Is Forgiveness free or should I put it on my Credit Card?

How does the process of exclusion take place?  

Will forgiveness be charged to me at a later time?

One moment our people group is growing and we are in the process of assimilating with one another, and in the next breath, we are pushing others out of our group, because we have gained a morsel of power and we can now wield this power over another.  This process is quick, but invisible.  These agreements we are forming with each other in our group are predominantly tacit and are therefore extremely difficult to break.  Tacit agreements as I have mentioned in previous posts are those agreements which humans form with one another which are "unspoken, social norms which are extremely powerful predictors of influence in our society."  The reason these agreements are so powerful are specifically because they are unspoken and if one does not articulate them, they will be invisible and remain somewhat abstract.

The new member within any group or organization does not yet possess the same influence, the same prestige, nor the same positional standing as we do, so it is easy to wield power over this person, based simply upon their lack of knowledge and their violation of our tacit norms. The question which should loom in the background is, "If we let everyone in, then we would not possess the same power, since power is established through the process of exclusion (in one form or another) and if we participate in inclusion, then the process of exclusion will die and the established system of power will no longer hold influence over us.  The control exerted through exclusion will not only make one feel more influential, but will implicitly train the person who was excluded, how to exclude.  The abused person will simply exclude once they have gained any form of power and since all humans possess some form of power, this process will begin very easily.  

I use the term, "Abused person", because exclusion is a form of violence exerted over another.  If we truly believe that God is a giver of free gifts, then using power, influence, and exclusion to hold onto these free gifts is a an act of evil against humanity.  The goal of forgiveness is reconciliation and explicit within reconciliation is the joining together of humans to one another.  I would challenge anyone to read the story of Pentecost in Acts 2 and read try to read our "rugged individualism" into the text.  It would be very difficult.  Acts 2 has at its core this offer of forgiveness and the receiving of forgiveness offered by Jesus.  Contained within the crucifixion was the condemnation of evil, but it was condemned by the breathing the words, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing!"  Jesus forgives, but does not ignore the acts of evil exhibited against another.  Too many times, forgiveness does not translate into social action.  In Luke 3:10-11 it states, "And then the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?" In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise."  Therefore, forgiveness of sin always relates to how we treat each other and how forgiveness informs reconciliation, since sharing is an act of reconciliation, but not necessarily forgiveness.  We can participate in one without the other, but our goal should be the inclusion of both.  Exclusion is an act of violence, cutting another off from participation and eventually from God's self.  God Forbid!

As Miroslav Volf has written extensively in Exclusion and Embrace and Free of Charge; to be reconciled with one another and with God, we must understand that we possess, but allow our possessions to flow through us to another.  Once again, Acts 2 demonstrates this willingness to bestow a blessing upon another person; freely.

In closing, we may offer forgiveness unconsciously to another person through our acts of kindness.  Love is not static, but will propel us forward desiring to bear the wrongs of others, the injustice of society, and the layers of evil in which humans participate.  We as Christians then bear this evil into the body of Jesus himself and out comes the good which was originally intended. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Hate destroys not only the person who it is projected upon, but it destroys the white who is filled with hate."  (My paraphrase) 

Forgiveness releases the person who already is inundated with guilt and shame to take ownership of the sin which has ensnared them.  Humans though for the most part, will not take ownership when they feel as though the sin of the world is on their shoulders.  The "Sin of the world" has already been forgiven, so offer forgiveness; free of charge. Our language should also be careful not to blame, so we may not even want to use the statement of forgiveness.  We demonstrate forgiveness by our treatment of people.  If though our treatment is not reflexive of our forgiveness, people will not want to have any conversation. By offering forgiveness, we are offering the hope of reconciliation.  Once someone is aware that blame is not laid upon their shoulders, but blame is contained with people, structures, others, and our natural inclination toward evil, this should free someone from the issue of guilt.

The problem sometimes is that we want to flee from the pain associated with the memories of injustice. We can not seem to bear it, nor should we have to bear the injustice.  God walks with the oppressed, condemning the injustice and deeply desiring to liberate from the pain and abuse in which victims feel. Once again we must return to the cross, where Jesus bore the violence of humanity and offered a beautiful gift of forgiveness; once received though, the person could no longer participate in structures which demonized and crucified.  It would be impossible to think that forgiveness could also be static, or simply internal without deeply affecting the way that we relate to one another.  

Whose Side? Whose Ideology?

It has been a while since I last posted, but I wanted my previous post to simmer a little.  Too many continuous words and words lose the ability to challenge our predisposed inclinations towards apathy.  

This post will attempt to deal a little with the upcoming election from my perspective and I am imposing a critique of the process, not necessarily any one's choice in candidates, since I also have chosen to vote for a candidate.

