I guess I’m old fashioned but I would let my son watch My Little Pony #MLPFIM

mlp fim

OH MAH GAWDZ WHAT ABOUT THE MENZZZZZZZ! THIS ONE LITTLE CARTOON IS MAKING ALL THESE 21ST CENTURY MALES INTO WOMINZ. WHAT EVER SHALL WE DO????!!!!!

And now for the rebuttal to idiocy and opinions based off of ignorance.

First of all, I don’t know if there’s a rule book or something out there, but I know that it was up until the mid-20th century before colors like pink were assigned to femininity. Second of all, as a Brony who is also Christian and straight, let me just say that the people who are really old fashioned VALUE THE LIVES OF WOMEN AND THEIR THOUGHTS. The dogmatic view that pink means girly is RELATIVELY NEW.

Walsh:

“I’m not actually sure if this is true — and I suspect it isn’t. If the kid was literally assaulted by groups of boys, I find it hard to believe that none of the offenders have been punished.”

Myself:

No offense to survivors and current members of homeschooling, but Mr. Walsh, stick to speaking at homeschooling conferences. You have no idea what it means to work in a public education setting. You see, kids can getaway with a lot, and they find the most ridiculous ways to hide what they do. And hey, how about we not shame victims of violence? Oh that’s right, you are already doing so. 11 year Old Michael Morones, a boy who loves Jesus and Pinky Pie was bullied into feeling worthless and attempted suicide. Here is a boy who carried his Bible everyday and went to church regularly. And he liked the emotionally excessive party pony Pinky Pie. I used to carry my Bible in my backpack to school when I was his age, and I had very few options, so I watched X-Men the Animated Series and Eek the Cat, and The Tick and oh Power Rangers. Boys and Girls used to love power rangers, then they became stale and uncool. If it was okay for girls to like MMPR back in the 1990′s (something marketed at boys) I don’t see the problem with young and old fans of MLPFIM.

Walsh:

“They say the school is wrong, the boy should keep wearing the backpack, and we should all celebrate the individuality and self-expression of a male who watches a TV show about unicorns.”

and

“It isn’t fair or right that a boy’s enthusiasm for a show called My Little Pony – featuring unicorns named Twilight Sparkle, Applejack, Fluttershy, Rainbow Dash, and Pinkie Pie”

Me:

YO DAWG DON’T YOU KNOW THAT UNICORNS ARE IN THE BIBLE! YES THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO THE BONAFIDE LEGIT INTERPRETATION OF THE PEOPLE FROM ANSWERS IN GENESIS, UNICORNS ARE IN THE BIBLE. YOU MATT WALSH SIR, HAVE AN UNCHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW!

Also, the show (which has great animation and storytelling btw), has more than just unicorns. It’s filled with Earth Ponies, Pegasi, Alicorns, Dragons, Dogs, fairies, Griffiths, and Buffaloes, just to name a few other creatures. Any show with Dragons should definitely begin a chance. Except for Game Of Thrones.

Speaking of Game Of Thrones and why I don’t watch it.

MLPFIM is a cartoon that does not show violence. “Boy stuff” G.I. Joes to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles can glorify violence at times. Why must masculinity be defined by violence? Enter Walsh once more:

“If Grayson were my son, I certainly wouldn’t tell him that he deserves this treatment — far from it. I’d take him aside, as my dad did with me, and tell him that he must always be prepared to stand up for himself. I’d tell him that nobody ever has the right to abuse him. I’d tell him that he may even need to respond physically, and I’d give him the two caveats that my dad gave me: 1) You may hit back in self-defense. 2) You may hit back in order to defend some other innocent person.

Never instigate. Never provoke. But always stand tall with conviction and courage.”

Well, way to vaguely approve of violence, my friend! See, the positive feminist values taught by My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, are that from a relational perspective. I would prefer to teach my son (if and when I ever get married and we choose to have kids), the way of persuasion and dialogue. See, just because MLPFIM is a cartoon does not mean it can’t teach anything. In fact, one of the things about books, television, and other media is that they have a teaching function, since all media is value-laden. There’s really no such thing as a neutral sphere. I mean when I was a kid, The Flintstones and The Jetsons learned us about family, The Smurfs about communism, G.I. Joes about Patriotism, He-Man: Masters of the Universe about well, just plain awesomeness. I want to teach my son to love his enemies, and forgive those who persecute him, just like Jesus would. This means a complete rejection of worldly (read: violent) definitions of manhood. I also plan on teaching my daughter(s) and/or son(s) to be anti-racist as well; and as I have mentioned before, MLP:FIM has a few episodes dealing with race and empire. If a show like My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic makes it that much easier for me to do so, then a show like that is okay by me!

cutie mark crusade solidarity

h00die_R (Rod)

priestly abolitionist time travelling supervillian

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

The Power Of Love part 2: Gendering Black Theology & Black Power

CHRISTIAN NATIONS AND SLAVE NARRATIONS

white heart

To keep up with this series, please read the first post: James Cone’s Relational Theology

In my first post of this series, I took on the burden of showing how U.S. Black liberation theology, and therefore possible all liberation theologies, should be rightfully called part of the emerging schools of relational theologies. Using James Cone as my example for this thought experiment, I looked at how much his earliest writing, the underrated text, Black Theology and Black Power, hid beneath its confrontational and angry tone, a loving God who shared God’s power with humanity. James Hal Cone’s particularly Wesleyan/Holiness Neo-Orthodox [Barthian] understanding of the Creator’s movement in Genesis 1 & 2 allows him and subsequent liberation theologians to do critical power analysis by starting with God in se. By [correctly] locating God’s presence among the crucified persons of history, Cone systematized a theology of God’s love with God’s special election of the oppressed as a fixture. I want to make my purpose for this series clear; this is not an attempt to make liberation theology “palatable” as some Public Relations stunt done in hindsight or reveal anything on my part for Liberation Theology to become “MainStream”; what I intend to do is to look at liberation theologians’ understanding of love and how we continue a refusal to severe our understanding of what it means to be loving from what it means to be just. I am doing this as part of a pushback of what I see frequently being done today in the academy, in churches, and online, with pastors and bloggers wishing to silence voices for justice in the name of being relational [nice & civil], love.

