I have slow to say anything about the controversy regarding soundbites from Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright's sermons over the last decade. I really have been thinking a lot and conversing with other people to hear what they're thinking as I formulate my response. But eventually one just has to say something, so here goes.
As so many have pointed out, there is a difference between a prophet/pastor and a president. Jeremiah Wright is one and Barack Obama wants to be the other. The president has to inspire us as a nation to be all that we should be, in its most moderate form. That means telling us enough truth about what we actually are so that she/he is trustworthy, but saying it in a way that makes it clear that we are not so bad and that we are loved. A prophet too tells us what we should be, but in its most radical form. The prophet shines a light on and emphasizes the parts of us that are far from what we should be, to the extent that we wonder whether we are or even should be loved. But the prophet loves us too. Jeremiah Wright is a prophet in a long tradition of prophets whose outrageousness is most apparent in the Old Testament.
Some people have objected that there is no difference then between my justification of Jeremiah Wright and the justifications of hate-filled religious figures both in Christianity and other traditions. I disagree. Whether a moral or political position is righteous or not depends on its explicit and implicit ends. Jeremiah Wright's ideal world includes people of all kinds, colors, and cultures. He has remained a part of the mostly white United Church of Christ and communes with other members of that church as brothers and sisters in Christ. He stands against oppression anywhere and everywhere and does not justify violence or hatred on the basis of nationalism, either American or Black. Wright is not hate-filled. There is a difference between anger and hatred. And by the way, his anger is by no means outdated.
I don't agree with everything Dr. Wright said/says or the way in which he said it. (Since I am an American, I pray that God never damns us despite the ways in which we damn ourselves.) But I do know that because he said what he said and said it the radical way he said it, we are having a conversation as nation that we have not had in a long time, if ever. Wright's work is not perfect, but he is not a kook. And his prophetic role is vindicated by the conversation itself.
I'll close now, but I also commend to you the discussion of these issues on Rev. Dr. Renita Weems's blog www.somethingwithin.com/blog
Showing posts with label Black church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Black church. Show all posts
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Constructive Debate
While this certainly could be a congratulatory post regarding last night's Democratic presidential debate, I actually have other items and issues on my mind.
Over the last several weeks, I have witnessed public altercations within the Black community that made me feel that a renewed commitment to civil debate is in order not only for the candidates in the presidential race but for opposing sides in various arenas. While I am not talking about politics exclusively, it is certainly true that the internal bickering and escalation of insults among Black people who are supporting Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton exemplify the exact problem I am discussing. Differences in candidate preference, especially when the policies of the candidates in question are so close, are no cause for insults and name calling (calling Maya Angelou a "ho" is unconscionable). But I am not just talking about politics.
There has been a recent debate on What about our Daughters regarding certain prominent Black preachers' signing a letter congratulating BET on its awards show and other things. While debate and questions about why such a letter appeared, especially with a heading citing "freedom of expression, are absolutely in order, the escalation of hostility between WAOD and Dr. Iva Carruthers does not speak well for either side, in large part because it leads to greater misunderstanding and confusion.
Everyone who aspires to public influence is naturally and rightly submitted to public scrutiny. This applies to Obama and Clinton as candidates as well as to Black intellectuals and preachers as persons who purport to shape our common life. I am not by any means suggesting that we exchange the rigorous quest and question of the truth for some easy civility that harbors and nurtures duplicity. I am saying that bluster for its own sake is not good. And when it is directed at our own people, it is generally more harmful than helpful. While we are arguing with one another, BET and Viacom and their ilk (along with, my forbears would have said, the Devil and his imps) are standing on the sidelines laughing at us.
It seems that at least for one evening the Democratic presidential contenders got that message. How useful it would be for the Black church, the Black community, and the Black family to practice the wisdom of constructive rather than destructive debate.
Over the last several weeks, I have witnessed public altercations within the Black community that made me feel that a renewed commitment to civil debate is in order not only for the candidates in the presidential race but for opposing sides in various arenas. While I am not talking about politics exclusively, it is certainly true that the internal bickering and escalation of insults among Black people who are supporting Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton exemplify the exact problem I am discussing. Differences in candidate preference, especially when the policies of the candidates in question are so close, are no cause for insults and name calling (calling Maya Angelou a "ho" is unconscionable). But I am not just talking about politics.