With that said, I find that the taking of sides; either Republican or Democrat; Liberal or Conservative forms as a result of complex issues being generalized and as we attempt to sift through the muck and mire of; the debates, the policies, history, sociology, the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats switching to the Republican Party because of racism, tax laws, foreign policy, etc., etc...(I threw the Southern Democrat point in there specifically)

The generalizing of information which is almost impossible to process is a phenomenon of great proportion.  Although I am not a psychologist, maybe some of my psychology friends could post more concerning why and how this takes place, but it is none the less, very important.  Most of our communication happens non-verbally, upwards of 75%, which could also be referred to as tacit communication.  Tacit communication are social norms of behavior which are unspoken, but accepted in society.  Take for instance if someone walks into a coffee shop and speaks using decibel levels which would be appropriate for a football game.  Although no one has stated in writing, or given informal rules about this behavior, it is simply acceptable, and a violation of these norms will result in tension.  (It is kind of like going to Fuller and getting a Masters in Theology, then attempting to get a job at a Conservative Evangelical Church) ;) It could simply be the language used which triggers an associated memory in another person, in which they will then make an inference (a judgment) that this person is violating a tacit agreement.  Again the result is fear or labeling, which can also sometimes result in direct violence.

This is one of the reasons that people develop opposing camps (Republican and Democrat), because it helps to structure information to better understand what one thinks.  Also, the dehumanization of one group against the other further solidifies their entrenched positions, until one group can NEVER listen to the other group, because these tacit agreements become very strong. I sometimes listen to a conservative political talk show in Southern California, entitled, The Frank Pastore Show.  Mr. Pastore claims to be a very Conservative Republican and vehemently opposes Barack Obama.  When Mr. Pastore hears the language used by someone in which he then sub-consciously associates with a "Liberal", he will say in these exact words, "That is just the leftist propaganda that the liberals want to bring into this country."  He actually hung up on a caller, because the caller started talking about property rights in relation to taxes, but property rights have been a core foundation of the wealthy and elite in this nation,  and since Mr. Pastore believes wholeheartedly that the wealthy deserve everything they have, he cut the caller off.

It is amusing though that party ideologies have changed over the years.  The Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and the Southern Democrats were the ones who maintained the power base of slavery in the South.  After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 though, many Southern Democrats (Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan), became Republicans.  So, the ideologies of these parties has transferred power depending on the current causes.  Remember, Mario Cuomo, the very liberal governor of New York is responsible for building more prisons than any state in the history of the United States of America.  He continued the Prison Industrial Complex started by his Republican predecessor, Nelson Rockefeller.  Rockefeller as Governor of New York was the first to criminalize the drug laws in the U.S.  We as a nation started to move in the direction of rehabilitation until Nixon and Rockefeller started the "War on Drugs".  The War on Drugs is almost as stupid as a War on Terror.  I apologize, but as someone who locked up more drugs dealers than days I have been alive, I cringe thinking about it. 

Cuomo did not move New York in a new direction, but by building more prisons; created more jobs.  Well, that is the goal anyway, right?  Although I myself identify closer with the liberals, I would say that the building of more prisons and Clinton starting the COPS program where he added 100,000 new police officers to the streets is the epitome of the hypocrisy of white liberalism. 

Don't get me wrong, I completely believe that voting for Barack is way better than George W. Bush II, but I might be voting for Cynthia McKinney.  If you have not heard her before, click on her name and listen to her grill Donald Rumsfeld.  I was tickled to hear her asking questions which no one who wants to get elected could ask.  If we simply choose sides, without looking further at the critique, either side will end up implementing policies which can negatively affect certain populations.  Yes, even liberals can add to the gross disparity of incarceration rates in the U.S.--hopefully this point was demonstrated above.  Remember also that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish Marxists, since they stood against his fascist policies and he saw them as corrupting The Fatherland, Germany.  If you listen to Hitler speeches, he sounds like the Republicans. (Sorry, if that is the party you support, but Palin is quoting Hitler rhetoric).  She doesn't know that she is though.  Maybe someone could sit down with her and point it out.  

Peace!

Discovering the power of Power!

I thought this picture appropriate for the subject matter of fear and power, even though I begin from the perspective of fatherhood.

Because fatherhood is new to me, I am in the process of discovery.  I discover how much my heart beats for the smile of my son, I discover that with every discovery of his, I uncover characteristics of humans which I never knew, I discover how little patience I actually possess (well, I already knew that), and most of all I discover that God is not like a human father, simply because I am too one dimensional.  I have discovered that God is more like a mother, father, sister, brother, neighbor, friend, companion, stranger, and spouse.  I discovered this, because I continually want my son to experience life, learning that life is not to be feared, but embraced, but I alone am unable to provide ALL the situations and knowledge which he will need to develop as a human being.  (Not a human doing, not a human acting, a human 'being') This was a quote I heard, but I can not find who said it, but I want to give this person credit.

I also discover that no matter how much I talk about communal responsibility or the church, we live in the U.S. and Christians for the most part compartmentalize life, which of course includes myself.  I can not speak for all people, but I can speak for myself by saying that I see in one dimensional realms and living an integrative life is difficult sometimes.

I can foresee some circumstances which may cause harm or inflict pain in the life of my son and I would of course do everything to prevent these circumstances, but since I am a protectionist, like many from my generation, is this the best course of action?  Protectionism is possibly a result of being raised in too much chaos and simply wanting inner peace (protection from chaos) from the dangers in this world or possibly just the opposite, maybe it was raised with too much order and it felt life as sterilized, so it created a little chaos on its own to react against the order (Protection from order). I know that I have said many times, "I don't want my son to do what I have done", and it is interesting that as I learn more about my parent's stories, I usually find that what was hidden, covered over, not revealed by them, I usually struggle with repeating, but what has been laid bare, open, and spoken about has not been that difficult in my life.  I am not making an overarching statement about storytelling, but there is something to be said about passing on our stories to our children.  Scripture is fairly clear about telling the next generation the narrative, not only of Scripture, but the narrative of life.  Think about Pentecost in Acts 2; for the first time, Jews in Israel were speaking the language of those they considered "the others".  