The question I wish to address in this particular post is: What went wrong with James Cone’s revolution? Excuse me if I dismiss the right wing U.S. American politics of the 1980′s with ‘Merica’s several invasions and overthrows interventions in Latin America and in places like Haiti where a liberation theologian was popularly elected as head of state.  Staying in the academic context, James Cone’s awe-inspiring efforts to oust white supremacy were ultimately undone by his own doing.  The popular narrative that we hear in seminary is Tillich and Barth neglected Men of Color, James Cone neglected women, and Womanism supersedes both of them.  This divide and conquer approach to theology is quite unhelpful for those of us who seek to work for liberation. This approach to theology is part of a White progressive metanarrative that conveniently works to dismiss criticisms of racism and is more than eager to return to the status quo (Tillich and Barth, with a little bit of white Lean-In feminism mixed in).  As a Trinitarian, I envision theology and tradition as being done in a circle, with Jesus the Word at the center, and writers, theologians, pastors, bloggers, and laypersons dancing and dialoguing, partaking in Christ’s life, mutually exchanging ideas and our encounters with the Risen King.

Let’s not pretend like our run-of-the-mill mainline Protestant theologian is doing theology by studying the intersections of race and gender too.  He’s not using or writing theological works by Womanists or other Women of Color. Studies have shown the POC most cited by white theologians is the late Reverend Dr. MLK Jr.  The White Progressive Relational narrative of supersessionism keeps the status quo virtually in tact with a few qualifications.  The prophetic challenge made by Cone well over three decades ago goes silently into the night, so one would seem to think.  I have been considering Cone as a relational theologian for quite some time, and even presented a paper on it at a regional American Academy of Religion meeting, in dialogue with Womanist and Patristic theologies.

It was not until recently had I took the opportunity to consider James Cone as a theologian of gender as well.  I had bought hook, line and sinker to the [false] narrative of how Womanist God-talk overcame Black liberation theology [and therefore shutdown anti-racism critiques via academic derailing].  That was until I read, and re-read over and again Amaryah Shaye’s awesome post  Reconsidering Cone: Gendering Blackness. Before you read the rest of this post, please read Amaryah’s post, because this essay is in dialogue with some of her insights. My plan is to move from Amaryah’s points about blackness being gendered into a different direction (or maybe it is the same direction?).

THIS IS A [ANGRY BLACK] MAN’S WORLD

First things first, I am not going to dismiss the criticisms that James Cone’s theology in his early work was patriarchal. In fact, I plan on embracing this weakness as part of this discussion on gender and blackness. With Shaye, I recognize the limitations of Cone’s work, and how Womanist Theology has been offered in the academy as a trump card; Amaryah puts it this way,

“Black women as situated at the intersection of multiple oppressions (race, gender, and class) become the starting point for doing this theology. This move seems to suggest that blackness, which Cone defines as “ontological symbol” and “visible reality”, is limited as a starting place to liberative theology because it is not particularly gendered. It is interesting, then, that womanist theology is often cited as a way of both intervening in and disabling discussions of race, gender, power, and theology which seems to have the unintended effects of recentering white women as proper subjects of gender analysis and black men as the proper objects of racial analysis.”

If you recall, I noted in my previous post for this series that Cone does not believe blackness to be a category that is natural, biologically determined set of traits and personalities. Blackness as a symbol is an orientation towards being in solidarity with the oppressed. If Blackness is indeed a symbol born out of racial and gender violence, then blackness as a way of being, doing and thinking has implications for not only racial performance, but also gender performativity as well.

Let us first start with how James Cone identifies himself before he moves forward with his Christological arguments against White Supremacist Religiousity. In Black Theology and Black Power, Cone says,

“This work, then, is written with a definite attitude, the attitude of an angry black man, disgusted at the oppression of black people in America, and with the scholarly demand to be “objective” about it.”

(page 2)

James Cone’s task for his post-Civil Rights movement theology of love is to form a people. It is in this desire for people-formation, that of a Black Church that practices anti-Racist Christianity that James Cone injects gender into the equation of Black liberation. In another place in BT&BP, Cone claims, “If in this process of speaking for myself, I should happen to touch the souls of black brothers (including black men in white skins) so much better.” (ibid) Another point to be taken away is that Cone locates himself in the United States, and makes sure we know where his anger and love is directed to: “I am critical of white America, because this is my country; and what is mine must not be spared my emotional and intellectual scrutiny.” (page 4)

Black Theology & Black Power is one of a few theological responses written by black male systematic theologians to Black nationalist movements and factions such as the original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense; Two other examples include Liberation And Reconciliation: A Black Theology by J. Deotis Roberts and  The Black Messiah by Albert Cleage.  As a post-colonial writer, I know that there are a few schools of thought pertaining to nationalisms and how they function in domination systems when it comes to anti-imperial resistance.  Ranging from seeing nationalism as cautiously good , to something we should hold with ambivalence, as well  as seeing nationalism and the nation-state as concepts that remain necessarily hegemonic and violent.  In his essay, “DissemiNation: time, narrative, and the margins of the modern nation,” Homi K. Bhabha writes that the notion of “peopledom” or “the nation” are not historical events or” patriotic body politics,” but remain part of a “complex rhetorical strategy of social reference where the claim to be representative provokes a crisis within the process of signification and discursive address.”

Cone wrote in Black Theology and Black Power to create a national culture that would be be centered in the Black Church.  By claiming to speak only for himself, Cone conversely re-positions himself as a representative of the U.S. Black radical tradition.  It is difficult for us to conceive of a discourse on national culture where love and hate do not occupy the same psychic space, as Homi Bhabha argues because nation-states need an Other in which to assert their aggression.  However, because James Cone adopts Anders Nygrens’ theology of love, whereby God imputes agage-love into creation through the election of Israel and the Incarnation of Christ, there is no need for any hate or bigotry in Cone’s relational theology.  Instead, what we have is a revolutionary struggle for the sake of saving the souls of both White Supremacists as well as victims of racism.  Cone’s community does not exist for some imaginary, law and order nation-state; it lives and breathes for the Kingdom of God, which is always on the move with the liberating presence of Jesus.

If It Wasn’t For The Womanists

You would think that this Jesus Juke you just witnessed above gets James Cone off the hook for his patriarchal presentation of blackness. NOPE! It is precisely because Cone relies on the rhetorical strategies of Black nationalist movements that Black theology’s sexism must now undergo scrutiny.  What I am saying is that it is just not enough [and feel free to vehemently disagree with me in the comments] to say that Cone is in the wrong simply because he excludes black women’s experience from his work.  The valuing of inclusion is something that neoliberal institutions such as universities and corporations love to talk about, but they only seem able to talk about inclusion as the end all be all, and not the violent natures and histories of their exclusions.