There has been a recent debate on What about our Daughters regarding certain prominent Black preachers' signing a letter congratulating BET on its awards show and other things. While debate and questions about why such a letter appeared, especially with a heading citing "freedom of expression, are absolutely in order, the escalation of hostility between WAOD and Dr. Iva Carruthers does not speak well for either side, in large part because it leads to greater misunderstanding and confusion.
Everyone who aspires to public influence is naturally and rightly submitted to public scrutiny. This applies to Obama and Clinton as candidates as well as to Black intellectuals and preachers as persons who purport to shape our common life. I am not by any means suggesting that we exchange the rigorous quest and question of the truth for some easy civility that harbors and nurtures duplicity. I am saying that bluster for its own sake is not good. And when it is directed at our own people, it is generally more harmful than helpful. While we are arguing with one another, BET and Viacom and their ilk (along with, my forbears would have said, the Devil and his imps) are standing on the sidelines laughing at us.
It seems that at least for one evening the Democratic presidential contenders got that message. How useful it would be for the Black church, the Black community, and the Black family to practice the wisdom of constructive rather than destructive debate.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Creating a Pipeline
Without question there is a movement afoot and Barack Obama is inspiring and engaging the minds and hearts of Americans across generations and races and religions. In that there is something to celebrate for us all.
But I have to admit that my celebration of Obama's movement is not wholehearted. I searched myself and discovered that what's clouding the celebrating for me is the fact that while Obama and a few others are making headway and creating a pipeline for Black male political leadership, I don't see a woman of any color similarly situated. Mind you, this is NOT an argument akin to Gloria Steinem's stumbling and inaccurate portrayal of gender bias as more significant than racial bias. I am saying that women are going to have to be more intentional about finding and backing candidates up through the ranks so that there will be a similar female pipeline.
While I agree with those who lament Hillary's inextricable connection to the problematic Bill, I am also aware of the history of US politics in which the first woman governor took over for her husband and the first woman elected to the senate did so after completing her husband's unexpired term. Marriage has been the pipeline of political success (and sometimes ecclesiastical success, too)for women in the United States. As gifted and smart as Hillary is, we would not know about her were it not for her husband. That's a fact of sexist life.
I know I am feeling this concern particularly poignantly as a woman seeking a pastoral call. If you think about it, while Black men are at least as unlikely as white women to be called to the senior pastorate of a majority-white church, it is not likely that the reason they are rejected will be biblical. At this point no one credible is saying that it is God's plan that white men be in charge. Yet Black church women frequently remind one another that men are supposed to be the head.
I read AverageBro's blog this morning in which he talked about being able to say to his young son that he could grow up to be anything he wants to be. AverageBro views in Obama's candidacy the possibility that in America anyone can be president. I am not so sure that that's what an Obama presidency would mean for our daughters.
Note: For other reflections on the meaning of Saturday's South Carolina primary for Black women, check out Renita Weems's blog.
But I have to admit that my celebration of Obama's movement is not wholehearted. I searched myself and discovered that what's clouding the celebrating for me is the fact that while Obama and a few others are making headway and creating a pipeline for Black male political leadership, I don't see a woman of any color similarly situated. Mind you, this is NOT an argument akin to Gloria Steinem's stumbling and inaccurate portrayal of gender bias as more significant than racial bias. I am saying that women are going to have to be more intentional about finding and backing candidates up through the ranks so that there will be a similar female pipeline.
While I agree with those who lament Hillary's inextricable connection to the problematic Bill, I am also aware of the history of US politics in which the first woman governor took over for her husband and the first woman elected to the senate did so after completing her husband's unexpired term. Marriage has been the pipeline of political success (and sometimes ecclesiastical success, too)for women in the United States. As gifted and smart as Hillary is, we would not know about her were it not for her husband. That's a fact of sexist life.
I know I am feeling this concern particularly poignantly as a woman seeking a pastoral call. If you think about it, while Black men are at least as unlikely as white women to be called to the senior pastorate of a majority-white church, it is not likely that the reason they are rejected will be biblical. At this point no one credible is saying that it is God's plan that white men be in charge. Yet Black church women frequently remind one another that men are supposed to be the head.