I find that one of the key elements in preventing humans from understanding and producing a language which communicates with others has a lot to do with the created social structures which prevented me from connecting with other people, predominantly the poor or others to whom negative labels had been given.  In church on Sunday, we read a verse from Mark 11:18, "The Chief Priests and teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him (Jesus), for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching."  I thought, Christians over the centuries have not talked that much about fear.  We as humans "kill" those to whom we are afraid, so it would seem somewhat of an important issue. This has been true throughout recorded history.  From a psychological perspective, if there is no interaction with those we consider "the other", certain negative images will naturally be produced in our brains, since our brains needs schema's to frame ambiguous information.  A schema structures information in our brains so that we can make sense of our surroundings, especially with situations which are unclear. These images contained in a schema, create a memory which is drawn to the surface when faced with situations or circumstances which we can not control, which can be called, "Fear".  We fear that which we can not control, which is part of the process of discovery I have learned, since I can not control everything that will happen to my son.  If I try to control it, I will of course drive a wedge between myself and my son, which is part of the tension of the chaos and order of God's creation. These memories then cause us to frame our inferences or judgments based upon our memories.  What happens if our past memories are either negative or even "neutral" (I put neutral in quotes, because neutrality is a myth)?  

Think about it from the perspective of the Chief Priests and Pharisees.  These leaders held various forms of power in that society.  They had formal authority simply from their position as Priests or religious leaders (a form of power); they had the knowledge of Scripture (another form of power); they had associated power, since some were in collusion with the Roman authorities (also another form of power); and here it comes they had access to the Temple, the bank of the 1st century (obviously, economics are another major form of power).  Also, remember that the zealots wanted the one form of power that they truly believed would free them from Roman occupation, military power. The Jewish people knew that the religious leaders, even without military power, still held a lot of power, so what happened when Jesus stood against these forms of power?  If Jesus simply came against one form of power, say military power, the people could move on and say, "Well, we thought he was going to lead a revolt, oh well."  But what happened when Jesus stood against ALL the forms of power in one way or another?  Every single human has some form of power, but using power over another is what Jesus is speaking about.  I know what has happened when I have been challenged against my numerous forms of power.  I have been driven to the point of hatred and anger seething beneath the surface. 

I believe that it is important to understand these power dynamics to re-discover how we relate to our children, our spouses, and our friends.  Peace!

The God of Indifference is an otherworldly God

As I am continually reading Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God and I am still astounded at the incredible depth's of love in which his theological premises reach.  To set up this following quote, Moltmann is critiquing the "god of theism otherwise known as the brother of atheism", by stating that Christian theology is not against theism, since the cosmos is directly involved in a theology of the cross, and as we know that theism directly relates to the way that atheism developed especially in Western culture,  Moltmann puts a frame around atheism and I personally completely agree with his conclusion, since it is something which I have experienced and have seen.  His conclusion is that, "there is something which the atheist fears over and above all torments. That is the indifference of God and his final retreat from the world."  The questions of many atheists to Christians is, "Where is your God? and why does your God seem so distant and angry?"  It is not an insult, it is theological inquisition.

Remember that the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.  N.T. Wright in What Saint Paul Really Said, has a way of framing what he calls inaugurated eschatology, by saying "that what the Jewish people thought God was going to do for Israel at the end of time, God did in Jesus of Nazareth in the middle of time."  This makes me think of Martha's statement to Jesus in John 11 that she knew Lazarus would rise in the resurrection at the end of time, but Jesus makes it clear that he, himself is the resurrection and since the kingdom of god is brought forth by Jesus himself, this would mean that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom by the resurrection, of which a foretaste would be raising Lazarus. Why on earth would atheists think that God has retreated from the world?  It may have something to do with the rampant evil exhibited within humanity and structures originally designed as good by our Creator, but have become thoroughly corrupted either by apathy, ignorance, laziness, or sheer intent. Therefore, indifference and apathy could only be associated with our god of success, the god who is cold, heartless, and does not suffer with the pain of humanity. Dorothee Soelle in her book entitled, Suffering has stated that cultural success will never choose to identify with the suffering of humans, and it is almost an impossibility to expect it to, since success by design has distanced itself from those it considers to be failures.

This god of success is not embodied in love, but is either dis-embodied as a theistic other worldly ruler or as a revolutionary who will simply replace the already evil structures with new structures of oppression.  Moltmann explains further,

"The peak of metaphysical rebellion against the God who cannot die is therefore freely-chosen death, which is called suicide.  It is the extreme possibility of protest atheism, because it is only this that makes man his own god, so that the gods become dispensable.  But even apart from this extreme position, which Dostoevsky worked through again and again in The Demons, a God who cannot suffer is poorer than any man.  For a God who is incapable of suffering is a being who cannot be involved.  Suffering and injustice do not affect him.  And because he is so completely insensitive, he cannot be affected or shaken by anything.  He cannot weep, for he has not tears.  But the one who cannot suffer cannot love either.  So he is also a loveless being. Aristotle's God cannot love; he can only be loved by all non divine beings by virtue of his perfection and beauty, and in this way draw them to him.  The 'unmoved Mover' is a 'loveless Beloved'.  If he is the ground of the love (eros) of all things for his (causa prima) and at the same time his own cause (causa sui), he is the beloved who is in love with himself; a Narcissus in a metaphysical degree: Deus incurvatus in se.  But a man can suffer because he can love, even as a Narcissus, and he always suffers only to the degree that he loves.  If he kills all love in himself, he no longer suffers.  He becomes apathic." (Apologies for the gender exclusive language)

