The Price and the Paupers...

Okay, so it looks like I have to be the bad guy...again.  On Friday, Prince William and and Kate Middleton will get married in an extremely lavish ceremony.  Extremely lavish.  Some reports indicate that the wedding will cost over $30 Million dollars for the ceremony and security alone.

I have tried diligently to avoid watching coverage of the royal nuptials as I am not particularly interested in following the lives of the royal family.  I, however, harbor no ill will toward them.  Here in the United States, the media as a collective, will dedicate almost 40 percent of its ink, broadcast or bandwidth covering the royal wedding.

Yes, the media in the United States is largely reactionary--they generally only cover stories that they believe will either increase or pacify their audience.  So, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the U.S. media is spending so much time covering the royal wedding.

But really, some of the stories regarding the royal wedding have really pushed some journalistic outlets to to the outer limits of credibility.  I have read or seen reports of Kate's hometown, how Kate was a victim of childhood bullying, what the people from her hometown think of the wedding, the wedding dress (okay that's pretty important), how Kate went shopping or for a drive one day, how Prince William was getting a case of the jitters, and, and, and, a report speculating how drunk Prince Harry would be the night before the wedding and further speculation on what he would ask the chef to make in the morning after his drinking binge.  Really.

Now, I get that U.S. media outlets feel that the royal wedding is a story that they should be covering from every angle.  And I'm not even going to chastise them about the percentage of time and money they are spending on the royal wedding as opposed to the numerous disasters and conflicts that have occurred in the last 12 months.  Bloggers and tweeters have covered that angle well.

But, what I haven't heard, what U.S. media outlets have not spent any time on is this:  One in four adults in the United Kingdom live in poverty; one in three children live in squalor.  That means 13 million people and 4 million little people can't find adequate housing or food, clothing, work, medical care or comfort.

So the question becomes, with all of the people living in poverty in the United Kingdom, why is the royal family entertaining a wedding that costs $30 million anything?  How much sound medical care, how much food and clothing and shelter could that buy for those living in poverty in the United Kingdom?  How many, as my good friend points out, fresh starts could that give to young children who don't know where there next meal is coming from?  It strikes me that it displays a breaktaking audacity to have a wedding as costly as William and Kate's, while the citizens are starving.

So the next time the Today Show does a story on Kate's hair or socks or her favorite candy as a child, we should ask ourselves why haven't they done a story about the millions living in poverty in the United Kingdom who need coverage more than William or Kate.



 

Learning to Speak "Christianese": Substituting True Christianity with Church Culture

How does one become a Christian? Well, I guess that’s somewhat of a trick question. Since the inception of Christianity, willing would-be converts have wanted to know, “what must I do to be saved?” The answer to that question should be relatively simple, right? Romans 12: 1-2 tell us that, “if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, that you shall be saved”. This is all that must be done to be “saved”. However, becoming a Christian? Well…that’s not nearly as simple.

I remember when I first underwent my transformation and deciding to live a life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ and accepting Him as Lord.  I was a “believer”, but I soon found that being a “Christian” was a completely different form of identity.  I wanted so badly to be like the saints that I saw around me. I was so impressed by their many godly catch phrases, seemingly endless catalog of memorized scriptures, and adept knowledge of church culture.  I call it speaking “Christianese”, the language and jargon of a real Christian. I said to myself, this is what being a Christian is about. I wanted to be like them. 

So I went about the task of making flashcards with fundamental scriptures known throughout Christian circles (true story), you know the usual: John 3:16, Psalm 23, etc.  When people asked me how I was doing, I didn’t just say, “fine”. No, that’s not what Christians do. I had to give a sanctified response like, “Blessed, and highly favored in the Lord”.  I learned all the call-and-response phrases.  You know the classics: “God is good, all the time! And all the time, God is good!”, “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning”, and one of my personal favorites, “He may not come when you want him to, but He’s always on time”. To be honest, it felt a bit like a course in Christianity. And by the time I completed my task, I was ready. For what you ask? For the superficial examination that most church folk give you the moment you claim to be a part of the faith. I knew enough scriptures to win a Bible quiz bowl, I had all the clever Christian quips and knew how to complete all Christian clichés.  But what I noticed was while I FIRST dedicated myself to studying the basic tenets of Christianity and then adopted the cultural nuances, many of my brothers and sisters in the faith simply pursued the later and neglected the former altogether. In other words, the depth of their understanding of the faith was EXTREMELY limited and, to put it politely, cosmetic.  I soon realized, “These folk don’t know about Christianity, as much as they know church culture.” 

