Thursday, December 18, 2014
Influence and Reputation
I just heard a message about how we should not be around certain people by a prominent pastor. He is certainly correct. Bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor. 15:33) I suppose the major problem with avoiding people who are not "at your level" is that you also avoid people who may indeed be flawed in many areas that can influence you (rub off) but they genuinely desire to improve; but because you avoid them, they don't have your example in their life to help them to grow. It seems to go against what Jesus actually DID in the incarnation. (That is, come to a people who had nothing good to offer Him).
When I served in college ministry, I recall a student of mine who saw a young woman around dusk under a light pole. He clearly felt like God wanted him to engage her in conversation. But because the evening was becoming dark, he said he was concerned about people's perception of him talking to a sister in the dark (he had a great reputation as both a believer and a bridge builder and generally speaking, it is right to be concerned about our reputation) so he did not go. I reminded him about Jesus, who also risked His reputation to help people see God more clearly.
Surely, we should be concerned about how people perceive us and also how we influence them. It seems to me, that a most important role for us is to be influencers and not so much influenced by people who might rub off on you the wrong way. So...to the degree that you are able to influence or be influenced, that is a good gauge by which you may consider to be around people or not.
But by all means, don't simply avoid people who are "not on your level" or aren't yet perfected in everything. That seems to be arrogance.
I believe two significant adjustments must be made in the thoughts. Specifically about numbers two and three. First, number two: Three people know the answer. Martin, Zimmerman and God. I'm not trying to get overly spiritual. But as a Christ follower I trust that God was watching. He saw what happened and will judge fairly. Who knows, He may conclude just what the jury did. At least then, we will know that it was based on all the facts and not just the ones the court allowed or could see. Second; number 3: I have heard many people after this case say that "our justice system worked". I think to determine whether or not it worked, it's necessary to understand what one means by "justice". OUR system of justice consistently fails people of color (especially African Americans). So, even when OUR system works, justice is still not served. The system of "justice" in our nation, is broken. So when we say our justice system "worked", if we mean that due process was provided, then all can agree that our justice system "worked" the way it was designed to. (However, this is what the cry of many people is. The way it is designed consistently fails) [Thank God that some convictions that seemed to demonstrate that justice was served are being overturned by DNA results, but I digress] However, if we mean that the right verdict was reached as to the innocence or guilt of George Zimmerman; I don't think we can say it worked. We can only say that due process for Zimmerman worked. We can only say that the jurors saw 'reasonable doubt' as to why Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted. This does not mean that justice was thoroughly served (and we can not speak for whether Trayvon Martin received justice or not since his story was not told). This remains to be judged through the perspective of the third eye of that evening; God. BTW, if you believe our system worked then you should stand and fight for OJ Simpson. For as much as so many believed him to be guilty, the jury came back with a "Not Guilty" verdict. Now I ask you, if OJ actually did murder Nicole and Ron, does the "Not Guilty" verdict reflect a just verdict or simply a verdict that reflected the way our system works or does not work?
Continuing; some things do not matter to the shooting. It does not really matter whether Trayvon was a thug or not. This is a moot point. It does not matter whether he liked to fight. It does not matter whether or not marijuana was in his system. While on the surface these accusations seem valid because they set the stage for potential causality of his attack, we know that other factors played more significant causal roles in the altercation (like the fact that he was followed, and the fact that Zimmerman did not identify himself as a watchman). No matter what drug, or how much of the drug was in his system; Martin could not have attacked a neighborhood watchman that had actually listened to the advice of a dispatcher. And even for those who say, "There is no law against his decision to continue his pursuit". As we all see, it was not a good decision to go against that advice. Neither does it matter that Martin may have been paranoid (due to Marijuana or any other reason). (In fact, what the case revealed more than the fact that Martin may have been paranoid is that Martin was right about being paranoid - Helllooooo Zimmerman WAS ACTUALLY FOLLOWING HIM....Paranoia is the unreasonable, obsessive anxiousness one has. It turned out that he was reasonably anxious. Again, he was not unreasonably paranoid, he was right. Someone was following him.