I read AverageBro's blog this morning in which he talked about being able to say to his young son that he could grow up to be anything he wants to be. AverageBro views in Obama's candidacy the possibility that in America anyone can be president. I am not so sure that that's what an Obama presidency would mean for our daughters.
Note: For other reflections on the meaning of Saturday's South Carolina primary for Black women, check out Renita Weems's blog.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
World AIDS Day
On December 1st every year, we commemorate World AIDS Day, taking the time to reflect upon the progress being made in treatment, education, and community awareness about the AIDS pandemic and pausing to remember those whose lives the disease has already claimed. In 2007, there is some good news: the number of people living with AIDS has leveled off. But there there is no cause for resting on our laurels.
Around the world 33.2 million people live with HIV, adjusted downward from the 2006 estimate on the basis of UNAID's more accurate methods of tracking infections. Two-thirds of those who live with HIV, 22.5 million people, are in sub-Saharan Africa. And 1.7 of the 2.5 million HIV infections in 2007, or 68%, occurred in Africa. In Africa, AIDS is the primary cause of death.
Although the pandemic in Africa dwarfs the crisis in the United States, complacency here is dangerous, especially for the African American community. Washington, DC has the nation's highest HIV-infection rate, with numbers that continue to grow. (See Newsweek article.)
"Leadership" is the focus of World AIDS Day this year, and the leadership of African American spiritual communities is still needed for the dissemination of information and care. Are we better at understanding and addressing the issues associated with AIDS than we were 25 years ago? Yes. Have we arrived at the place of knowledge and comfort that will save lives? Not yet.
There are hopeful signs, sometimes in unexpected places. Much coverage has been given to the AIDS summit organized at Saddleback Church in California. Rick Warren, prompted by his wife Kay, has taken on the issue of AIDS in a way that I hope will inspire at least a few of the people who have looked to him for leadership through his mega-sellers The Purpose-Driven Church and the Purpose-Driven Life. And of course there is the ongoing work of Balm in Gilead, which for 18 years has been providing leadership to the African American and other African diaspora faith communities.
For more information about the worldwide AIDS pandemic, see http://www.unaids.org/en/
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Peace in the Middle East
Although I was only 8 years old, I remember well the Camp David Accords, signed when President Jimmy Carter brought together Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel for discussion on mutual recognition and respect. I remember the feeling of physical illness and spiritual trauma I experienced when I thought that there would be an announcement of peace in the Middle East because I remembered the biblical saying that in the day when peace is declared then total destruction is imminent. "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them." I thought I was doomed, that Jesus would return as soon as the treaty was signed and I, unsaved, would be hell bound. Although this all seems a little ridiculous to me now, I think of it because it was my first up close and personal experience of feeling there were geopolitical implications of the literalist scriptural interpretation to which I had been exposed.
Religious and political pundits have discussed the complicated relationship between evangelicals and Israel. Radical secularists mock the simultaneous concern for Israel's future as God's chosen people and the evangelical theological certainty that all attempts to secure Israel apart from Christ's return are futile. And although I do not support the disdainful treatment of my own theological community, I too see the contradiction in the fact that evangelicals pray for the peace of Jerusalem and while espousing a theological perspective that depends on war.
This week in Annapolis the Bush administration, undoubtedly the administration most beholden to evangelical orthodoxy, has initiated its own legacy-saving effort at bringing Israel and the Palestinians to the table. Secretary Rice and President Bush, having flatly ignored the opportunity 7 years ago to build on the outline for peace proposed by the Clinton administration in its waning days, now have concluded that simply backing Israel while ignoring the Palestinians will not ultimately lead to safety for Israel or to peace in the Middle East. It's only too bad that the US waited until the Fattah party's majority had vanished in favor of the more radical Hamas whom Palestinians democratically elected last year.
What I wish for this nation and especially for the African American church is that we would do the intellectual and historical work that would allow us to seek justice for the exiled and displaced Palestinians, not just security and recognition for Israel. I am aware that many Christians see a spiritual and theological mandate for supporting Israel. But just as I hope that I have matured beyond the far too literal biblical interpretation that left me praying against Carter, Sadat, and Begin's efforts, I hope that we will have the theological, spiritual,and political maturity to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli question. Let's pray for the peace of Jewish and Arab Jerusalem.
