten in the sense that those who've repented have it expunged from their own record before God, not that those injustices and far worse didn't happen.
As a fellow human being, I apologize. The original sin that unleashes these later sins courses through all of us, and therefore we are all complicit - at least to the extent we must do everything we can to do good for others once we realize that.
I think in Jesus' readiness in taking our sins upon Himself he showed the way of removing the barriers that separated man from both God, self and other men.
Even though God perfect and sinless, He repented as Man of what we have done. Therefore let me not judge others, but see myself, like Paul, the chiefest of sinners.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 30, 2008 11:34 AM
Even though God perfect and sinless, He repented as Man of what we have done. Therefore let me not judge others, but see myself, like Paul, the chiefest of sinners - no longer condemned, but accountable.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 30, 2008 11:40 AM
Stephanie
For Payshun. My question would be who are your people? I'd argued that the challenge is for us to walk authentic in humanity. I certainly wouldn't associate any complicity (your words) in the interaction between different identity groups. I don't understand your point.
ME:
Everyone is/are my people. I don't differentiate and claim someone is not human. But I do have some favorite cultures that I prefer being around and are easier for me relate to. Put me around 1'st nation folks and I feel like I am home...
"I personally believe my race and ethnic identity are transcendent. By living I transcend the old ways of race and death. I am whole mortal and divine being made in the image of my Father and my race is part of the redemption process."
What I meant when I wrote that is that Jesus did not stop being Jewish when he rose again. He was a fully redeemed (whatever that means) Jewish God Man, the perfect union of humanity and divine. His race and ethnicity were resurrected without the old baggage of yesteryear but he was still a Jew. I think that's important and explains some of where I am coming from.
I will write more later.
p
"Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC are part of a predominately white denomination. His preaching style is studied in theological seminaries across the country. I don't think that black anger and rage (your word) are critical to understanding his prophetic preaching, his church, or ministry."
Not his whole ministry, but they sermons he gave about damning America...
"Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" describes the "anger and rage" you refer to differently. The language is a bit dated but the perspective in this letter is still very relevant and I recommend the entire letter. "The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action."
On most things I find myself in agreement with brother Martin. But and this is a big butt I tend to agree more with Frederick Douglass. He sees the expression of black rage and anger differently.
Sometimes I do see violence as necessary in stopping oppression. That's how I feel about it. I think non-violence as a political strategy is the best but if I defend someone else then I support and agree with Frederick Douglass.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 30, 2008 12:40 PM
On most things I find myself in agreement with brother Martin. But and this is a big butt I tend to agree more with Frederick Douglass. He sees the expression of black rage and anger differently.
When evaluating King's letter (or any well-constructed piece of persuasive rhetoric, for that matter), I think it's necessary to consider his audience. Remember, he was writing to eight fellow pastors and clergy who were taking issue with his nonviolent direct action campaigns. I think King crafted this letter very carefully, both to point out why he thinks the clergy he was writing to were wrong in opposing him but also at the same time to make sure they couldn't take personal offense with his reasoning.
Douglass was speaking to a different kind of audience with a different kind of goal in mind. Apparently he didn't feel the need to constrain his emotions the way King did. And perhaps King, in a different situation and to a different audience, would have felt more freedom to express his own anger and frustration.
D
Posted by: Don | March 30, 2008 1:14 PM
For Payshun: "What I meant when I wrote that is that Jesus did not stop being Jewish when he rose again."
Let's consider that and imagine Jesus said, "But I do have some favorite cultures that I prefer being around and are easier for me relate to. Put me around 1'st nation folks and I feel like I am home..." ?
For Jeff: I agree with your challenge to my posting, it's what I meant to say. Thanks for your due diligence.
Posted by: Stephanie Berry | March 30, 2008 3:21 PM
Don,
I have no issue with the men you quote, actually I have never met them. I'm sure they were great fellows. I'm also sure they are right on the mark with some things and wrong on others.