I have lost count about how many times I have written about negative stereotypes of Black people but Cone defines Black Power as the capacity for black men to not be “poisoned” by the negative tropes White Supremacist narratives have placed on him (page 8).  White Supremacist systems demonically sexualizes black bodies while erasing their genders.  The purpose that dark bodies serve is to be at the pleasure of their Masters all the while remaining threats to their Masters.  I side with Amaryah Shaye’s take on Cone,

“It is precisely because blackness is gendered as ungendered that the violence of violation and exploitation that constitutes black bodies is worked.  Instead, of saying Cone’s theology doesn’t have anything to say about gender, we might say that Cone highlights the ungendered nature of blackness primarily through his engagement with blackness as a struggle against the gratuitous violence that visits black bodies on the regular.”

While Shaye is reflecting on A Black Theology of Liberation, I return once more to Black Theology and Black Power with a few examples.  Pointing to the economic violence of white racism,

“A black theologian wants to know what the gospel has to say to a man who is jobless and cannot get work to support his family because the society is unjust.  He wants to know what is God’s Word to the countless boys and girls who are fatherless and motherless because white society decreed that blacks have no rights”

(page 43).

Enter James Cone’s anachronistic, a-historical reading of black experiences during Jim and Jane Crow law.  Cone portrays the black familial experience of one ideal, nuclear family beaten at the hands of White Supremacy, where the black man is unable to be the breadwinner.  Reality is from the time of African enslavement on these shores to legal segregation and up until today, black women have always shared the title of “breadwinner.”

Waiting To Exile

Cone also argues that America’s racism is “biologically analogous” to women’s pregnancies, either a country is not racist or it is [he's arguing along the same lines as Frantz Fanon in Towards The African Revolution].  Fanon’s line of argumentation was that all imperialist nations are racist because the creation of colonies requires racist logic. Fanon successfully makes his case without the need for a gendered understanding of nations. Unfortunately, James Cone epically fails in this regard.

With nationalist rhetoric, the bodies of women are quite frequently used to represent nation-states; this further perpetuates rape culture, and male ownership over the female body.  Issues of territorialism, war, and economics come to mind, particularly when we are dealing with issues such as the raping of wives, mothers, and daughters as a tactic for war.  Indeed James Cone is at war with White Supremacy, and depends on militaristic language to resist the white supremacist conservative and liberal churches.  Denouncing white intellectual arrogance, Cone questions whether white men’s ability to have the answer to the problem of race:

“Why must the white man assume that he has the intellectual ability or the moral sensitivity to know what blacks feel or to ease the pain, to smooth the hurt, to eradicate the resentment? Since he knows he raped our women, dehumanized our men, and made it inevitable that black children should hate their blackness, he ought to understand  why blacks must cease from listening to him in order to be free.”

(page 21)

Cone goes on to depict White Supremacy as a system that gave “whites’ freedom to beat, rape, and kill blacks” (41). Cone’s concern for gendered experiences are limited to the extent sexual violence is occurred upon black bodies. While Cone remains problematically silent on violence as particularly gendered, what he does do is names rape culture as part of the experience of black oppression. Part of the problem with the so-called victory of relational theologies is that many white Christians, specifically emergents, feel like they need to relate their experiences to everyone else’s when this should not be the case. For clarity, what I am trying to say is that relational theology is both about God’s interrelation with the world as well as God being All-present mystery. Because human beings are made in the Imago Dei, we cannot fully know how each other feel. To know is not only to be responsible as I wrote in the previous post, but to know that we just will never know the other, and respect others’ boundaries and differences because that is what divine love looks like.

James Cone’s use of Blackness as a religious symbol does come with its problems. If Jesus is essentially black, what does that mean for persons in the Black atheist tradition? Are all blacks essentially theists and religious? I find Delores S. Williams’ Wilderness Experience as a nice corrective to such an Exodus/Nationalist approach. The Wilderness Experience is easily reconcilable with Liberation theology, and may look something like what many theologians call an Exile approach to religion, with Christianity’s natural place as one of radical marginality, and always on the move. This is a Christianity without borders, without an attachment to a nation-state, like the story of Hagar and Ishmael, is a story that is as Williams hopes for “male/female/family inclusive.” Finally because Cone works with Blackness as a symbol, he frees up theology from relying on anatomical and biological understandings of humanity’s original sinfulness, and opens up the possibilities for immense human change through repentance.  As a relational theologian, Cone’s theology of gender affirms all human bodies as essentially good.

Next week, in part three, I shall look at James Cone’s theology of the cross and the Culture of Death, and what constitutes Modern-Day lynching in 2014.

If you enjoyed this post, you may also like:

Reconsidering Cone: Gendering Blackness by Amaryah Shaye

Europe’s MAD MEN: Don Draper, Norway, Race, and the Rise of the Right

Ephesians 6 and Dominionism

On Utopian Christianity: Rick Perry’s The Response, The Nation-State, and the Bible

Ishmael and Immigration: A Postcolonial Reading of Genesis 16

Origen of Alexandria: the Third Commandment and the Pledge of Allegiance

Recommended Reading:

Sisters In The Wilderness: the Challenge of Womanist God-Talk by Delores Williams

Deeper Shades of Purple: Womanism in Religion and Society editted by Stacey M. Floyd-Thomas

Black Theology and Black Power as well as A Black Theology of Liberation both by James Cone

h00die_R (Rod)

priestly abolitionist time travelling supervillian

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

Dispatches from Campus Ministries: White evangelicalism and Minstrelsy

Video Linked

^ Hot off the presses of Blue Ridge Cru Assembly everyone!

That’s right, this episode of incredibly problematic PWI Christian campus ministries features a topic that is on the heart of many mainly white females that compose the group – RELATIONSHIPS! I won’t go into detail how ridiculous it is that many of them have this “genie-in-a-bottle” theology of God just granting them their prince charming in mind to be happily ever after. Suffice it to say that for many, it’s like a full time job.