Religious and political pundits have discussed the complicated relationship between evangelicals and Israel. Radical secularists mock the simultaneous concern for Israel's future as God's chosen people and the evangelical theological certainty that all attempts to secure Israel apart from Christ's return are futile. And although I do not support the disdainful treatment of my own theological community, I too see the contradiction in the fact that evangelicals pray for the peace of Jerusalem and while espousing a theological perspective that depends on war.
This week in Annapolis the Bush administration, undoubtedly the administration most beholden to evangelical orthodoxy, has initiated its own legacy-saving effort at bringing Israel and the Palestinians to the table. Secretary Rice and President Bush, having flatly ignored the opportunity 7 years ago to build on the outline for peace proposed by the Clinton administration in its waning days, now have concluded that simply backing Israel while ignoring the Palestinians will not ultimately lead to safety for Israel or to peace in the Middle East. It's only too bad that the US waited until the Fattah party's majority had vanished in favor of the more radical Hamas whom Palestinians democratically elected last year.
What I wish for this nation and especially for the African American church is that we would do the intellectual and historical work that would allow us to seek justice for the exiled and displaced Palestinians, not just security and recognition for Israel. I am aware that many Christians see a spiritual and theological mandate for supporting Israel. But just as I hope that I have matured beyond the far too literal biblical interpretation that left me praying against Carter, Sadat, and Begin's efforts, I hope that we will have the theological, spiritual,and political maturity to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli question. Let's pray for the peace of Jewish and Arab Jerusalem.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
I Just Want to Take a Little Time
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the African American Christian tradition is the commitment to giving thanks. Whether in the coalfields of West Virginia or in the center of Philadelphia, nothing gets a Black congregation's attention and amens quicker than expressions of gratitude. Often those who had the fewest material goods or the most infirmities were quickest to declare how much they have to thank the Lord for. In honor of my forebears and the example they have shown, in the words of the classic gospel song, "I just want to take a little time right now to thank the Lord."
For ancestors, especially Leonard and Annabelle, whom I miss especially at holidays.
For family and friends, who love me and whom I love.
For a place of my own, warm in winter and dry during the storms.
For meaningful employment that pays the bills.
For vocational clarity after so many years of ambivalence.
For physical health, emotional stability, and intellectual acuity.
For recognized gifts and undiscovered talents.
For successes and failures.
For spiritual communities and leaders with integrity.
For food to enjoy and for the good sense not to eat too much of it.
For multiple invitations for Thanksgiving dinner.
For homes away from home.
For babies and elders and everyone in between.
For enemies who teach me how to pray and trust.
For laughter that is not mean-spirited.
For golf, even though I do not play well at all.
For a past full of extravagant blessings.
For a present full of contentment.
For a future full of promise.
But most of all, for Jesus who really is a Wonderful Savior.
I just want to say Thank You.
O Magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt God's name together.
For ancestors, especially Leonard and Annabelle, whom I miss especially at holidays.
For family and friends, who love me and whom I love.
For a place of my own, warm in winter and dry during the storms.
For meaningful employment that pays the bills.
For vocational clarity after so many years of ambivalence.
For physical health, emotional stability, and intellectual acuity.
For recognized gifts and undiscovered talents.
For successes and failures.
For spiritual communities and leaders with integrity.
For food to enjoy and for the good sense not to eat too much of it.
For multiple invitations for Thanksgiving dinner.
For homes away from home.
For babies and elders and everyone in between.
For enemies who teach me how to pray and trust.
For laughter that is not mean-spirited.
For golf, even though I do not play well at all.
For a past full of extravagant blessings.
For a present full of contentment.
For a future full of promise.
But most of all, for Jesus who really is a Wonderful Savior.
I just want to say Thank You.
O Magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt God's name together.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
How much is too much?