Simple put there is one definite article in the phrase "the water and of spirit", which means Jesus is talking about one concept. Is this one concept "water", meaning salvation comes through a ritual done by man? Or does it mean spiritual birth that can only be done by God through birth from above? The context is a slam dunk on this question. You must be born again/from above by the spirit of God. Look further and find water and symbolism of the Spirit.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 30, 2008 7:42 PM
Jeff:
These "fellows" you speak of were significant leaders, preachers, and/or bible interpreters in church history. Surely you know who John Wesley was. I'm not sure why the fact that you haven't met them personally makes any difference. I have no doubt that they are all part of the "great cloud of witnesses." And sure, they were wrong about some things, but it puzzles me that you can so easily dismiss the consistent witness about the meaning of the verse in question coming from several interpreters over the entire course of church history. When I'm faced with such an unvarying understanding of a passage, I begin to question my interpretation, not theirs.
It's quite curious that Chrysostom didn't try to explain why or how baptism was part of the new birth; he just launched into a discussion of baptism. I can only take that to mean that it didn't require any explanation. Article or no article, it seems to me that it must have been self-evident to Chrysostom, along with his Greek-speaking audience, that Jesus had baptism in mind when he said, "unless you are born of water and the spirit..."
And I think you are looking at "context" much too narrowly. Don't just look at John Ch. 3. The greater context--the Gospels as a whole--provide an appropriate analogy. John baptized with water. He proclaimed that another would come who would baptize with the Spirit and with fire. So we have spirit baptism mentioned in some places and water baptism in other places. Here Jesus brings the two--water and spirit--together.
Finally, I reject the idea that baptism is merely a "ritual done by men." It's a command of our Lord himself to baptize (Mat. 28:19), so it can't be called a mere ritual. You are right, though, that Jesus is talking about one concept here. Baptism and being "born from above" are inseparable. They are a seamless garment. When someone is baptized, God sends his spirit--not because we're performing the rite, but because God has already promised us that he would do so. SO it becomes God's act, not ours. The new birth, therefore, depends on him and not on us. This has been the consistent witness of the church through the ages. By contrast, the way the "new birth" is sometimes presented to us, as "accepting Jesus as one's personal savior" seems to reduce it to a "work," an act on the part of the convert, and tends to leave God out of it.
Finally, one more thought. If the only definite article in the phrase comes before "water" and not spirit, then it would seem that Jesus was putting greater emphasis on "water." That would sort of defeat your argument, in my view. But most of the interpreters I have read think "spirit" is emphasized at least as much as "water," if not more so. Evidently, something is going on here grammatically that neither you nor I have full grasp of.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 30, 2008 8:29 PM
Stephanie,
Jesus actually came to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. It was God's plan from the beginning. The Jews were his married bride, at least according to the covenant relationship. His love for the nations did not start with the Jews and it did not end with them but to claim that God doesn't have special relationships with people groups is not fully accurate. He is "no respecter of nations" and he is the defender of Israel and the defender of the Assyrians (think Jonah.) He loves nations and will do what he will to preserve or destroy them depending on his will.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 30, 2008 10:34 PM
Jerry said:
"enough already, i just don't see the justification for perpetuating the feel sorry and try to understand the "poor blacks" theory."
Well it's not a theory to start off with. It's compassion. That word means to suffer with. Is your heart so small that that frightens you?
You speak with such passion assuming racism no longer exist. They do, there is a problem and you have no solution to solving it or even beginning to work on it.
Oh and I not looking for your pity, I am asking for your compassion. Pitying black folks is racist but showing compassion to my ancestors and to those that struggle is the beginning of justice.
Stephanie asked:
"For Payshun. My question would be who are your people? I'd argued that the challenge is for us to walk authentic in humanity. I certainly wouldn't associate any complicity (your words) in the interaction between different identity groups. I don't understand your point."
Everyone is my people to answer your question. I am one with my fellow man but I am also a member of the Bamilinke people group, I am a blend of African and African-American cultures. I am part French and German and that blood did not get there from nice family relationships. But those are some of my people groups and culture. I am one with them but they are distinct people groups. Does that make sense?
Jerry said:
"i know who i am. i guess i could wallow in the history of my ancestors who were persecuted in europe and in the u s. but why?"