Some things do not matter as we dialogue about race in relationship to this case either. I'll just talk about one of them. It should not matter (as a point of conversation about the Zimmerman/Martin incident) that blacks kill other blacks. People say, "Well, look at all the black on black crime. Black people need to worry about that". Let us concede that blacks kill blacks and that this is tragic and that people are right. But let's talk about that when we are speaking of cases of black people killing other blacks. Today, we are talking about the case where a white man killed a black young man. To decide now to talk about "black on black crime" is DEFLECTION. Let's not deflect and say "look at all the blacks killing other blacks". That fact IN NO WAY absolves Zimmerman. Neither does it absolve the justice system of its need to correct disproportionate rates of victimizing people of color in contradistinction to their "racial" counterparts.
Some say this case was not about race. I think we should distinguish that just because the shooting may not have been about racism [and I don't totally buy that it wasn't] that the Zimmerman/Martin trial was not about race. We can not prove Zimmerman's motives, but this does not exclude race from the case. Racialization (a term that scholars use that means "race" matters profoundly in processes of everyday life) is thrust upon the case without media exacerbation. [I personally don't believe the media exacerbated the race dialogue. They made us aware of a moment where race MAY have played a significant role. That's their job.] Racism (a term that seeks to express the prevailing attitude of superiority of one over the other based on some physical characteristic) may not have been the primary factor. But, race certainly was involved. The fact that it was not allowed in the case seemed to overlook a significant reality with in the course of due process. I don't know who Martin was talking about when he said, "These &%(# always get away..." But it seems that he should have been asked the question.
Continuing; some things do not matter to the shooting. It does not really matter whether Trayvon was a thug or not. This is a moot point. It does not matter whether he liked to fight. It does not matter whether or not marijuana was in his system. While on the surface these accusations seem valid because they set the stage for potential causality of his attack, we know that other factors played more significant causal roles in the altercation (like the fact that he was followed, and the fact that Zimmerman did not identify himself as a watchman). No matter what drug, or how much of the drug was in his system; Martin could not have attacked a neighborhood watchman that had actually listened to the advice of a dispatcher. And even for those who say, "There is no law against his decision to continue his pursuit". As we all see, it was not a good decision to go against that advice. Neither does it matter that Martin may have been paranoid (due to Marijuana or any other reason). (In fact, what the case revealed more than the fact that Martin may have been paranoid is that Martin was right about being paranoid - Helllooooo Zimmerman WAS ACTUALLY FOLLOWING HIM....Paranoia is the unreasonable, obsessive anxiousness one has. It turned out that he was reasonably anxious. Again, he was not unreasonably paranoid, he was right. Someone was following him.
Some things do not matter as we dialogue about race in relationship to this case either. I'll just talk about one of them. It should not matter (as a point of conversation about the Zimmerman/Martin incident) that blacks kill other blacks. People say, "Well, look at all the black on black crime. Black people need to worry about that". Let us concede that blacks kill blacks and that this is tragic and that people are right. But let's talk about that when we are speaking of cases of black people killing other blacks. Today, we are talking about the case where a white man killed a black young man. To decide now to talk about "black on black crime" is DEFLECTION. Let's not deflect and say "look at all the blacks killing other blacks". That fact IN NO WAY absolves Zimmerman. Neither does it absolve the justice system of its need to correct disproportionate rates of victimizing people of color in contradistinction to their "racial" counterparts.
Some say this case was not about race. I think we should distinguish that just because the shooting may not have been about racism [and I don't totally buy that it wasn't] that the Zimmerman/Martin trial was not about race. We can not prove Zimmerman's motives, but this does not exclude race from the case. Racialization (a term that scholars use that means "race" matters profoundly in processes of everyday life) is thrust upon the case without media exacerbation. [I personally don't believe the media exacerbated the race dialogue. They made us aware of a moment where race MAY have played a significant role. That's their job.] Racism (a term that seeks to express the prevailing attitude of superiority of one over the other based on some physical characteristic) may not have been the primary factor. But, race certainly was involved. The fact that it was not allowed in the case seemed to overlook a significant reality with in the course of due process. I don't know who Martin was talking about when he said, "These &%(# always get away..." But it seems that he should have been asked the question.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Question for the Church about overcoming Race Issues
I would like an answer to this question.