It seems that one of the starkest problems today are our Christian traditions.  Our Christians traditions either remain committed to one form or the other.  The two choices seem to remain, traditional or non-traditional, which is in and of itself a tradition.  I have highlighted a segment of the text, because to me this speaks volumes to exactly how the churches in our present society are falling in love with the artistic expression of the beauty and perfection of God, while the rest of the world lives in squalor and dirt. I know that many people would protest saying, "No, we point people to the beauty and artistic qualities of God, because that will draw people to him." Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the German church readily embraced the artists and elites, but pushed the working classes and poor out of the church.  Why would this happen? I think that once again this theological tradition truly thinks that this draws people to God.  Is this once again, repackaged Theism, and how does the incarnation fit into this paradigm? If God wanted humans to be drawn to God's self simply through beauty, then why was Jesus, God incarnate, crucified on a cross, which is a symbol of shame and torture in the Roman world?

We sing songs that say, "The beauty of the cross", but is the cross truly beautiful, or have we made our worldview determine that it is beautiful, because it is too difficult to understand the implications if we say that it is truly shameful, grotesque, and destroys our sensibilities?  I am not against the churches who proclaim the beauty of God, since God is truly beautiful, but as Moltmann continually reiterates, "Jesus is not like God; God is like Jesus."  If we situate our understanding at the point of the incarnation, then I believe our worldview is transformed.  My good friend, Nick Warnes has done an excellent exegetical study on Judges 2, and in the literal translation of a verse in the text says, "God was found within the evil".  I was absolutely floored by that, because it is not that God condones the evil, but was found within it, in the middle of it.  This is why Jewish scholars such as Elie Wiesel can say that God suffered in the gas chambers with the victims of the Holocaust, and as Moltmann has added, "and they (the victims) will one day rise again." 

On another note, I wrote an e-mail to Ergun Caner, the President of Liberty Theological Seminary concerning an article he had written entitled, The Racism of Black Liberation Theology.  There are mainly two reasons why I wrote this e-mail; first, it was to point to the fact that his opinion of this form of theology is not simply The Truth, because he has said it, and second, to point out that he can not determine that an entire form of theology is racist, because he does not agree with it.  There are many people out there who would disagree with dispensationalism and although I am one of them, there are many points of dispensational theology which are positive, such as addressing some of the anti-semitism contained in many Reformed traditions.  Anyways, I could go on, but I will not for now, Peace and Love!

Kick it Root Down!

"I kick it root down, I put my root down, I kick it root down, I put my foot down!" Sometimes, I gotta' kick it old school with some classic Beastie's. I love that song, because if you YouTube it, click on link to watch it, you will see New York (specifically Brooklyn) back in the late 1970's, early 1980's which was directly responsible for the foundation of break dancing. In a documentary entitled, The Freshest Kids, it details how the South Bronx and Brooklyn contributed to this new form of dance (break dancing) based upon "Dancing at breaks in the music, performed by DJ's spinning records." The DJ's would spin records which caused the music to break, over and over again, contributing to a beat which enabled people to dance in a more rhythmic form. Only New Yorker's could do something like that! JK of course. Kind of. The greatest part about the DJ's spinning records was that they used old time rhythm and blues artists. Mo-Town, James Brown, Disco...etc. There always needs to be the integration of the old, coupled with the new--feeling the classics, but keepin' up with the cultural milieu.

I, of course related this to the way that each generation in the United States thinks that it has been the first to develop a new concept. We would deny that our culture does this, but how many conversations do we have between the World War II generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and now Generation Y? I know that there are some organizations and churches which have bonded the generations together, but for the most part, at least the people that I associate with have found that they are doing everything for themselves. Maybe this has to do with America's "rugged individualism", which is one of the core tenet's in the foundation of our country. Maybe it has to do too much with the modern quest to know the "true self." This is a funny identification, because the true self is whoever we actually are. We have heard the statement before, "Well, they were not really like that!" I am the first to say that blame is never completely on the shoulders of any one human being, even for their own choices, and the beginning of owning decisions starts with the premise that it is never one person's fault. But our true selves are sculpted by our history, our culture, other peoples judgments about us, societies labels of us, our associations, etc...the list could go on.

This leads to a radical restructuring of the centrality of discipleship. What does it truly mean to be "In Christ"? Is being In Christ integrally tied to being connected with my heritage and my roots? I started this blog by quoting from the song, "Root Down", because maybe something in us longs to truly know our roots, our heritage, our seeds. This is the reason that I truly identified with Black Liberation Theology, because its central message is the African-American experience, which believes in the incarnation of Jesus into the midst of our communities. This theological supposition does not need post-modernism to tell it that we should be living in community. It has been a part of the experience of Africans and African Americans for centuries. For the most part, my history has been color blind, but has our color blind-ness, really been a blindness to the depth's of the human story?