What you call wallowing I call respect and deference. What you call wallowing I call testimony and life. That's what you don't understand. I don't bring up the past of my ancestors to wallow in it. I bring it up to point out their strength and to show the power and grace of my people. Would you say the Jews are wallowing when they remember Passover? Would you say you are wallowing when you stop to remember 9/11? What about world war 2 and the Holocaust? Jews don't remember the Holocaust to wallow, neither do the Armenians, or Wuigur or southern Sudanese. I bring them up to redeem what whites portrayed against them. I thought you would have figured that out by now.
u also said:
"and how are us white folks to deal with that? can we do that too?"
Do whatever you want. when it comes to the issue of rappers and what they say I think you can form an opinion without me. Do you really care enough about those issues to care or is that a false question?
"what happens when a person accepts Christ?"
They die and die and die and die and die and die. If one is actually serious about accepting Christ they choose to die over and over again, sometimes picking up the cross daily and then sometimes dieing minute by minute.
The more they die the more the spirit comes the more the spirit comes the more life comes. It's really that complicated.
Jwinler:
" Ezekiel ate feces, Elisha called bears down on youths, Isaiah walked around naked for years.... They are all part of the prophetic tradition and the radical love they showed was for God and his justice. Just because you are unsure of it doesn't mean others aren't. It's there and it is powerful and uplifting if you only you might see it."-Payshun.
Would you care to provide the reference of what Scripture or readings you learned this from. I'm just curious, as i'd like to be able to double-check that's all. The part I want the references are is about what you've said about Ezekiel, Elisha, and Isaiah."
Me:
Ezekiel eating feces takes place in
Ezekiel 4:9-17
9"But as for you, take wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt, put them in one vessel and make them into bread for yourself; you shall eat it according to the number of the days that you lie on your side, three hundred and ninety days.
10"Your food which you eat shall be twenty shekels a day by weight; you shall eat it from time to time.
11"The water you drink shall be the sixth part of a hin by measure; you shall drink it from time to time.
12"You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung."
13Then the LORD said, "Thus will the sons of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I will banish them."
14But I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I have never been defiled; for from my youth until now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat ever entered my mouth."
15Then He said to me, "See, I will give you cow's dung in place of human dung over which you will prepare your bread."
16Moreover, He said to me, "Son of man, behold, I am going to break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they will eat bread by weight and with anxiety, and drink water by measure and in horror,
17because bread and water will be scarce; and they will be appalled with one another and waste away in their iniquity.
Elisha calling the bears takes place in:
2nd Kings 2:24
24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
Isaiah naked
Isaiah 20:3
3And the LORD said, "Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush,
That's enough for now.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 30, 2008 11:14 PM
Don,
My comment about not meeting these men was in response to your comment that "I have a problem with" these men. I was responding to a silly comment with a silly comment. Your response doesn't deal with the merit of the verse only the views of others. We don't determine meaning by taking a vote of historic church figures.
A defense of baptism is admirable but misses the point. Baptism is a ritual. An important ritual if it has meaning, an empty one if it is just an action without God. The same can be said of a rote prayer of salvation. The fact that baptism is important does not change the clear meaning of John 3, specifically verse 5.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 30, 2008 11:14 PM
"payshun; you go to your church because you like the people there and the services. same for me in arizona and not all the people in my church are white."
Actually I don't go to my church because I like it. I go because God tells me too. Every time I go I find myself starting to grow in unexpected ways. I learn patience, I learn to start to face my frustrations. I learn to use my voice. I learn to heal and restore myself and others. It's like chilling in the desert for me to be honest. I like the desert fathers but sometimes I find my that my membership at church is a joke. God doesn't, he wants all the branches of Christianity together. There are times I disagree. But then who am I to disagree with God? I obey, he's right and sometimes I am not.
My church has a high student population and many of the students are Asian, many being Chinese, but then we also have Filipino, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, and others. My church leadership is white. In my church's history a Latin or black or Native American man or woman has never preached a sermon there.
We have placebo worship where multi-ethnic worship is a bit of joke. Ouch, did I say that out loud? I do not mean to call any true worship a joke but the format my church uses barely scratches the surface of Latin and Black worship traditions.
When you said you lived in Arizona your comments make more sense. The stuff you write would not fly so well in CA.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 30, 2008 11:49 PM
My comment about not meeting these men was in response to your comment that "I have a problem with" these men. I was responding to a silly comment with a silly comment.