The issue I am pointing out the way that this video I posted is being used. I have a feeling that my own campus ministry isn’t the only instance. This video is deeply disturbing to me because it’s so representative of what white evangelical ,complimentarian, neo-reformed folks tend to say about the matter. It’s as if the message is sanitized, universalized, etc. because they’re using a black man dressed in urban clothing with rhythmic speech patterns to relay the message. It’s their way at saying ” see? Even he’s saying it, so it’s not just for old white folks!”
What this man says is no different than what the likes of John Piper or David Plat would say – matter of fact, if I dug deep enough, I wouldn’t be surprised if I found that he got his “inspiration” from them. In my four years being involved in Cru ministry ( to a much lesser extent now, though), I can attest that this has been the biggest issue I’ve had. I can’t tell how many times I’ve walked into the Cru large group to be greeted by Lecrae or Trip Lee. The use of black bodies to relay a message for the sake of making neo-reformed white-saturated theology seem more accessible. Black guys ( and it’s really only been men- and why is THAT!?) can be reformed rappers making “holy hip-hop” and make these cute little videos about pursuing a girl , but we rarely see these same black men as the brains behind the theology. They’re used… much like in black face. They’re confined to that role, while white male neo-calvinists theologians cook up the concepts. Essentially: 

Black lingo is harmless but black thoughts.contributions to theology ..let’s leave that to white men.

why men do share feelings

donald glover emotions

One of the things I am sick and tired of hearing and reading in “Christian” dating advice books and columns is the whole line of “men want to be respected, women want to be loved” drill. This brand of argumentation (and I do mean brand in every since of the word—complementarian, gender essentialism is a keystone of the Christian publishing market). Because I, for example am male, that does not mean I have some internal and irresistible desire to have power over members of the opposite sex.  Patheos blogger and author David Murrow basically claims that women are to blame for men’s sex addictions, for the inability to BUY A BOAT YALL!!!, and being tempted by other women.

These concerns given are not the fault of women at all. If anything, Murrow pointing out the money issues (not being able to buy a boat, starting a new business) is a symptom of an US American consumerism that prioritizes the self over others, and in the process, objectifies persons as things.  This objectification is found in one of the other examples Murrow provides, the criticisms about the wife’s weight and her sense of fashion. Rather than view spouses in the Imago Dei, something that is immeasureable and intangible, women are posited as things, objects to be talked AT.

The best response I have read to Murrow’s nonsense has been Bob Edwards’ post,What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You: Is this Book telling women the truth about men?. Here are some of my favorite replies:

Murrow:

If a man is not allowed to be the spiritual leader in his home, he won’t know what role to play because “men are hierarchical thinkers” (p. 152).

[Bob/Edna] Response:

This is only true if a man has been exposed to a patriarchal social environment, and has internalized this culture as normative. He may even believe that “his” normal is “God’s” normal. Simply put, this comes across as an egocentric perspective that seems unaware of the dynamics of gender-socialization. Some men are socialized to be hierarchical; others to be egalitarian. Even men who internalize hierarchical norms can learn to be more collaborative. This has more to do with nurture than nature, and it has nothing to do with God’s design.

Murrow:

“Modern Christianity has begun morphing into a ‘woman thing’” (p. 134). “Today’s church offers the things women crave: safety, relationships, nurturing and close-knit community.” Men “feel unneeded, so they go passive or leave the church altogether” (p. 138).

[Bob/Edna] Response:

If men do not recognize their emotional and relational needs (for safety, relationships, nurturance and community) and seek to have them met in healthy ways, they are prone to try to get them met in unhealthy ways (e.g. through addiction).

Murrow (makes a number of comments about sex):

Men are like “chocoholics” when it comes to sex. If a man is unable to come home after work and “indulge [his] fantasy,” he will believe his wife is saying, “get your ya-yas somewhere else, buddy.” Wives shouldn’t be surprised to later find their husbands “engaged in masturbation, porn, or an extramarital affair.” Men, according to Murrow, need wives to be “generous with the chocolate” (p. 118).

“Men actually get a cocaine-like shot of pleasure from looking at a beautiful woman. So here’s your assignment: Give your husband as many cocaine shots as possible. Satisfy his addiction by looking your best” (pp. 163-164).

“And why are looks so important to men?” “Men compare. Men compete. Men size each other up by their spouses” (p. 164). “Having a knockout wife raises your social standing at work, among your relatives, and even a bit at church” (p. 165).

“First realize that sex is one of the cornerstones of the male psyche. If a man has a satisfying sex life, everything is right with the world.” “Here’s something else your husband hasn’t told you: It’s his greatest source of comfort. Sometimes it’s the only way he can access the emotions trapped deep in his heart” (p. 167).

“You are competing for your husband’s body. It’s you versus a thousand foes—food, drink, drugs, illicit sex. Fight for his body and you’ll win his heart” (p. 171).

[Bob/Edna] Response:

Women are not responsible for their husbands’ behaviour. They are not responsible to give him enough sex so that he won’t fall prey to gluttony, alcoholism, drug abuse or sexual immorality. Men are responsible to regulate their own impulses and manage their own appetites. We are encouraged to “walk in the Spirit” so that we will not fulfill the “lusts of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).

If sex is the cornerstone of a man’s psyche, if it is his greatest source of comfort, if it is the only way for him to access his emotions, he may have a sexual addiction. He should be assessed by a qualified psychotherapist.

If he has married his wife because he believes her beauty enhances his social standing at church (or anywhere else), he should seek to understand his worth as a loved child of God and friend of Jesus Christ. If he measures his status by comparing his wife to someone else’s, I believe he should prayerfully consider the words of Romans 12:2: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (NIV).”

For the rest, I would highly recommend you read the rest of Bob’s and Edna’s post.

But back to men and sharing and feeling and loving. Christians affirm that humanity is made in God’s image, MALE and FEMALE, God made us in God’s likeness. Many Christians including myself confess the belief in the Trinity, and that it was in Jesus Christ, in his Life, Death, and Resurrection, that God shared himself with the world in order to save it. Christians are called to be imitators of Christ, sharing and giving of ourselves is a part of our call to discipleship.  John 1 claims that Jesus is the Word of the Father, God’s shared self-communication to humanity.  Jesus’ tears are God’s tears; Jesus’ joy is God’s joy.  In Christ, God provides the model for humanity. Men and women were created for mutual relationship with each other. Dialogue and compassion are some of the markers of YHWH living in covenant with Israel. Women do share feelings because they are beautifully and wonderfully made in the image of a personal and loving God. Men do share feelings too because we are also beautifully and wonderfully made in the image of a personal and loving God.

h00die_R (Rod)

priestly abolitionist time travelling supervillian

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

White Saviorism and Cultural Appropriation In Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop”