To truly know and be known is at the core of humanity and as Miroslav Volf has said in Exclusion and Embrace, post-modernity has a fascination with the self and deeply desires a "Liberated self", but in the process of liberation, have we lost our roots? I want to once again, "Kick it Root Down!" Peace!

Sacrifice of the gods?

Over the past week I have discovered a new vice, which is entitled Yahoo Answers.  (Click on the link and it will bring you to my Q & A section) It encapsulates a question and answer forum where people ask some poignant, but sometimes very random questions about life, spirituality, and  various non-sensical stuff. (I am not placing spirituality with non-sense) I usually frequent either the sociology section about "Culture and Groups" to write responses to peoples ignorance concerning the construction of race in the U.S., or the section concerning "religion and spirituality".  It is fascinating to read what Americans think about Christianity and to simply understand how Christians are perceived in the U.S. I realize that debate almost never changes people's minds, but I attempt to explain the reasons for certain "Christian" behavior from the perspective of religious traditions, mainly the Reformed ones. Although many people who ask questions are not familiar with Christianity there are some very angry questions directed towards Christianity and I have to think, "Is this fair?"

Many claim to be atheists, but it seems that there is a deep seated hatred for someone or something which has contributed to their overall bitterness.  Hey, I will be the first to attest to being from the Anger Tradition and projecting my anger onto an object, which I perceived to be lesser.  For many of the atheists, they perceive Christianity to be a blatantly ignorant tradition; caught in myths, spiritual story telling, ghouls, and ghosts, all surrounded by zombie like followers of a dead god.  Sounds interesting, eh?  I think though if one listened long enough to what they are saying it would be that, "Christianity is meant to be loving, it is meant to care for our needs, it is meant to display compassion, why does it not, why, why??"  The people want a loving God, they want a God who accepts their flaws, accepts their questions, accepts their weakness, but most of all accepts that THEY will not accept everything which Christianity is laying down.  Oh, wait, I was with you until that last part.

It seems as though God's grace has its limitations with people.  God will not accept people who doubt, people who question him, or Christians don't accept people who question God. I don't know why but this drew me to start thinking about the story of Abraham and his son Isaac, when Abraham was told to sacrifice his son.  If you know me, I am not one to usually relate something to a biblical story, so maybe this meant something. Abraham in the story seemed fairly ready and able to sacrifice his child at least from the perspective of the writer. From what we know about Mesopotamian culture, they had a fairly broad knowledge of the gods and this would not be a far stretch for a god to request a child sacrifice.  Abraham willingly went, but it seems as though we have always read this story from the vantage point of Abraham, because it is easier for us to identify with a "father and son".  If anyone else figured this out a long time ago, I apologize for my slowness, since I am just figuring this out, but the story is really about the unveiling of Yhwh to humanity.  It is about the unveiling of a god who is beginning the process of transforming how humans treated other humans.  Unveiling that Yhwh does not need the sacrifice to know the heart.  The unveiling that the earth belongs to Yhwh and he has concern about children, it is the start of the transformative way which humanity sees its God. Maybe I started to think about this because people in the Yahoo section see the god of the Old Testament as so angry, because we have not portrayed this god to be the god who unveils his compassion, kindness, and love, over against the gods who demand the sacrifice of humans.  It starts to make sense why the Lord would say, "Choose this day whom you will serve?" (My paraphrase)  There were actually many choices in that day.  How about in our day? Which god do we serve?

Which god do we serve?  The god of civil religion who demands our sacrifice to war? The god of consumerism who demands our money and allegiance?  The god of my anger?  (That is meant for me)  Without an inward critique of my own allegiance, I can not speak of any other allegiances.  I will end this by saying be blessed, God loves us.  

Subverting systems of power and domination

I started writing today about the economic practices of the Protestant Church, mainly taken from McLaren's book, Everything Must Change and Max Weber's, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but I did not get very far, because the more involved in society I am, the more I realize that our economic practices (U.S.) can not be separated from the social construction of;"White Privilege"!  Although Weber sees this "Spirit of Capitalism" coming from the Reformation and Protestants embracing the work ethic of secular society, I personally believe that that supposition alone will not have much influence in our current society, unless one identifies with whiteness in the U.S., since whites hold dominant control over the means of production.  Wow, that sounded a lot like Karl Marx, but unlike Marx, I do not believe that whites (dominant class, bourgeois) are the problem!  I believe the system of "whiteness" (bourgeoisie) is the problem.

I know many people who work hard, but are extremely poor. What a paradox, one can be a hard worker and be poor?  If those people were part of the system of whiteness, would their hard word be of greater benefit towards advancing in the workplace? Of course the definition of hard work also needs to be deeply examined within Protestant circles, so that we as Christians do not demonize another group, simply by the delineation of "hard work or lazy", as if those are the only two categories we can choose from.  As McLaren says, "Some people are actually people oriented, not task oriented," but in an ever developing technological society, how do we strive to move ahead by focusing on being relational? (My words)  I am being facetious in my question.