The comment wasn't silly. I was trying to say that your disagreement isn't with me, at least it isn't merely with me. By saying that these important interpreters are wrong, you do have issues with their understanding. You do have issues with the way the church has always understood this passage. To me, that's a very serious thing indeed, not something silly.
We don't determine meaning by taking a vote of historic church figures.
We also don't determine meaning by ignoring consensus. Coming up with novel doctrines that counter historical interpretations is one way heresies get started. That doesn't mean that you are advocating heresy, of course. But I would be careful about supporting an interpretation that differs so much from what the church has always believed and taught.
The fact that baptism is important does not change the clear meaning of John 3, specifically verse 5.
You are right. And the clear teaching of John 3:5 is that the new birth is a work of the holy spirit through baptism. The witness of Christians throughout the ages supports that understanding. If you doubt that, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 31, 2008 8:06 AM
Payshun – I didn’t mean to make my comments sound like I was offended by anything you and Rick said. It was Sojourner who made the original comment.
And I’m glad there is at least that One Thing that binds us all together above race, gender, geography, political orientation, etc.
Posted by: Eric | March 31, 2008 12:24 PM
Letjusticerolldown – Thank you for your thought-out response. I share your offense that some people have decided that “white culture” equals “American culture”. American culture is and should be defined as much broader than that.
My original point to Sojourner Truth (who, I gather by a post she made on another blog commentary, is white) was that gross generalization about a particular race is not helpful if you want to have a constructive discussion about race in America.
If one wants to say that America has a history of militarism, that’s fine by me. There’s certainly truth in that statement. If you want to say that America has, since it’s founding, been run by white people, that’s certainly true. If you want to say that in general, many white people (usually men) who’ve run America have militaristic sides to them, that’s fine by me too. But when someone lumps all white Americans together and say “white America’s priorities are militarism and empire building” then that’s not constructive. That’s tarring all white Americans with the same brush because of the actions of a portion of the group and would be deeply offensive to any racial group, rightfully so.
If someone wants to back their generalizations up with statistics that’s a start. Absent hard statistics someone shouldn’t make generalizations, particularly about race. As I said, it’s not constructive.
As for listening, I’m all for it. I never said I was offended by Sojourner’s statement. I said it was offensive. Splitting hairs, you may say. But your assumption is that I’m white and therefore should listen, but would you say that to someone who isn’t white – that they should “listen, listen and listen” before telling a white person that what they’ve said is offensive?
Posted by: Eric | March 31, 2008 12:26 PM
Don,
I saw your comment as silly because I don't see disagreement as "having a problem with someone". Some of the people I disagree with most on this site are also the first people I would choose to sit down and have coffee with. So to take the discussion to that level seemed silly to me.
Once again the discussion is not about the merits of baptism, but about the meaning of John 3:5. This started as a response to the phrase "born again", are you coming full circle and now saying we become "born again" through baptism?
Please don't take this discussion personally (not saying you are, but if so). I believe discussion like these can be useful in understanding the Word and each other better.
Peace back at ya,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 31, 2008 2:37 PM
Jeff:
Have a cup of java on me!
Don
Posted by: Don | March 31, 2008 5:22 PM
Don,
I'll remember you tomorrow when I have my first cup.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 31, 2008 6:59 PM
Don and Jeff, thank you. You've demonstrated that we can disagree, vigorously, with one another and yet continue to manifest the presence of the Lord.
It's esp. gratifying because you're discussing a very important topic.
Posted by: carl copas | March 31, 2008 8:25 PM
Payshun: Everyone is my people to answer your question. I am one with my fellow man but I am also a member of the Bamilinke people group, I am a blend of African and African-American cultures. I am part French and German and that blood did not get there from nice family relationships. But those are some of my people groups and culture. I am one with them but they are distinct people groups. Does that make sense?
My perspective is based on my experience and investigation. Black liberation theology associates race and theology. It was appropriate for the time and enabled us to see ourselves in Christ. I would argue it's still appropriate and I think there are those that want us to leap to a race/culture/color blind theology as a test or sign of something transcendant. I think I can be a Black Christian woman and worship in a predominately Black church and still be authentic. I don't think that we should have to defend any associations or paint them as more or less when they are positive.
I think it's becomes problematic when we use Christ to defend the approp