So much of what is acknowledged as part of Christian faith is in fact contrived.  It is learned behavior that over time becomes engrained in our psyche as part of the Gospel.  The "getting happy" dance right on cue as the drummer increases tempo, the holding up of the "baptist finger" whenever departing from service early are all examples of this behavior. I sat and watched others like myself, who accepted the faith of Christianity wholeheartedly but didn’t fit the mold of what a typical Christian looks like or acts. I observed the way they were received when noticed they hadn’t dedicated any scriptures to memory, but had a sincere and devout understanding of God’s love and the teachings of the Messiah.  I saw many of my brethren and sistren rejected simply because they were unfamiliar with the culture of the church, and not because they weren’t believers.  I saw people who where supposed to demonstrate God's loving-kindness scar young believers for life and cripple their walk of faith. It was at that moment that I decided to no longer assimilate, but to choose my own identity in Christ.  I would be exactly who God created me to be, and live out my faith in the best way I could reconcile according to scripture (not people).

So no, I don’t wear the ¾ length nine-button suits with the gator-skin loafers, not because I don’t like them (I don’t, but that’s beside the point).  I don’t do it because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christianity. I still play my music loudly, drink recreationally, and hang out with friends (of reaonsable character) because It doesn’t contradict my religion.  I can still speak “Christianese” with the best of them, but now recognize that this has little if anything to do with true Christianity. 

- Judah

Pimpsticks and Pulpits...

I just got finished watching the movie "Lottery Ticket" starring Bow Wow and executive produced by Ice Cube.  Aside from the characterization of women of color as money grubbing vamps (we'll have to address that piece in another article), it was a fun, and fairly harmless comedy about a young man who wins the lottery and tries his best to keep his sanity after the residents of his California housing project learn of his good fortune.

I'm not a movie reviewer or critic, and this movie was released in 2010 (where was I when this was released?), so any analysis of the plot, structure and characters of the movie would be superfluous.

But there was a scene in the movie that got me to thinking.  It was a scene in which, Bow Wow, the protagonist has just won the lottery and he accompanies his grandmother to church.

After the choir rocks and sways and belts out a hymn to a congregation people shouting and dancing jigs in the pews, the pastor of the has his turn to "preach."

The pastor of the church is none other than comedian Mike Epps.  As the attention of the congregation turns to him, he awakes from a slumber.  His hair has been carefully permed and his three piece suit looks like something a pimp would wear on a work night when he's checking his traps.

And as Epps begins to preach, his insult-laced sermon or homily is centered around his desire for material wealth--a larger church, a bigger home, more money and a more beautiful wife.

So, is this what its come to?  A caricature of clergy of color that reduces them to untrained, uneducated greedy hustlers and a congregation full of people of color who either can't discern or refuse to discern that the worship leader is on a hustle?  Really?

I can't just pick on Epps and Ice Cube.  They are not the only folks that have reduced clergy of color to unflattering caricatures.  Cedric the Entertainer, Eddie Murphy, Arsenio Hall, Eddie Griffin and others have all taken a turn at playing the hustler turned clergy who never actually stopped being a hustler.

People outside churches of color or who have not worshipped in one for any sustained period wouldn't know it from the caricatures, but most clergy of color are educated, seminary-trained, folks who aren't on a hustle.  Some of them, like Dr. James Cone, are even directly responsible for some of the most forward-thinking, liberatory theology of our time. 

 To be sure, there are some people who become clergy for the wrong reasons.  But, why do movies marketed to communities of color want America to believe that that is the exception rather than the rule?

Happy? Easter

Naturally, today is Easter Sunday.  While it is the most important holiday to Christians, it is largely ignored by our culture...in comparison to other holidays.  Save the Easter bunny and Cadbury, there are few Easter marketing gimmicks that have had any staying power. 