I have written a lot on what it means to be "white" in the U.S. and this morning as I took a minor detour by going to Noah's Bagels in South Pasadena, I suddenly understood the intricacies involved in this process of "becoming white".  Simply by going to Noah's Bagels, I feel my "white-ness" affirmed, yet I leave sensing that this privilege has drained people of their ability to be, dare I say, "Human".  The dominant characteristic of my writing stems from my belief that not everything is "alright", and by dominant culture ignoring one of the most controversial issues of our day is not, dare I say, "Christian".  Our assumption of privileges in the Christian community is a direct result of social programs in this country which have been specifically created to benefit the people in power.  It is not a dismantling of the system which needs to take place, but a reconfiguration to include all people, not just some people.

I should do an anthropological study of people who frequent Noah's Bagels, it would be very interesting to understand there are cultural distinctions which are unique to white culture. Noah's Bagels in South Pasadena on a Saturday or Sunday morning is in my opinion, "a bastion of elite-ness".  "What draws me to go to this Noah's Bagels"?  I must say that something inside me wants to identify with people who hold influence and power and it is comfortable.  So, could you say I am a hypocrite?  Depending on what one considers a hypocrite.  A hypocrite is a person who "plays a part, simply to have people acknowledge that they are something more than it appears."  I fit that category sometimes, other times I do not. Once again, simplification of a complex world, NEVER works.  This is a time that I will use an absolute.

People go to Noah's Bagels with their families, but interact very little with each other, but the question must be asked, "Why not make an egg sandwich at home?"  It would be much less expensive.  Expense, is of course not the reason for going to Noah's Bagels.  Community is the reason people go, yet very little interaction with others actually takes place, yet humans still have an innate desire to be around other people, even if they will not talk to those people, or acknowledge another's existence.

I know many who believe that having "White Privilege" can be a catalyst for change and their dominant issue is not, "having power as the problem, but what we (whites) do with this power that matters."  I might believe that the underlying premise of such a statement, spoken by a Fuller student in a class with Dr. Love Sechrest called, Race and Identity in Paul, is a dangerous configuration of many different paradigms. I wonder if people understood that this same idea was also prevalent during slavery, where the cross was not something which demonstrates the evil in humanity, but it became a symbol of power placed upon the backs of those deemed "evil". If not for the mere fact that I know my own tendencies toward power and I know how "all consuming power can be," I would probably not be were I am today.  The underlying issues of power in a police department were some of the reasons that I left. Power has a way, as does violence of remaking the one participating in its system into its very image. This is why being "white", of course is not the problem currently in our society, since these sociological constructions are as real as our sexes, meaning I can not change them, but yet "white-ness" is something which derives out of a system, in which I can choose to NOT participate.

Walter Wink has written about the issues of personal and systemic power in three different books entitled, Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, and The Powers that Be.

Although it is not a new phenomenon that those who have identified with "white-ness" in the U.S. have been part of a dominant majority; this majority have aligned themselves with a power system which has slowly subverted their allegiance.  I am speaking of the allegiance the Christian majority, since they are the ones who "run" the churches in the U.S.  I guarantee that when most pastor's started they were concerned about power, but the structure and design of churches have allowed pastor's to gravitate towards holding the dominate ideology over the subjects. Therefore, if we understood the power system which underlay the identity forming supposition of this "white-ness" in the U.S., we might not so closely align ourselves with this dominant structure.  We desire as Christians to be followers of Christ and although the argument has been made for centuries about how Christ and Culture intersect, rarely are systems of power the basis of the discussion, but it is my firm believe that Jesus clearly understood "power systems" and spoke about them frequently.

A New Revolution

The more knowledge of certain issues that I acquire, sometimes it seems as though the angrier I become.  It is easy to assume in the "present evil age", to quote George Eldon Ladd, New Testament theologian, that we will all grow weary and tired of pursuing the fullness of being enveloped in love to some extent in our lives.  Normally in my blog posts, I would say something like; "We talk about the fullness of community, yet still live isolated, we talk about global crisis, yet still have bills to pay, we talk about the idealistic objectives of the "renewal of God's creation", yet pursue jobs which provide security and safety, remaking us into people who are satisfied with the status quo," but for some reason today, Jurgen Moltmann's article, "The Crucified God", has captured my attention.  Through my alleged pursuit of revolutionary activity, it seems to simply get me angry at others' apathy, yet being someone who naturally dislikes apathy, I feel very apathetic myself.  Moltmann talks about the coldness which the God of success gives to his people.  It is not the God of love found in the theology of the incarnation, cross, and resurrection.  When Moltmann went walking through a Concentration Camp in Poland, he said, "The shame I felt for what my country had done, I wished the earth swallow me up, if I didn't believe that they (the victims) will rise again."

This brings me back to the dominant underlying issue concerning my over-reaction against the Evangelical Church in the U.S..  In American Evangelicalism, the over-arching premise is its implicit stand with nothing, and yet everything, so I therefore, react. I react harshly and say, "You have no backbone, you talk about injustice, (and sometimes never talk about injustice) yet perpetuate injustice by your lifestyle, you are apathetic and do not understand systems of power, which are so clear in the way you operate."  The only problem is, "I am them!" 

