Near Emmaus


8 Comments

42 and active non-violence: “No, I want a player who has the guts NOT to fight back!”

If you haven’t seen the trailer for the movie “42″ (about the legendary Jackie Robinson) coming this April you’ll want to watch it:

tt0453562I am excited about this film. I am a huge fan of the game of baseball. Also, I happen to appreciate the study of history. Many movies have attempted to explore the dynamics of race in our nation’s past. Some have done better than others. I think this film has a good chance at addressing the topic with one particular edge: the Black character should remain the hero. In the movie “The Help” I was quite critical of the film because it made one mistake in my opinion. It made the Black characters the supporting cast when it should have been the opposite. I think “42″ will get this right.

If you watch the trailer there is a piece of dialogue beginning at 1:33 that moves me (imagine the whole film). Robinson is talking to Brooklyn Dodgers executive Branch Rickey about the persecution he is facing for being a Black baseball player:

Robinson: “You want a player who doesn’t have the guts to fight back?”

Rickey: “No, I want a player who has the guts NOT to fight back!”

Robinson: “Give me a uniform, and give me a number on my back, and I’ll give you the guts.”

Our culture has debating how we should curb violence. As a Christian being an advocate for peace is an important part of my identity. Many Christians I know have succumbed to a dialogue that presents violence as a given. The only argument is who should be allowed to be violent. I hope a film like this speaks to us, reminding us that there is a third way, active non-violence (or messianic, active non-violence for us Christians).

About these ads


40 Comments

Is it 2011? The Gospel Coalition and Rob Bell have our attention, again.

Rob Bell is back with a new video titled “Rediscovering Wonder” that sounds a lot like a response to his detractors if you “listen between the lines.” Watch and tell me your thoughts (HT: American Jesus):

Also, we can’t mention Rob Bell without The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gaining our attention. Jared C. Wilson approvingly shared (see The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc) an excerpt from a book by Douglas Wilson (Fidelity: What It Means to be a One-Woman Man) that describes the role of males in sexual activity as follows: “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.” What do women do according to Wilson? “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” Interestingly he frames this as the good that rape culture and bondage games “pollute.” You can read the vulgarity yourself, though I do recommend caution.

Of course, as you can imagine, this has outraged quite a few. It could come across as quite insensitive to, oh I don’t know,  sexual abuse victims maybe? Doug Wilson responded by accusing everyone of not knowing how to read and Jared Wilson wrote a follow-up post (see Shades of Outrage) that is the equivalent to telling an impolite joke at a party and then responding to everyone’s outrage with, “What? What’s wrong? C’mon people, loosen up. Hey, where you going? No one can take a joke!” (see Dianna Anderson’s critique)

I don’t lose sleep that groups like The Gospel Coalition exist. I am sad that they are trying so hard to monopolize the word “Gospel.” Don’t they know misogyny is available? It is far more fitting.

Plenty of good, smart folks have responded already (I think the excerpt speaks for itself and I think anyone who thinks it is OK reveals their true colors…no need to argue with them): Joel Watts asks that these people unmask their ideas about sex and call  it what it is: rape. Daniel Kirk agrees calling “sexual conquering” rape. Rodney Thomas exposes the sexism and racism of this post. Rachel Held Evans gives a thorough response. Scot McKnight asks TGC to do the right thing by calling them to take the offensive post down.

Needless to say, it is 2011 again.


7 Comments

Best books on addressing matters related to race/ethnicity?

Last week I wrote a post on “The top ten most difficult doctrinal/theological subjects that contemporary Christians need to address.” Today I want to invite readers to leave a comment recommending books on these topics that you have found to be helpful. The sixth item on my list was race/ethnicity and ecclesiastical unity about which I wrote:

Sadly, there is an old truism that says that Sunday morning is the most segregated day of the week in the United States. This seems to remain true. While the church should lead in racial reconciliation we are often on the other side. Other contemporary issues like immigration law have compounded the problem. There remains to be seen an effort by most white Christians to listed to minority Christians on a host of issues. Often “diversity” has been used as a byword for assimilating others into the majority culture. We have a lot of work to do here.

What is a book (or books) that you recommend for someone wanting to think through this subject?


Leave a comment

Our histories are unique and diverse.

Arizona

In the State of Arizona the law AZ 15-112 was passed to ban ethnic studies. (You can read the details of the law here.) In my estimation it is inherently contradictory if you’ve heard the stories of the teachers from these programs (I had the opportunity to hear Curtis Acosta at Portland State University recently thanks to my wife bringing me along to an event.) They suggest that it is illegal to teach classes that do the following:

1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.

2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.

3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals

Many of us would agree that a public school shouldn’t promote the overthrow of our government. This isn’t happening though. We agree that there shouldn’t be an effort to promote resentment toward another people group. I’ve seen footage of these classes, and it seems to me that this isn’t what these classes teach at all.

The third and fourth points are odd. What the legislators of Arizona ignore is that most of our books on United States history are designed for a particular ethnic group already, namely those of European heritage. Our textbooks are Eurocentric! They depict the history of our nation through the eyes of those who immigrated here from Britain, France, Portugal, Spain and so forth. They do not tell the story of the people who lived here already, unless it is to poo-poo the injustices they suffered as they faced genocide, broken treaties, forced relocation, and as one Native American acquaintance of mine has described it, a “post-apocalyptic world” where their way of living was devastated and they’ve fought to find an identity ever since.