While there have been some notable personalities who have spoken against racism early on the church [white and black people], many of the church's staunch supporters and heroes were proponents and participants. So when I hear people talking about “the Blood (of Christ)” being the answer, or “the church” being the answer or some other "Christianical" [I just coined that term--whoomph, dey it is] I do two things: First, I agree with their belief. I believe it is Christ and His church purchased by his blood that is the answer. Second, I realize that for 400 years the same church who has preached the Bible, who was purchased by Christ blood, who believe in the Gospel have failed miserably in communicating that same gospel in regards to this sin. And third, the same church have exacerbated, supported and been complicit in maintaining racial separation, white supremacy and ethnocentrism. [Many were simply products of their culture]
Now, if what I have said is true (and it is), then church has a question to answer: If “The Gospel”, “The Church”, “The Blood” and “Christ” is the only answer to this well-acknowledged sin, then what Gospel has the Church been preaching and believing for the last 400 years that has not only caused them to be grossly complicit in aggravating race division in the church and society, but has also seemingly rendered Christ and his blood powerless in overcoming racism?
While there have been some notable personalities who have spoken against racism early on the church [white and black people], many of the church's staunch supporters and heroes were proponents and participants. So when I hear people talking about “the Blood (of Christ)” being the answer, or “the church” being the answer or some other "Christianical" [I just coined that term--whoomph, dey it is] I do two things: First, I agree with their belief. I believe it is Christ and His church purchased by his blood that is the answer. Second, I realize that for 400 years the same church who has preached the Bible, who was purchased by Christ blood, who believe in the Gospel have failed miserably in communicating that same gospel in regards to this sin. And third, the same church have exacerbated, supported and been complicit in maintaining racial separation, white supremacy and ethnocentrism. [Many were simply products of their culture]
Now, if what I have said is true (and it is), then church has a question to answer: If “The Gospel”, “The Church”, “The Blood” and “Christ” is the only answer to this well-acknowledged sin, then what Gospel has the Church been preaching and believing for the last 400 years that has not only caused them to be grossly complicit in aggravating race division in the church and society, but has also seemingly rendered Christ and his blood powerless in overcoming racism?
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
The Last Enemy
One of the greatest lines in a movie, ever was in the movie "Troy". King Priam bravely and secretly visits the tent of Achilles who had only a few hours earlier killed his son, Hector and then dragged the body off by his feet, behind his chariot to further humiliate Hector. Priam asks Achilles to "give him this small mercy" and return Hector's body to be properly buried. Achilles is deeply touched by Priam's bravery and sincerity. Here is his response: Achilles: "If I let you walk out of here [with the dead body of your loved one], If I let you take him; it doesn't change anything. You're still my enemy in the morning. Unphased by the swelling words of the great Achilles, Priam replies:
"You're still my enemy tonight. But even enemies can show respect for one another."
The line is prevalent to me now because 2011 has been a year that many people who I am acquainted with have gone to be with the Lord. My family has seen seven this year (since December 2010) alone. Then this past week, my godmother, 83 and two other men of God, both relatively young 53 and 44 were taken by death. Undoubtedly, the desire is for our loved ones to stay with us on this earth without suffering, and then we can all go to God together, when our lives are over. Instead, loved ones plead with death, for mercy and respect. Death doesn't give either. He is our enemy. He is not so kind as Achilles was to Priam to give back what he has taken. And we are left with a seeming hopelessness about the fate of our loved ones.
It is only seeming, however. Because the same blow that death deals us to cause our pain, is the same blow that has ushered our loved ones into the presence of God. He can not win. Death can not win. Jesus has won.
“The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”
(1 Corinthians 15:26 ESV)
"You're still my enemy tonight. But even enemies can show respect for one another."
The line is prevalent to me now because 2011 has been a year that many people who I am acquainted with have gone to be with the Lord. My family has seen seven this year (since December 2010) alone. Then this past week, my godmother, 83 and two other men of God, both relatively young 53 and 44 were taken by death. Undoubtedly, the desire is for our loved ones to stay with us on this earth without suffering, and then we can all go to God together, when our lives are over. Instead, loved ones plead with death, for mercy and respect. Death doesn't give either. He is our enemy. He is not so kind as Achilles was to Priam to give back what he has taken. And we are left with a seeming hopelessness about the fate of our loved ones.