WHITE (SUPREMACIST) WALLS, ANTI-BLACKNESS AND BLACK MALE SEXUALITY

As interesting as the year 2013 has been, one thing has remained consistent: the greatest perpetrator of anti-blackness and white supremacist folklore has been the music industry. The examples are numerous from Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus, to LL Cool J’s and Brad Paisley’s love song to the Confederacy in “Accidental Racist” to the grotesque “Asian Girlz” by Day Above Ground. Going beyond mere cultural ignorance, each case represents a the symptoms of a much larger problem: the death-grip that white supremacist myths have over our social institutions.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 12, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In this respect, Hip Hop is really no different from any other style of music. I have expressed my doubts about hip hop as a space for political freedom, and I find it no coincidence that the same corporations that our privatizing our prisons are the exact same ones sponsoring the hip hop industry’s music and movies. Hip hop was once an expression of artistic creativity that began in the 1970′s, as an outlet for surviving economic and racial oppression. Artists ranging from Run-DMC to to Ice-T asked the questions that society did not want to answer. If anything, music as art should be used as a form of inquiring what needs to be asked. Fast forward to today, what I hear from my peers is that hip hop culture is mostly about “boot booty booty music” “twerking” “ratchet” EXCEPT for artists like Macklemore, (the stage name for Ben Haggerty) and Ryan Lewis.

English: Elvis Presley meeting Richard Nixon. ...

English: Elvis Presley meeting Richard Nixon. On December 21, 1970, at his own request, Presley met then-President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office of The White House. Elvis is on the right. Waggishly, this picture is said to be ‘of the two greatest recording artists of the 20th century’. The Nixon Library & Birthplace sells a number of souvenir items with this photo and the caption, “The President & the King.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hip hop was a music style created by persons of color; just as rock’n'roll was. White persons appropriating black music styles is not original in the least; before there was Eminem, KJ-52, and Macklemore, there was Pat Boone and Elvis Presley. The logic behind the launching of careers such as Boone was one of racial segregation. Boone had teens swooning to black music, but with a white face. This very much like the logic behind whitewashing movie casts in contemporary Hollywood (see for example, Star Trek: Into Darkness): its the assumption that whites are superior and can make more of a profit from white consumers in a racist market.

With white hip hop artists, things are a little different. In the instances of Eminem and Macklemore, both artists have at one point or another, attributed their success to their skin color, and therefore confessed their “white privilege.” This is the point of Eminem’s “White America,”: “I’m on TRL, look at all the hugs I get.” With that simple hook, Eminem is pointing to the hegemonic whiteness of Music Television. “Make ladies swoon baby (ooh baby!) Look at my sales Let’s do the math: if I was black, I woulda sold half.” Eminem’s is brutally honest about his own experience, “When I was underground, no one gave a f***, I was white.” Marshall Mathers makes it clear that his partnership with Dre is an inter-dependent, fruitful one where lyrical genius meets cultural exchange.

Similarly, Macklemore confesses to benefit from his white skin in his song, White Privilege where he contends that hip hop has come a long way, and is now gentrified. He gets the “music without the burden” but hip hop “isn’t just about black and white.” “What happened to jazz and rock’n’ roll is happenin’ now.”  Of all his tracks, “White Privilege” is one that I find the most enjoyable.

However, saying “I’m sorry” is not good enough.  Apologies are born out of privilege, and you can say “My bad” without ever acknowledging the offended party’s agency.  Even progressive artists can be guilty of perpetuating messages of anti-black racism. White hip hop artists such as Macklemore must work to embody [white capitalist] hip hop’s version of blackness while remaining acceptable to white audiences. In the track, “Thrift Store,” Macklemore begins the song by asserting his proximity to blackness vis-a-vis his hyper male-sexuality:

“Nah, walk up to the club like, “What up? I got a big cock!”
I’m so pumped about some shit from the thrift shop
Ice on the fringe, it’s so damn frosty
That people like, “Damn! That’s a cold ass honkey.”

By bragging about his sexual prowess, Macklemore has ascertained the right to enter a space of blackness (the dance club filled with black people wearing thrift store clothes). It is this opening line that shapes the rest of the narrative for the video.

macklemore pimp

To be black and male, as defined in this song, is to be a hyper-sexual animal, with multiple sexual partners. Ben Haggard is “pimped out” in a tiger fur jacket, reminiscent of an Old School trafficker of prostitutes from the 1970′s. Macklemore, because of his white skin, can CHOOSE to embody this form of untamed black sexuality. What goes unspoken is that this is an image that is prominent in hip hop culture and popular media, but it is a white supremacist relic from the days of USian slavocracy.

Negative racial+sexual stereotypes remain foundational for white supremacist mythology. The Hottentot Venus and Mammy Figures are images of Black women that are alive and well in North America’s racial imagination. Enslaved black males were categorized as the Violent Bucks. According to Womanist ethicist Kelly Brown Douglas, being a black man in a white supremacist culture meant being wild, super-potent, angry threats to white civilization. Black manhood was viewed as the competition for white manhood, a potential ravager of white womanhood, and a murderous criminal to both.

The consequences of black men who were “caught” acting upon their violent buck “nature” included castration, mob violence, lynching, and in some cases, all three. The rape of black women during the time of slavery was not a crime; the myth of the black Jezebel taught that black women’s bodies were the gateways to forbidden sexual pleasures. While the abolitionist movement worked to limit the uses of castration (since it was punishment for cases of fugitive black male slaves), dismemberment was a form of discipline to inform enslaved blacks who the masters of their bodies were. The most effective weapon of white supremacist terrorism was lynching. Lynching during the times of enslavement was used to punish escapees, insurgents, and accused rapists. After the Civil War, thousands of blacks were lynched each year to scare them away from using their right to vote and to enforce Jane and Jim Crow Law.

The invocation of the language of lynching has become rather easy in this day and age. White people like to use to when they feel “persecuted” like Hugo Schwyzer simply because they are asked questions. The easiness of these false analogies are proof of a white supremacist culture. Black people’s suffering is readily made available to anyone who wishes to appropriate that experience; however, blacks are told to shut up when we want to discuss history. This is why we should find it appalling that in Eminem’s “White America,” he compared the government placing a silver sticker on his CD’s and albums with ratings, or “censorship” with the act of being lynched.

eminem lynchingIn no way, shape or form is government regulating the freedom of speech like lynching. The practice of lynching took away the basic right to life from African Americans. When there are pranks on college campuses and high schools, the hanging of nooses are not targetting white bodies. Nooses are for the purpose of putting black bodies in their place. The denial of that historical experience by artists such as Eminem is the partaking in white supremacist culture. Lynching as public policy was sustained by the racist logic that Black men were biologically inferior, incapable of self-control, and therefore not worthy of human dignity.