Today we will celebrate Easter in mass and worship services.  We will eat traditional American, or Cuban, or Afro-Caribbean Easter dinners.  We will dress beautifully.  We will be with family.  We will have Easter egg hunts and take pictures.  We will be...well, happy.

We will be happy because we will be acknowledging the death and resurection of Christ, who came to this earth to be on the side of the poor and marginalized and who loved everyone regardless of their race, gender, sexual preference, or social standing.

Day of Prayer...

Recently, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.  The group filed suit against the federal government and President Obama claiming that an April, 2010 proclamation signed by the president, violated the Establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

While the judge who wrote the opinion dismissed the suit on what amounted to procedural grounds, he did clearly affirm a president's power to pen proclomations like the one drafted by President Obama.  He actually went a bit further than that. 

He opens his opinion with, "Since the founding of the Republic, Congress has requested Presidents to call on the citizens to pray..."

Strong words.  Very strong words.  From the judge's perspective, presidents have a well-established duty to ask citizens to pray, and citizens have generally responded to this presidental request.

This all begs a few questions.  How and why did this become litigation?  Now as a prosecutor, I can appreciate the desire to settle disputes in court, but did President Obama need to call for a National Day of Prayer?  Most studies indicate that around 70 to 80 percent of the American population identifies themselves as Christian.

Certainly, Christians, like subscribers of many other faiths believe that regular prayer is an essential piece of worship and living.  In fact, and I'm not merely prooftexting to prove my point, the Biblical Scriptures (1Thessalonians 5;17) call on Christians to pray without ceasing.  If that is the case, then wouldn't a National Day of Prayer be wholly superfluous to a group of people who are to pray without ceasing, or at least regularly?  And how does it harm the Freedom From Religion Foundation if the president calls on Americans to pray?

Well, why the need for the lawsuit?

Lady Gaga's Real Sin...

The Catholic church has taken umbrage with Lady Gaga over her yet-to-be-released video called "Judas."  Naturally, I have not yet seen footage of the video, but it is reported that she is depicted as Mary Magdalene, friend of Jesus Christ and one of the only people noted to minister to Jesus.  The video also, among other things, apparently depicts Jesus Christ as a black man.

Catholic organizations and other religious groups have lambasted Lady Gaga for the video (that they have not yet seen either), attacking her personally and the video generally, calling her untalented and the video racist and a publicity stunt.

Now, I am not rushing to the aid of Lady Gaga.  She has many, many people who love and adore her and she has handled controversy well in her run.  I think she'll be okay.

The criticism aimed at her in this instance is unfair and unwarranted.  Since Christianity has been recognized as a religion in the first century, artists, religious and otherwise, have depicted Christian religious figures.  Some of them have done so with the Catholic church's blessings.  Some, have even been commissioned by the Church to render such depictions.  And as you can imagine, and as we have seen, those images are carefully controlled and advance a theology consistent with the Church and its teachings.  But, when someone advances an image of Christian religious leaders that they don't agree with, they personally attacked by the church.  Ask Dan Brown or Madonna how this works.  Better yet ask Mel Gibson how this works.

For instance, I remember when I was younger and attending Catholic grade school, I watched the movie version of "Jesus Christ, Superstar."  The movie portrayed Judas, who the scriptures note, betrayed Jesus, as a black man but Jesus and all of the other figures as white.  This depiction is not only historically inaccurate, but fueled by an undercurrent of racism.  The church didn't take to arms about that depiction which was inaccurate.  In fact, I remember watching it in school more than once. 

The video may turn out to be disturbing and wrong on many levels.  I'll wait until I actually see it before I attack it.  But, it seems to me that Lady Gaga's only sin in this instance (other than her shoe choices occasionally), is that she has depicted Jesus as a black man, which is more historically accurate than the long-haired Jesus, or the blond-haired Jesus we have seen the church sanction over the years.

What the Black Church can Learn from Waco

Next week, some survivors of the 1993 tragedy in Waco, will gather together to remember those that were killed in the incident.  For those who do not remember, in 1993, a fire was set to a compound of the so-called "Branch Davidians" religious sect, ending a lengthy standoff between the sect and federal agents.  Dozens of people were killed in the incident.