It is only seeming, however. Because the same blow that death deals us to cause our pain, is the same blow that has ushered our loved ones into the presence of God. He can not win. Death can not win. Jesus has won.
“The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”
(1 Corinthians 15:26 ESV)
Love in the Mourning
“Just what do you want from us!” When it comes to racism I can hear that
question from the hearts of “white” people to “black” people; and vice-versa. It
is a valid question. Most of us can sense the thick, smothering gas of “race”
among us. Still, no one really wants to keep talking about it. Yet, some of us
feel we must, if there is to be authentic progress. We sound the shofar for
injustice; and raise Amos’ voice to anthemic proportions. “But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness
like an ever-flowing stream” (5:24). Some say, we are nearing a post-racial era; if we stop
talking about it, then “race” will just go away. Then others feel the guilt
because it seems to point to people like them (even though their not racists).
And still others experience mounting displeasure because the constant talk
never moves past discussion. Then there are those who are invisible to the
extreme discussion of black and white race issues because they are neither
(black nor white), or both. They too, sound an alarm of frustration that too
often goes unheard. I think Dennis Hesselbarth’s article “To my fellow Whites”
in EFCA Today offers a plausible reply. He says, “Let’s just try to Understand”. Here's the Link, take a read[http://www.efcatoday.org/site/article/to-my-fellow-whites]. But I digress
Indeed, theologians would mark understanding
as a most worthy task of any Christian’s deepening of godliness: Fides quaerens intellectum, (Faith
seeking understanding). Of course theologians intend this statement to drive us
to a deeper knowing of the incomprehensible, Triune God through pursuing the
questions in our souls. I intend for the statement to fortify Hesselbarth’s
request and encourage you to carry it out. You see, we cannot only understand
God by answering questions of scripture alone; or that reside within us. We
must also understand him through the countless image-bearers who experience
blessing and suffering on the earth as we do.
Ethno-racial issues produce floods of
suffering and mourning for all varieties of people in some form or other. To
make efforts to understand the mourning that it produces in the life of others
serves as a tactic of love. To ask questions, listen to, and respond in sorrow
for the past or present injustices instead of defending one’s self or “people”
is to progress in that love. The mourners begin to live because of understanding.Why?
Because s/he assumes that once we truly understand, we will act in aggressive
righteousness to correct the matter. This is what it means to be a Jesus
follower and “mourn with those who mourn”. Showing understanding is to
demonstrate “love in the mourning” of others. That love produces a brighter
hope for a brighter day. Dr.
Martin King, Jr said as much in his 1957 sermon, “Love Your Enemies”. He said:
“Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to
defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty
and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be
caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system”.(http://mlkkpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_loving_your_enemies/)
Dr. Martin King’s admonition here calls us to rise to the level of love. Yet Christians know that King is not the progenitor of this call, only an avid proponent of the call. The progenitor is our gracious Lord Jesus who loved us first, and called us first: He now calls us to love (Matt 5:43-44). And indeed, he exemplified his call through understanding by stepping into our shoes (Heb. 4:15). Is this not the best expression of how we love? To step into their suffering with others and mourn with them until we are through it. When we love people in their mourning (for whatever they may mourn for) and seek to understand them, we produce hope that the mourning may cease one day. Then, we may believe the psalmist more readily as he says, “Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning. So to answer the question: “Just what do you want from us?!” Love through Understanding; indeed, Love in the Mourning.
Dr. Martin King’s admonition here calls us to rise to the level of love. Yet Christians know that King is not the progenitor of this call, only an avid proponent of the call. The progenitor is our gracious Lord Jesus who loved us first, and called us first: He now calls us to love (Matt 5:43-44). And indeed, he exemplified his call through understanding by stepping into our shoes (Heb. 4:15). Is this not the best expression of how we love? To step into their suffering with others and mourn with them until we are through it. When we love people in their mourning (for whatever they may mourn for) and seek to understand them, we produce hope that the mourning may cease one day. Then, we may believe the psalmist more readily as he says, “Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning. So to answer the question: “Just what do you want from us?!” Love through Understanding; indeed, Love in the Mourning.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)