I am neither gloating about nor lamenting the investigation of 6 televangelists' ministries by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). While I frequently criticize the materialistic mentality that so many television ministers both preach and embody, I am in no way counting on a senate probe to unearth details about financial practices that will reform the behavior of clergy or their congregations. At the same time, I am not buying the "governmental persecution" and First Amendment protection line some have offered in defense of their extravagant lifestyles. What I am doing is using the media focus that has centered on these ministries to raise and discuss the question that is at the base of Grassley's queries and that all who minister need self-critically to consider: How much is too much?
This question goes deeper than the salaries and perks offered to the pastor(s) and their families. It is a theological question that speaks to the essence of what and who we believe God is, and what and who God calls us to be and represent. When they brandish their "bling" and flaunt the piece of God's creation they have requisitioned for their use, prosperity preachers demonstrate their allegiance to a God who is defined by what God owns and by the way that God makes them owners. What those of us who dispute this distorted vision of God need to represent is the God who is known by what God gives and by the way God makes givers of us. While I certainly appreciate the material comforts and consider them to be blessings, especially as I remember times of want and moments of concern about how and whether I would be able to make ends meet, I do not want to measure my life by what I have. I want to measure by what I give.
What feels most distorted about the lifestyle of the rich and famous televangelist is that nothing about that lifestyle is actually accessible for the bulk of their membership. What makes their houses, planes, cars, jewels, and $30K toilets most offensive and excessive is that the people whose tithes, offerings, and even purchases make those extravagances possible have not a hope of ever having anything remotely that "fine" for themselves. It's the exclusivity and the elitism that send the wrong theological and social message. No matter how many "kingdom principles" their hearers employ, they will always be separated materially from their pastor.
Some argue that church people want their pastors to represent something that is "above" them, that they delight in knowing that their pastor drives a Bentley and lives in a section of the city that they have never even visited. There is some truth to this perception. But the job of spiritual leaders is to be a part of the mental transformation the reminds people that Fortune 500 CEOs are not our model - Jesus is our model. In one of Paul's finer moments, he tells us what the Jesus model represents:
The beauty of this model, that measures the grace of giving rather than the blessing of owning, is that it creates interdependence and balance in the body of Christ and in the human community.
This question goes deeper than the salaries and perks offered to the pastor(s) and their families. It is a theological question that speaks to the essence of what and who we believe God is, and what and who God calls us to be and represent. When they brandish their "bling" and flaunt the piece of God's creation they have requisitioned for their use, prosperity preachers demonstrate their allegiance to a God who is defined by what God owns and by the way that God makes them owners. What those of us who dispute this distorted vision of God need to represent is the God who is known by what God gives and by the way God makes givers of us. While I certainly appreciate the material comforts and consider them to be blessings, especially as I remember times of want and moments of concern about how and whether I would be able to make ends meet, I do not want to measure my life by what I have. I want to measure by what I give.
What feels most distorted about the lifestyle of the rich and famous televangelist is that nothing about that lifestyle is actually accessible for the bulk of their membership. What makes their houses, planes, cars, jewels, and $30K toilets most offensive and excessive is that the people whose tithes, offerings, and even purchases make those extravagances possible have not a hope of ever having anything remotely that "fine" for themselves. It's the exclusivity and the elitism that send the wrong theological and social message. No matter how many "kingdom principles" their hearers employ, they will always be separated materially from their pastor.
Some argue that church people want their pastors to represent something that is "above" them, that they delight in knowing that their pastor drives a Bentley and lives in a section of the city that they have never even visited. There is some truth to this perception. But the job of spiritual leaders is to be a part of the mental transformation the reminds people that Fortune 500 CEOs are not our model - Jesus is our model. In one of Paul's finer moments, he tells us what the Jesus model represents:
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich." 2 Corinthians 8:9
The beauty of this model, that measures the grace of giving rather than the blessing of owning, is that it creates interdependence and balance in the body of Christ and in the human community.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Strong and Ambitious? Too Bad for Us
Just when I was recovering from the Baisden show, I read the NY Times OpEd article by Maureen Dowd (article)that cited a Ray Fisman study on speed dating that suggested what many of us suspected, that men (of all races) like smart and ambitious women only if the man does not perceive her to be smarter and/or more ambitious than he. I was so intrigued that I read the Fisman article in Slate. I won't go into all of the gory details. I'll just quote the salient paragraph:
As a strong, intelligent, ambitious Black woman with a religious vocation, I am intimately aware that dating is difficult. Fisman's experiments involved speed dating, which is not likely to be the way that I find my Black Man anyway. But there are deeper issues that Baisden, Fisman, and Dowd point to that affect not only the love lives of Black (and other women) but also speak to the possibilities of fulfilling all of those other ambitions, e.g. being a pastor (me) or President (Hillary). Strong women walk the fine line of achieving our goals with strength and ambition and in spite of strength and ambition. We can't win for losing, as my momma would have said.