I react against the John MacArthur's of the world, who say, "God is not concerned about slavery, because slavery is something 'of this world'"!  I do not need to give a rebuttle to this statement, since it is not deserving of my reaction, but I can not help myself.  John MacArthur went on Larry King and spoke these exact words and subsequently drives a wedge between those who already are disgruntled with Evangelical Christianity, and those who actually follow the words of MacArthur.  The followers of MacArthur, i.e. those who attend his church, actually believe that he is attesting to God's Word.  I would urge John MacArthur to "only live by the spiritual Word of God", which he claims is what humanity needs to live, because I am fairly confident that he enjoys some of the finest food, the nicest clothes, and lives a somewhat luxurious lifestyle. I do not like to harp on race, but once again, "Why is it so difficult for white Christians to understand that they have directly benefited from social programs in the U.S."? From the numerous conversations that I have been involved, most who identify with whiteness in the U.S., believe that they have "earned" what they have, coming the the next logical conclusion, that which is "earned", is then theirs to do with it whatever they desire. Why are we so ignorant?

Getting back to my own journey, I would quote Miroslav Volf at this point and say, "The exact evil that we are fighting against, robs us of our innocence towards violence and recreates us into the image of violence, making us violent ourselves," quoting Dorothy Suchocki.  I understood this perspective when I was a police officer as part of a governmental system which survived as great Leviathan, which feeds upon incarcerating poor people for addictions, but as a Christian leader, I do not want to survive upon others' misery! So, it is important to ask the question, "How vulnerable am I"?  How willing am I myself to stand beside others when no one else does?  Do I still want a "piece of the pie?"  I probably do, and I thank God that I have this recognition, so that I do not venture to acquire these opportunities at the expense of my brothers and sisters.  Are these opportunities wrong?  Not as long as others have equal access to the same opportunities, but until that time, we should not be pursuing them at the expense of others.  

The question now is, "But when will everyone have the same opportunities"?  Jesus said that we will always have the poor.  Dueteronomy 15:4 in regards to the canceling of debts affirms that, "There should be NO poor among you, for in the land the Lord God is giving you, he will richly bless you."  So, the earth has the natural ability to produce an abundance?  Why then do the poor not have access to this abundance?  Sin?  Laziness? Or do the wealthy hoard, pushing the poor farther into the fringes and taking the sweetness of the core for themselves? We have a somewhat abstract concept of unequal disparities between rich and poor and most Christians have a difficult time articulating what the disparities look like in "Real time and real language."

Doesn't everyone benefit from the systemic injustices, which are the natural forms of life in the U.S.? "Should not we all participate, attempting to gain what is rightfully ours?"  It is not that Christians do not participate with the abundance of the earth, but we participate in a new way. No longer do we participate in ways which identify with the elite classes who whore the land. I heard Dr. Michael Eric Dyson in a documentary called, Black in America talk about the prophetic voice, "Which stand outside the structures", calling these structures back to their intended vocation. (my words)  This documentary brought us to the ghettos of inner city Houston, which could be inner city U.S. to look at the blight and poverty.  I always have a difficult time allowing one side, predominantly white America projecting their own apathy

It is not difficult to understand my natural inclination towards revolution and here is what scares me though about veering away from my revolutionary tendencies.  I fear then people would not want to think about injustice and say, "See, really Jesus is not concerned with those "social" issues, he is concerned with simply lovin' up some people."  "After all, Jesus said nothing about social or political issues."  Once again, I want to tell those people that they are the DIRECT recipients of social programs which they have benefited from and have utilized for the past 200 years, which makes them socialists, but simply ignorant socialists.  Here is the most dangerous supposition about our lack of understanding regarding somewhat invisible social programs.  We perceive God in regards to the earth, since we are directly connected Read David Roediger's, Working Towards Whiteness; How America's Immigrants Became White; The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs.

Click Link for Amazon Books

Here then is the main issue in what I am discussing: Vulnerability.  I think that Moltmann knows about this process, since he also reacted against what he thought was Karl Barth's somewhat negative stance towards social action, in favor of a more existential Christianity and instead pursued Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings to gain a more nuanced view towards a gospel of liberation.  Bonhoeffer wrote that the Nazi's did not care about Christian's preaching the gospel on Sunday, because it did not affect their programs, but it was only when Bonhoeffer realized that standing with the oppressed, i.e. the Jews, did the Nazi's take notice. Moltmann has also come out of the Enlightenment's, "Myth of human progress", whereby humanity could simply make more logical choices and change the earth.  

The theology of the cross completely debunks that myth, because if Yahweh was incarnate into Israel's story, then Yahweh was also found in death in Israel's hope, but hope is embodied in a cross of shame and the Enlightenment does not allow the cross to have an existence.  The embodiment of love then is found in suffering, through the death of Jesus on a cross, next to two criminals.  Therefore all the other programs and action must be found in Christ on the cross.  Too many times though the cross is separated from the incarnation.  The incarnation of Yahweh becoming Jewish flesh, is the affirmation of life, the affirmation of Yahweh's faithfulness to his covenant promises.  As I read the O.T. prophets, I can't help but think that all the harsh statements of the prophets towards Israel, Yahweh decided that he would actually bear the prophetic injunctions against his people into his own body, then afforded us the opportunity in which we now participate in the bearing of suffering for the sake of humanity, because when all is said and done, we believe that "they (the victims) will rise again" and in that age, again to quote George Eldon Ladds', "the age to come", the resurrection will vindicate the evil suffered and that is The New Revolution.

After writing this blog post, I have decided to write a book, which a certain friend has been suggesting to me.  Thanks.

The Neighborhood Marxist: Try and Deport Me!