The fourth point falls to the same criticism. If our histories are exclusively Eurocentric then they advocate ethnic solidarity for Caucasians. If we deny that other people came here (or lived here already) from places other than Europe then we are promoting an ethnocentric story.

At that I might add that the second point can’t stand either. I remember hearing the stories of the European explorers and as a young man it was inevitable that the pioneers were ‘good’ and the natives ‘bad’. This is the story we’ve taught our children to justify the establishment of our empire. It is too late in history to rewind what happened, but do we have to lie to our children pretending that our Eurocentric history is baptized? We in this country loved to demonize people like Hitler, but we ignore the actions of generals like G.A. Custer or Presidents like Andrew Jackson.

At the end of the law clause F. states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the instruction of the holocaust, any other instance of genocide, or the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.

I’m sorry, but this is not possible. The legislators can add this to try to cover themselves from the accusation that they are (in effect) silencing the voices of minorities who want to know how their story fits into the broader narrative of this nation. You can’t prevent Latinos, Native Americas, African Americans, and other minority groups from learning history with their unique histories in mind and not “restrict and prohibit…the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.” In fact, this law is another form of  ”oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.”

The legislators in Arizona needs a good dose of Lyotard! They want to frame their Eurocentric metanarrative as a universal story. It is not. This doesn’t mean it is wrong to study history from a particular perspective, but that is the point….it is a perspective! For some of our citizens there is no connection to the story of French men coming here as trappers or the British coming here for a “new world”. No, for some their people know the story from the other angle. A story where they lived here in their own land only to have it taken from them. This is as much a part of the history of the United States as the stories our textbooks like to tell.

Our history (singular) is impossible without the recognition of our histories (plural). In this nation we have sought to try an experiment where people of different groups come together to share ideals. Some of those ideals is free speech, free inquiry, access to knowledge and information and the right to acknowledge E pluribus unum– not people only but the history of the people.

For my readers with a European heritage I want you to imagine sending your children to a school where the only history class allowed is one where it is taught from the perspective of Native Americans. It would be a history and one could argue a truly “American” history, but it would isolate your children from being allowed to understand how they fit into the big picture. This is what happens when school districts deny people the right to have an approach to history that considers their ethnicity’s perspective.

If this bothers you consider learning more at  saveethnicstudies.org.


25 Comments

The philosophy of The Help (your feedback is wanted).

The Help

I might have the opportunity to discuss the movie The Help with John Perry and Ken Taylor of Philosophy Talk for their upcoming 2012 Dionysus Awards episode where they discuss the most philosophical movies of the last year. I will find out in a week or so if I am chosen. When they asked for submissions I proposed The Help because it presents interesting insights into race relations and how people of different races interpret stories. Even if I don’t get this opportunity I thought it would be something worth discussing here if you’ve seen the film or read the book.

I apologize beforehand regarding these generalizations, but they are the best way I know to compare how different people groups/audiences interpreted the film: 

If you self-identify as being of European descent please tell me and answer these questions:

(1) Did you enjoy the movie?

(2) Did you think it was a fair depiction of race relations in the United States at that time?

(3) Did you identify Skeeter Phelan who combated racism or the others who promoted it?

If you self-identify as being of African descent please tell me and answer these questions:

(1) Did you enjoy the movie?

(2) Did you think it was a fair depiction of race relations in the United States at that time?

(3) How did you feel about the primary character being Skeeter Phelan (the journalist)? Or did you view one of the other characters as the primary character of the story?

If you self-identity as being of some other descent please tell me and answer these questions:

(1) Did you enjoy the movie?

(2) Did you think it was a fair depiction of race relations at that time?

(3) Did you feel connected or disconnected to the story and the characters?

There are no wrong answers here. I know this is very subjective and I’d like to hear your thoughts.


2 Comments

The future of the Latino church according to Daniel Rodriguez.

Daniel A. Rodriguez

Daniel Rodriguez, the associate professor of religion and Hispanic studies at Pepperdine University and the author of A Future for the Latino Church, discussed the Latino church on the radio show Connecting Faith with Neil Stavum. You can access the mp3 here. It about fifty-one minutes long and it’s well worth your time.

One of the most simple, obvious, and necessary things Rodriguez said is that when a Latino family visits your church assume they are native born. The political debate regarding immigration has led to much discrimination against Latinos, even those born in this country. It is insulting for a U.S. born Latino to be asked from what part of Mexico did they come or other statements that assume outright that Latinos are foreigners.

Another thing he said that was important is that Christians in the United States must think of themselves as Christians first and foremost. This demands love of neighbor. Whether or not you have more conservative or more liberal views of “border control” one thing that is undeniable for Christians is that we are to follow the example of the Good Samaritan and care for our neighbor no matter their race, ethnicity, culture, or nationality. M. Daniel Carroll R.’s book Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible opened my eyes to this reality like no other book. I recommend it and I am sure Rodriguez’s book is fantastic although I have not read it yet.

Of course, there has been no one that has opened my eyes to the need of the church and our nation to honor the place of Latinos like my wife. She has provided me more of an education on this matter than a thousand books. I thank her for her sensitivity to matters of race and socio-economics in our country. Without her insights I’d be ignorant of the needs of many of my neighbors.