This leads into my last point about Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop.” While he may not admit it, in the video, Macklemore sees himself as bringing dignity to impoverished people of color by shopping and dressing like them Race and gender are social constructions, and as such, remain public performances. As Amaryah Shaye argued in the above essay on Macklemore and “Same Love,” Macklemore confuses his proximity to marginalized communities with solidarity. One image from “Thrift Shop” the video that is quite telling of Macklemore’s White Savior Complex is the scene where he is standing in front of a paintings of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

macklemore jfk

The underlying message of this frame is, “I am giving blacks and Latin@s and poor whites human dignity by me being here.” Given the thrust of the song itself (which is supposed to be about wearing our grandparents clothes to social occasions), this image was entirely unnecessary. Because he is white, Macklemore is free to impugn hegemonic whiteness, his cultural affinity with upper-class, Northern Elite whiteness [even though he is from the Pacific Northwest] and its “progressive” history while fluctuating into spaces created by the marginalized. Macklemore’s presence in oppressed communities is a sign of humanity trickling down onto bodies of color. To the extent that Macklemore speaks for the maginated, he affirms their humanity, and participates in the whiteness of the white ally-industrial complex. On the other hand, as Macklemore works to co-opt disfunctional male blackness as reified by hip hop culture, Macklemore disregards the God-given invaluable worth of women and LGBTQIA persons. Macklemore should not get a pass in his “White Walls” for referring to women as female dogs, and in another track he refers to person in the LGBTQIA community in homophobic terms.

In the end, there not really a difference between hip hop music today done by black male artists and Macklemore other than skin color.  The crucial difference is that Macklemore benefits and profits from entertaining his audience with white supremacist mythology+ white ally liberal white-washings of history.

Enhanced by Zemanta

h00die_R (Rod)

priestly abolitionist time travelling supervillian

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

The Half-Baked Cake of Tony Jones’ Misappropriated Cultural Oppression: guest post by Gabe @Gabe_Pfefer

Editor’s note (Rod): I was outraged about how wrong someone gets slavery and church history; that’s all I wanted to say. ENJOY!

“Gabe Pfefer is a graduate of the M.Div program at Brite Divinity School in Ft. Worth, TX and a part time pastor in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). He’s originally from Western Missouri and he grew up around farmers. He loves to cook, but can’t bake to save his life. You can see his post from February here

Anybody who’s kept even half an eye on the progressive Christian blogosphere this week will have no doubt encountered Tony Jones’ latest outrageous bid for attention. In his crusade to combat misogyny and complementarianism in the church, he called for an outright schism between complimentarian and egalitarian factions of Christianity. Mr. Jones brogressive jihad was met with disbelief and alarm by many, but that never stops good old TJ from doubling down on being scandalous. His latest salvo was this blog post (insert link here) in which he compares those who disagree with his idea of fragmenting the church to slaveholders and medieval torturers.
Now let me be clear, I am a vehement opponent of complementarianism, patriarchy, and anything less than full egalitarianism in the body of Christ. I understand Jones’ fury at those who remain stuck in the stone ages of oppressive attitudes about gender roles. I oppose with all my being any attempts to deny full inclusion to women in every aspect of the church. Where I and all but Jones’ most ardent fangirls and fanboys part ways with Jones’ thinking is in the idea that the church should schismatically separate over this issue. Yes schisms are historical and have at times led positive change, but they ALWAYS represent a wounded brokenness of the spirit of Christian unity. A schism over this issue would only deepen those wounds.
Aside from the debate over the appropriateness of a schism is the question of why Jones believes himself to be qualified or powerful enough to declare such an action. Yes it’s true he has written many well received books and has contributed a great deal to the archive of progressive theological thought. It’s also true though that he’s been a historically contentious figure with a reputation for causing conflict even within his corner of the Emergent movement. He’s hardly the most diplomatic fellow and although he presumes to often speak prophetically, his demeanor has frequently distracted from his message. Jones is never one to listen to or consider even the mildest of critiques without an excessive amount of bristling defensiveness towards his critics.
Even beyond my questions about his assumption of the mantle of would-be schismatic leader are my questions and outrage about his latest accusations. I was highly disturbed to see him resort to a slavery analogy to attack his critics. The horrors of the slave trade like the horrors of the holocaust should be, in my opinion, beyond the pale of access for use as weapons in casual battles of rhetoric. As a white male from a middle class background I was appalled to see Jones (another white middleclass male) so casually employ the images and symbols of African American oppression in this manner. He might as well have invoked the idea that his critics were akin to Hitler while he was at it!
It seems Jones has never gotten used to being challenged or not being seen as the brightest kid in the room. When his brilliance (in this case in the idea of a schism) was questioned he couldn’t take it and lashed out. I assume he believed that by comparing his critics to slave traders and sympathizers he would automatically cause his fellow progressives to reflexively distance themselves from these critics in their midst. His casual and completely basis appeal to racism falls flat however since he’s comparing apples to oranges and his analogy falls flatter than a Bundt cake without the baking powder.

The Political Jesus Collective

Guests posts by friends of Political Jesus ---OR---- Group Announcement from the Bloggers of PJ

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookGoogle Plus

Biblical Manhood 101: Lessons From The Sith #StarWars

A Man’s place is in the kitchen.

 

From: The Lighter Side Of The Force

h00die_R (Rod)

priestly abolitionist time travelling supervillian

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

Sarah Baartman For President: Beyonce, #FLOTUS, & Western Beauty Standards

Aesthetics, Race, and The Faces of Oppression & Resistance!

I have taken the opportunity before on here to address negative racial and sexual stereotypes against black women in the past, for example, see the first of my series from last year on William Paul Young’s The Shack and the story of Mammy, the asexual submissive black female house servant. Today, I would like to address the other major racist stereotype against black women, the Venus Hottentot/Jezebel.

There has been a general debate in culture and online whether or not Beyonce’s performance at the Super Bowl XLVII was empowering for women or degrading. Was Beyonce’s (and the rest of Destiny’s Child’s) performance A Prophetic Dance Of Power? Or was the concert a mere repeating of when sexism and racism meet at the intersection of U.S. history. Regardless, this seems like an awkward conversation for the Other to Destiny’s Child: The Silent White Guy who wants to comment on Invisible Black Women.