When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better. So, yes, the stereotypes appear to be true: We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own. Women, on the other hand, care more about how men think and perform, and they don't mind being outdone on those scores. from An Economist Goes to a Bar
As a strong, intelligent, ambitious Black woman with a religious vocation, I am intimately aware that dating is difficult. Fisman's experiments involved speed dating, which is not likely to be the way that I find my Black Man anyway. But there are deeper issues that Baisden, Fisman, and Dowd point to that affect not only the love lives of Black (and other women) but also speak to the possibilities of fulfilling all of those other ambitions, e.g. being a pastor (me) or President (Hillary). Strong women walk the fine line of achieving our goals with strength and ambition and in spite of strength and ambition. We can't win for losing, as my momma would have said.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Fugitive Safe Surrender
Just when I had given up hope for any good news to emerge either from the District of Columbia or the Black church, I happened to be listening the NPR's All Things Considered and heard the story of Bible Way Church and its role in a program called Fugitive Safe Surrender.
Safe Surrender permits fugitives accused of nonviolent offenses to turn themselves in to federal marshals in the safety of the Bible Way Church facilities. It is a win-win situation which conserves law enforcement money and personnel as well as giving people who made a mistake in fleeing the opportunity to turn themselves in without making their legal predicament worse. Although it does not offer amnesty, it does portend leniency in sentencing, and some of those who have surrendered actually leave on the same day with a clean slate.
There is a lot of bad news in the church world today, thousands of reasons to suspect that many church leaders have completely lost touch with reality. I am delighted to see Bible Way continuing its historical commitment to holistic transformation and social justice. I hope some other people are listening and watching too.
Safe Surrender permits fugitives accused of nonviolent offenses to turn themselves in to federal marshals in the safety of the Bible Way Church facilities. It is a win-win situation which conserves law enforcement money and personnel as well as giving people who made a mistake in fleeing the opportunity to turn themselves in without making their legal predicament worse. Although it does not offer amnesty, it does portend leniency in sentencing, and some of those who have surrendered actually leave on the same day with a clean slate.
There is a lot of bad news in the church world today, thousands of reasons to suspect that many church leaders have completely lost touch with reality. I am delighted to see Bible Way continuing its historical commitment to holistic transformation and social justice. I hope some other people are listening and watching too.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
McClurkin's Testimony
I thought the story was going to blow over, but apparently not. It seems that gay rights advocates are disappointed with Barack Obama for not "disinviting" Donnie McClurkin who was a headliner at Obama's South Carolina gospel concert. The problem? Donnie McClurkin's testimony that God "delivered" him from homosexuality.
Now let me say at the outset that I am not writing this blog to take on the question of the authenticity of McClurkin's testimony. Rather, I want to weigh in and simply remind people that testimony is what it was. It represented McClurkin's right to frame and define his own identity. And McClurkin has generally been apolitical about this particular aspect of his testimony.
It's not that I am missing the point that gay rights advocates make, namely, that the kind of testimony McClurkin gives may be used to undermine their claims in framing and defining their identity. They reason that if people take McClurkin's word for being delivered, then those same people will refuse to accept the word of gay people who say that their sexual orientation is not a choice.
I said in a blog a few weeks ago that testimony is judged by the performance of the one giving the testimony and by other facts that are known to the hearer. Do you believe McClurkin? Do you believe his opponents? Either? Neither? At the moment, that's not even really the question. The question at hand has to do with whether you believe Obama.