I certainly can't do the survivors and current Branch Davidians and their beliefs all the justice and care they deserve.  They are a complex, if misunderstood group and should be treated with some care as they remember those killed in the 1993 tragedy.

In glib fashion, and in simplest terms, the Branch Davidians are and were a group of individuals who believed that their leader, David Koresh, was "the messiah" as Christians use the term.  The Branch Davidians lived in a secluded retreat with Koresh who, among other things, amassed a stockpile of weapons and had sex with many of the women of the sect, including young girls.

I certainly remember the tragic events in Waco in 1993.  I was an undergraduate and I remember watching the television as the compound burned to the ground.  And I remember seeing similarities between Waco and the mass suicide in Jonestown, in which 913 people, many of which people of color, lost their lives.  I remember asking myself, "could this sort of thing happen in the black church?"

I dismissed the idea then as quickly as I do now.  I do not now believe nor have I ever believed that the tragedies in Waco and Jonestown can be easily replicated.  They were isolated events that occurred for many complex reasons.

However, I do insist that the black church can learn a few things from the 1993 Waco tragedy and the Jonestown mass suicide as well.

First, the people who followed both Jones and Koresh were largely marginalized, oppressed people.  While there were some exceptions, most of the people were on the margins of the society looking for something to believe in.  As the congregate black church knows, its constituency is also marginalized and oppressed.  The church needs to continue to handle its constituency with great care, compassion and truth.  It has a fiduciary responsibility to not exploit its congregants or their situation.

What's more, clearly Jones and and Koresh were charismatic and their movements rose or fell with them.  In the black church, many local churches thrive or wane at the hands of their leaders.  If the pastor of a local church is loved and charismatic, the church will flourish, if the pastor is not, the church will languish. 

This is not true in other communions.  For example, in the Catholic local church a very few people come to see the priest speak or deliver his homily the way we do in the black church, they generally come, regardless of who is leading mass, for the order of service.

We have to continue to rely on our rich histories and orders of service and be mindful that it is not the individual leading worship that is charismatic, but rather the God and the spirit that worship leader is appealing to in worship.

So as those individuals gather to remember those who lost their lives in the 1993 Waco tragedy, let us be prayerful and contemplate the lessons the tragedy leaves for the church...

But God Said...

In a recent article, writer John Blake asks if it is fair to invoke the Bible for political purposes.  In his thoughtful article, he explains how both opponents and proponents of slavery invoked the Bible to justify their positions.

As a seminarian and clergy within the African Methodist Episcopal communion, this subject is of particular interest to me and I have spent a good deal of time and ink on this very subject.  So, I was very happy to see a very mainstream writer, in a very mainstream medium, discuss this topic.

Blake is absolutely right.  Both sides used the Bible during the Civil War to defend and advance their positions.  What's more, the phenomenon of using the Bible to defend political motives is certainly not exclusive to the Civil War context.  Clearly, the administration and leaders of the early church used the Bible to oppress and marginalize the Jewish. Adolf Hitler used the Scriptures to justify the Holocaust, and certainly the Bible is used even today to justify anything from capital punishment to economic capitalism.

While both abolitionists and confederates used the Bible for political purposes, the slaves who were the subject of this political fight, used the Bible for necessity and to justify their existence.

Not only did confederates use the well-known passage Titus 2:9, but they also used Philemon and other letters written by Paul to justify slavery.   What's more, confederates used the story of the "curse of Ham" contained in Genesis to advance an argument that people of African descent--not just one or two of them, but the whole lot of them--were cursed by God and therefore inferior to other races.

So what do people do when they are oppressed, enslaved and cursed by God?  I mean other than Nat Turner the game.  Well, they, among other things, start finding places in the Bible that include them and contradict the notion that they were cursed.  Naturally, slaves were not allowed to read anything let alone read the Bible, so they relied on itinerant preachers and "circuit riders" to teach them the Bible. 

As slaves would listen to the preachers, they constructed a hermeneutic (or a theology, or a way to interpret the Bible, or whatever other word fits there) that drew similarities between the oppression of the Jewish people in the first Testament of the Bible.  They also hear and drew strength from stories in the gospels of love and inclusion from a forgiving, passionate, compassionate savior of the world who loved everybody called Jesus.

This use of the Bible by slaves was not for political reasons, it was for survival...