Whenever we look at the history of music and dance, we always seem to go back to folks telling a story. What story are we telling when we look at a musician or actor for that matter? Last year, I commented on an appalling trend in black Celebrity culture, that of bleaching their skin to make them pass as whiter. The notion of passing has a long history in the United States in terms of African Americans. In the early 20th century, sociologist W.E.B.DuBois advanced his idea of the Talented Tenth, the idea that there would be an educated elite of African Americans to lift the black race out of Jim and Jane Crow fascist rule. The faces of resistance for DuBois were mulatto and light skinned blacks; the closer to white skin a person was, the closer they were to divinity. Frantz Fanon, in Black Skins and White Masks, he argued in his introduction that blacks strive to be white, and white strive to be human. In other words, whiteness and universality is the definition of what it means to be human in a racist society.

A concrete example of this is the racism of Enlightenment philosophers such as David Hume and Voltaire. Voltaire argued in his Essay “The People Of America” that blacks were not human, that like the species of dogs, blacks were cocker spaniels, whites were more like greyhounds. David Hume and Thomas Jefferson firmly believed blacks were born inferior(for more analysis on this, read chapter 2 of Cornel West’s Prophesy Deliverance! as well as David Theo Goldberg’s Racist Culture). The foundation for the normative gaze that sides time and time against black people is classical Greek aesthetics. As West puts it, “The principal aim of natural history is to observe, compare, measure, and order animal and human bodies ( or classes of animals and human bodies) based on visible, especially physical, characteristics. These characteristics permit one to discern identity and difference, equality and inequality, beauty and ugliness among animals and human bodies” (page 55). The Classification of human bodies, whether we start with Francois Bernier (humanity divided into four: Africans, Orientals, Europeans,and Lapps)or Linneaus’ Homo Europaeus, Homo Asiaticus, Homo Afer, and Homo Americanus, these lists were predicated on the idea that black skinned people were of “little genius,” and that white skin was the natural skin of humanity (the DEFAULT).

Galileo and Descartes brought back classical Greek aesthetics to the center of European culture. This white supremacist gaze held that the beautiful body was inseparable from the beautiful soul. West puts it this way: “Lavater [the father of physiognomy] believed that the Greek statues were the models of beauty. [...] blue eyes, horizontal forehead, bent back, round chin, and short brown hair” (page 58).

Over the centuries the classical Greek turned European ideal evolved from brown hair to blonde hair, but as for being essential to the Western identity,the Western Gaze remained relatively the same. Any monstrosities who were deemed out of the norm were put through scientific research. Case in point: Khoi-Khoi, known by her slave name as Sarah Baartman. “She was the black African who was put on public display because of the “immediacy” of her sex to European audiences–male and female–who had never seen such an ass as hers.” (Emilie Townes, “The Womanist Dancing Mind” in Deeper Shades Of Purple). After being exploited for years, Khoi Khoi died at age 25 years of age. It was then that Napoleon’s surgeon general was able to use her corpse as a museum display. The power over Khoi Khoi’s body that Napolean had is the same power that Pepsi Incorporated offers young black girls who look up to Beyonce.

As Townes puts it,

“Oppressions are rude because they do not simply give a damn about people or the rest of creation, they are only concerned with the acquisition of power that dominates and bullies. Those who participate in it will sell their souls and anything else they can get their hands on or snatch out of someone else’s hand to possess power because oppressions work to make all of us commodities that can be bought and sold, discarded and annihilated.”

Womanist ethicist Kelly Brown Douglas noted that it is the experience of Khoi Khoi that remains the quintessential definition of the Black Jezebel: black females were bought and sold according to their reproductive capacity; ” By distorting black women’s sexuality, the Jezebel image protected the White Slavocracy and fostered the exercise of tyrannical White power” (Douglas, Sexuality and the Black Church, p 40). White male masters could play the victim, since they were seduced by their enslaved black Jezebels.

The bodies of black women then historically have been used for entertainment, with just a few body parts being singled out.First Lady Michelle Obama is being ridiculous for her backside, leave it to Rush Limbaugh to relish in the Jezebel stereotype. The body image of women which racist thinkers such as Limbaugh are attached too are ironically not like his lovers in the Dominican Republic, but rather at the ones from Greco-Roman antiquity. Black beauty is seen as a form of lack, rather than anything that should be affirmed.

So, what story does this performance of Beyonce at the Super Bowl embody? I would argue the story of Sarah Baartman. The mythos behind the music and dance which I could enjoy while at the same time, stand at a distance and be just as leery. Of course, I grew up in a home where mom disapproved of the term “bootylicious.” After reading the story of Khoi Khoi, I am just a tad suspicious too, of what it means to use one’s sexuality for power. The power that Beyonce embraced was the power to appeal to the men of PepsiCo. It is the Napoleonic power of Corporate domination in the public and private sphere. I contend that gender power is not found in exploitation, nor is it found in the puritanical mores of conservative Christian male hierarchy that guilts people for being sensual creatures.

Rather, gender power, from a Christian perspective, should be found in the imago Dei, something that is at once ineffable as well as disclosed in the life of our Lord Christ Jesus. The definition of beauty which finds as its source the Trinity, Unity in Diversity, cannot accept limitations from white supremacist culture. Yet, we can recognize what is beautiful and true by experiencing the presence of Jesus, the joys of worship as well as in the midst of suffering. To the wise, famous, and beautiful, the Cross is foolishness, grotesque, heinous; but to the marginalized, the Cross is a wonderful delight.

I present a face of resistance:

h00die_R (Rod)

priestly abolitionist time travelling supervillian

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

The Bible, Homosexuality, and Christianity: A Few Notes on Gender in the Scriptures

This is the seventh post in a series. I highly encourage that you read those previous posts before reading this one. The preface is here. The guidelines are here. A discussion of relevant Hebrew Bible texts is here. A study of Romans 1:26-27 is here. A Study of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 can be found here. A discussion about marriage in the Bible is here.

These are just a few thoughts that occurred to me in the midst of our discussion. None of this should be taken as “gospel,” – pun intended – but rather just my personal reflections on gender and the Bible.

In the current climate of discussion around homosexual practice, it has been argued that homosexuality may be wrong because it is an attack on traditional gender roles. Further, it is often said that these gender roles are rooted in scripture. Therefore, it is often argued that it is important that Christians should do everything in our power to oppose the confusion, disruption, and casting off of “traditional” gender roles that homosexuality represents. In this regard, I believe “they” are right. Homosexual people (as well as bisexual and transgender folks) do indeed seem to disrupt “traditional” gender roles. But, if Jesus taught us anything, it is that tradition that is not rooted in the scriptures AND love, may not be worth keeping. So what does the scripture say about gender roles?