However all of this turns out, putting Obama in the middle is not sensible. If he's going to win the Democratic nomination or the Presidency (and this goes for whoever wins), he is going to have to be attractive to people who are not attractive to each other. The "values" question cannot be "Do I agree with Obama about everything?" but "Can I support the candidate given the reasoning behind the positions with which I disagree?"
Now let me say at the outset that I am not writing this blog to take on the question of the authenticity of McClurkin's testimony. Rather, I want to weigh in and simply remind people that testimony is what it was. It represented McClurkin's right to frame and define his own identity. And McClurkin has generally been apolitical about this particular aspect of his testimony.
It's not that I am missing the point that gay rights advocates make, namely, that the kind of testimony McClurkin gives may be used to undermine their claims in framing and defining their identity. They reason that if people take McClurkin's word for being delivered, then those same people will refuse to accept the word of gay people who say that their sexual orientation is not a choice.
I said in a blog a few weeks ago that testimony is judged by the performance of the one giving the testimony and by other facts that are known to the hearer. Do you believe McClurkin? Do you believe his opponents? Either? Neither? At the moment, that's not even really the question. The question at hand has to do with whether you believe Obama.
However all of this turns out, putting Obama in the middle is not sensible. If he's going to win the Democratic nomination or the Presidency (and this goes for whoever wins), he is going to have to be attractive to people who are not attractive to each other. The "values" question cannot be "Do I agree with Obama about everything?" but "Can I support the candidate given the reasoning behind the positions with which I disagree?"
Monday, October 22, 2007
Common Sense?
I had really decided that I wasn't going to write anymore about Juanita Bynum after my earlier posts. Then my cousin sent me a link to Bynum's website and her new "mentorship" classes. My cousin wanted me to hear Prophetess Bynum's poor taste in humor in the form of a disparaging reference to "short bus people."
I left the site playing long enough to be stunned by Bynum's first advice to her mentees. Buy a name-brand pen, but not a Bic. A Bic, she reasoned, is common and you are too important, your name is too important to be written with a common pen. She continued by bragging that she has paid as much as $5000 for a pen that she uses only for special occasions, such as signing multi-million dollar deals.
This, I thought, is what really endangers Black Christianity. Too many of us actually believe that investing in a pen, or in the offering plate of a prophet(ess), or in playing the lottery number drawn from the pastor's sermon text is the key to unlocking our destiny and purpose. We risk our soul(s), sell our soul(s) for so little because our internal accounting systems are out of kilter. We have no idea what real value is.
In this way, there is very little difference between the "prosperity" propounded by media preachers and the bling-mentality of the underbelly of hip-hop. Both exploit the desperation and depression of their constituencies with promises that are addictive and elusive at the same time. Buy my CDs and videos and you can surmount the obstacles of your everyday living. And even if you can't move out of public housing, you can live vicariously through me. My bling is your bling.
It is true that we don't know what our lives are worth, but it's not because we are using a "common" Bic pen.We don't know what we're worth because we listen to people who think in dollars but no sense.
I left the site playing long enough to be stunned by Bynum's first advice to her mentees. Buy a name-brand pen, but not a Bic. A Bic, she reasoned, is common and you are too important, your name is too important to be written with a common pen. She continued by bragging that she has paid as much as $5000 for a pen that she uses only for special occasions, such as signing multi-million dollar deals.
This, I thought, is what really endangers Black Christianity. Too many of us actually believe that investing in a pen, or in the offering plate of a prophet(ess), or in playing the lottery number drawn from the pastor's sermon text is the key to unlocking our destiny and purpose. We risk our soul(s), sell our soul(s) for so little because our internal accounting systems are out of kilter. We have no idea what real value is.
In this way, there is very little difference between the "prosperity" propounded by media preachers and the bling-mentality of the underbelly of hip-hop. Both exploit the desperation and depression of their constituencies with promises that are addictive and elusive at the same time. Buy my CDs and videos and you can surmount the obstacles of your everyday living. And even if you can't move out of public housing, you can live vicariously through me. My bling is your bling.