Genesis 1:27 – “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

What this verse indicates is that God has created humans in God’s image, and that, somehow, males and females both embody the image of God. The way I read this, which may be controversial, is that without a woman AND a man, one cannot fully reflect the image of God. Women are just as important as men, and without one or the other, God’s image on Earth would be incomplete. Of course, Jesus takes this to a whole other level, and does include the whole image of God in himself, though he is a man. I wonder what that says for the women-specific parts of God’s image that are present in Jesus? It seems that Jesus may have had to break traditional gender roles in order to fully image God on Earth. Maybe.

Deborah – In the Book of Judges, we are told the story of Deborah, a prophetess and a judge of ancient Israel, led the nation and spoke the words of God to the people. While many in our current Christian culture would find this offensive, as they misuse the Bible, it appears God has no problem with women both in leadership or teaching about God.

Ruth - a foreigner among Israelite people. She seduced and aggressively pursued a relationship with a man who was her social superior. Not a very good “woman.” And yet, God approved, even in the midst of the scandal, and used Ruth to support the lineage both of King David AND Jesus.

Esther – Esther was a Hebrew girl who was forced to parade around in some sort of Persian beauty pageant in order to be given the “prize” of becoming a bride to the current king. Esther happened to win, although her life was one of misery because there were powerful forces who wanted to kill her entire race of people. Unfortunately, Esther could not ask the king to help because he had issued an edict that his wives could not speak unless called for. Esther broke this rule, disobeyed her husband’s direct order, and was used by God to save her people. I guess God has less of a problem with women submitting to men than Paul did in some of his churches.

Isaiah 66:13 – “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”

It seems as if God is adopting a traditionally female gender roll. Hmmmm.

Jesus – Jesus broke gender norms all of the time. For example, it was very taboo for a man to meet a women alone, let alone talk of marriage with her. That would have been fine for women, though. And yet Jesus does that very thing. Jesus lets women touch him and his feet, another gender norm broken. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, saying how he would have protected her like a hen (female) protects its babies. Jesus refuses to fight (a traditionally masculine trait), and cooks for his friends. He allows himself to lose an argument to a female, tells parables where God is represented by females, and indicates in Luke 11 that it is not by fitting in to traditional gender rolls that people please God, but by a person’s response in spirit and deed to God’s kingdom.

Of course, Galatians 3:28 puts a bit of an easy cap on all of this when Paul says that in Christ, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Turning not only gender, but societal roles upside down.

Now, lest people think that I am being biased, there are indeed many verses which tell women to do some variation of submit, obey, listen, and be silent, either in marriage or at church, or society at large. However, these were all written after Paul’s writing of Galatians. Given that Paul knew and commended female deacons (Phoebe), allowed women like Pricilla and Eunice to teach others about the faith, met in a house church led by the woman Lydia, never-mind belonging to a church which was started when Peter quoted Joel as saying that daughters would prophecy, and God’s spirit would fall on men and women. Acts also tells us that there was a man who had 4 daughters who all prophesied. Now, how do you square Paul’s teaching about women being silent with those facts? Fairly easy, as it turns out.

If Paul, having an encounter with the risen Lord, comes to the conclusion that in Christ, women and men are equal, and experiences this both by looking at Old Testament examples (as above), knowing the life and teaching of Jesus, and seeing this lived out by those women in the church around him, he of course would teach in his earliest letter (Galatians) and would likely preach in the earliest churches that he started, that women were equal in every way to men. However, what would those churches look like, if, once Paul left them to their own devices, they believed Paul? What if the women started teaching and doing traditionally “male” things without all of the benefit of learning that the males had? It would likely lead to poor teaching. Also, it would upset social norms and make Christians look like rabble rousers and turn people off to the faith. So Paul, being a pastor first (a tendency we seem to forget) would write back to those churches, telling them that “I (Paul, not God) do not permit a woman to teach, etc… Of course, this is all in the context of Christians “mutually submitting to one another,” which is also readily forgotten by many today.

All of this to say, that the traditional gender roles that we hold today are not biblical ones, at least not in the best sense of the word. Perhaps a better way to seek gender roles is to look at Jesus, who never treated anyone as a gender-ed person, but as an individual. Jesus himself, in being the complete image of God, bore in his body both the male-like AND female-like image of God. Also, Jesus embodied the wisdom of God (the female version of the LOGOS in Proverbs).

In many areas of our lives that we take for granted, traditional gender roles have been broken, to no great harm. This does not mean that men and women are the same and must conform to the standard of each other in some sort of forced equality. It does however mean that God is more than capable of bringing good into the world through many variations on gender themes, not being limited to one culture’s rules about who should be acting like what simply because they have this or that reproductive part.

Jump to part 8, A discussion about biblical interpretation, here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Optimistic Chad

Chad really really hopes things are going to turn out ok. He loves his wife - with the passion of 1000 exploding suns, and is a diligent, but surely mediocre father to his brilliant and subversive children. He likes Chinese food.

More Posts

The Bible, Homosexuality, and Christianity: Preface

Regardless of how any government or organization legislates homosexuality, the church has a responsibility to stand apart from them and both judge their faults and set a course for peace, love, faith, and justice, quite regardless of whatever the rest of the world may or may not be doing.

To that end, I have put off doing an exhaustive study of homosexuality and my faith for far too long. And I imagine that the word “exhaustive” in the last sentence to mean something like, “as exhaustive as I can get without exhausting my desire to live.” I am sure there will always more to say.

Still, I haven’t laid down all of my cards on this issue. I am working through it, trusting that the commitments I have made to Jesus and the way I understand God and the church will be vindicated for myself. Yet, I admit, as I set out to do this, I wonder how I will feel once the data is in and the discussion has been had? I wonder if the data leads to a place I don’t want to be, what will I do? Alas, I made a commitment long ago that if God and truth are in any way friends, God would want me to seek the truth, even if it seemingly goes against what I want to believe. The following series of posts are simply my honest attempt to wrestle through a divisive issue with the resources available to me.

Jump to part 2, Guidelines, - here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Optimistic Chad

Chad really really hopes things are going to turn out ok. He loves his wife - with the passion of 1000 exploding suns, and is a diligent, but surely mediocre father to his brilliant and subversive children. He likes Chinese food.

More Posts