It is true that we don't know what our lives are worth, but it's not because we are using a "common" Bic pen.We don't know what we're worth because we listen to people who think in dollars but no sense.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Don't Make Your Business Bad
I grew up in a family in which my mother prided herself on being able to manage her money, however little or much of it there was. (And my dad had the sense to put the finances in her hands.) She faithfully brought her tithes and offerings to the church. She gave what she could when she knew that someone was in need. She saved for the things she wanted, including our annual "vacation", also known as the church convention, and for a "rainy day." She paid cash for almost everything. And when she used credit, she always paid off the bill ahead of time. In fact, she had been so diligent when she was well that we noticed the onset of her dementia because she was no longer sharp when it came to finances. At her best, she handled her business.
I am not knowledgeable enough to say whether our national economy as a whole is healthy or what its prospects are. I do read about record highs in the price of oil, record lows in the value of the dollar, and immeasurable instability in financial markets because of the subprime lending crisis. We have no idea what the long-term financial implications of the Iraq war will be, nor do we know whether and how Social Security will survive the Baby Boomers' retirement and increased longevity. What we do know is that, to paraphrase an old adage, if America gets a cold then Black people will have pneumonia.
Meanwhile, there are too few communal conversations among Black people about money and wealth. And I have a particular concern about the (lack of) treatment of this issue within the church. We have to have conversations about money beyond "Will a man rob God?" during stewardship month. We need to talk about credit. We need to talk about budgets. We need to talk about money in relationships. We need to talk practically about how to buy a house you can pay for, and not just walk around your "dream house" quoting scripture about the promises of God. We need to talk about how not to buy a new car as soon as you pay the old one off. We need to talk about investments, and not just in the ministries of prominent preachers.
"Why in the church?" you may rightly ask. First, because Christians learn about all kinds values in the church. Second, because in the church there are a lot of problematic, erroneous messages about "seeds" and "financial blessings" that need to be debunked theologically and practically. Third, because financial stewardship of our forbears founded and sustained the Black church in the past, and our investment will determine its future. Fourth, because the church is our institution and we can and should make it a center for the empowerment of our people.
I began this post by talking about my mom because she taught me that money is something that you have to handle and manage. When I am tempted to overspend I still hear her caution "Don't make your business bad." I am heeding her advice (mostly). But I recognize that I and others need the tools and information to make our business good and prosperous.
I am not knowledgeable enough to say whether our national economy as a whole is healthy or what its prospects are. I do read about record highs in the price of oil, record lows in the value of the dollar, and immeasurable instability in financial markets because of the subprime lending crisis. We have no idea what the long-term financial implications of the Iraq war will be, nor do we know whether and how Social Security will survive the Baby Boomers' retirement and increased longevity. What we do know is that, to paraphrase an old adage, if America gets a cold then Black people will have pneumonia.
Meanwhile, there are too few communal conversations among Black people about money and wealth. And I have a particular concern about the (lack of) treatment of this issue within the church. We have to have conversations about money beyond "Will a man rob God?" during stewardship month. We need to talk about credit. We need to talk about budgets. We need to talk about money in relationships. We need to talk practically about how to buy a house you can pay for, and not just walk around your "dream house" quoting scripture about the promises of God. We need to talk about how not to buy a new car as soon as you pay the old one off. We need to talk about investments, and not just in the ministries of prominent preachers.
"Why in the church?" you may rightly ask. First, because Christians learn about all kinds values in the church. Second, because in the church there are a lot of problematic, erroneous messages about "seeds" and "financial blessings" that need to be debunked theologically and practically. Third, because financial stewardship of our forbears founded and sustained the Black church in the past, and our investment will determine its future. Fourth, because the church is our institution and we can and should make it a center for the empowerment of our people.
I began this post by talking about my mom because she taught me that money is something that you have to handle and manage. When I am tempted to overspend I still hear her caution "Don't make your business bad." I am heeding her advice (mostly). But I recognize that I and others need the tools and information to make our business good and prosperous.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Gaper's Delay
“The fact is that gossip, rumors, mythmaking, and news stories are not appropriate vehicles for the communication of nuances of truth, those subtle tonalities that are often the truly crucial elements in a causal chain.” -- Chaim Potok My Name is Asher Lev
How absolutely providential for me to begin reading Potok’s novel on the day when Bishop Thomas Weeks III held a press conference to fire back at his wife Juanita Bynum with his opening salvo in the public relations war that has become the end of their marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)