It has been over a month since I last posted, so I will give quick update of what has happened over the past month. We had a baby named Paul, I graduated from Fuller, I am still designing a Conflict Resolution Program at the Western Justice Center, and I am continuously attempting to understand what makes me tick. (Obviously a long process) The other day as some friends were over, we started to discuss the implementation of this program at the Western Justice Center and someone happened to refer to me as "The neighborhood Marxist", a title which I happily embrace, since I would err on the side of being a revolutionary. To better explain this idea, I would say that we as Christians follow an "Upside down kingdom", to borrow from Donald Kraybill, who wrote that Jesus flipped the reality of life in the earth upside down, so that heaven, which has always been understood as "that which comes from above", is now overlapping the earth, which is more of a Hebraic understanding of Scripture, i.e. non-Greek. Please, any literalistic people, it is meant as a metaphor. This idea seems very Marxist, since Marx would want a complete dismantling of the hierarchical structures which cause and foster oppression to be 'torn asunder', since this is the only possibility for humans to even realize that they were being manipulated all along.

We must remember that the bourgeois are who Marx, as well as Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, and Cone would agree are the ones doing the manipulating, making the working classes and poor believe that they deserve what they have, or don't have, and whatever the poor receive, damnit they should be grateful! In Germany, Bonhoeffer had stated that the bourgeois, i.e. the elite classes had taken over the church and pushed the poor and working classes out. The apostle Paul had something to say about certain "elite" members of society taking over the fellowship in I Corinthians 11:17-34. Many members of the congregation were hoarding the food and drink from the communion of the saints and therefore the poor or working classes who showed up later, had nothing to eat. Wow, nothing ever seems to change. I do believe that the bourgeois is a large group of people in our society, but specifically who fits the category of bourgeois today?

The ruling class, i.e. the elite would definitely fit into that category. Who though in our churches would be bourgeois? I have been to a lot of churches, including for the first time, Lake Avenue Church for graduation from Fuller. I know some people who attend Lake Avenue and I do know that they are socially aware, care about the community of Pasadena, and invite some of the most "cutting edge" Christian speakers to bring a message of hope, but seriously, even at graduation, the "important people" sat up front, in front of all to see. I think it would benefit some people who are in front of the congregation every Sunday to sit with everyone else when they visit another church. Churches are not "Country Clubs", so they should start reflecting the reconciliatory ministry of Christ, not the "Who's Who of Pastordom". I am currently reading Brian McLaren's, Everything Must Change, but I still don't think our society will change at all until blacks and Hispanics have the opportunities to do what "whites" do.

David Roediger, professor of history at the University of Illinois-Urbana, wrote a book which I am reading entitled, Working Towards Whiteness, How America's Immigrants Became White, The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs, and it details the process by which the immigrant classes from approximately 1880-present, gained access to opportunities through an assimilation into whiteness, over against people of color. Books such as this deeply affect how we in Christianity view God and society, because if we live in the "upside down kingdom", that means that even if we DO NOT know this "kingdom" exists, the systems in the earth are the way towards our understanding of God, not vice-versa. That is why we can not "love God, but not our neighbor". Anyways, I am out of time, see ya'.

Conservative or Revolutionary??

This is a section of an article taken from Jurgen Moltmann's, The Crucified God and his critique from both sides, i.e. the Conservative and Revolutionary sides, whereby I identify with the second. His critique from both sides is what we in the church need to hear, since both sides have so closely identified with the structures of power, which makes and re-makes God into our image of strength, which will in turn suppress the qualities of Christianity which we perceive as weak, but are imperative to being a Christian.

Whether we are conservative or revolutionary, whether we are satisfied with our society or want to transform it, we all believe at bottom in action and success. We are convinced that we can solve all problems through right programs and actions. As Sidney Hook observes, western society is an officially optimistic society. The built-in values of our life and our system condemn us to activity, success, profit, and progress. If we experience failure, if we are frustrated, then we move on to another place, "where the action is." "What can, what must, we do? What next?" Those are our only questions, for we hate to admit and reflect upon what misery our optimism and our programs of action have inflicted upon other persons and upon nature. The conservatives are proud of the successes which they and their fathers have brought to pass. The revolutionaries want to see different and new successes. They look for "God's activity in history" and want to be "where things are happening most dynamically."
Both stem from the same stock and sit in the same boat. Who is their God? He is the God of action, the strong God ever on the side of the stronger battalions, the God who wins battles and leads his own to victory. He is the idol of mankind's "history of success." This God is power, and only successful faith makes an impression. What follows from the divinity of this God for the humanity of life? Life then means only acting and producing, making and prevailing. This one-sided orientation toward action and success, however, makes men inhuman and represses the other weaker and more sensitive side of life. From this perspective, those who suffer are sick; those who weep and mourn show no stamina. The world has nothing more to say to us. It does not touch us. One can do with the world what one wants. No despair need tear at our hearts. We become hard in the give and take of life. The suffering of others makes no impression on us. Love is no longer a passion, but only a sexual act.
The man of success does not weep, and he keeps smiling only out of courtesy. Coldness is his style. That which his activity demands he calls "good"; that which hinders his success is "bad." The other man is simply his competitor in the struggle for existence. "Survival of the fittest" is his eschatology. Just as he wants to control the world, so also he holds himself under self-control. In short, he who believes in the God of action and success becomes an apathetic man. He takes no more notice of the world, of other men, or of his emotions. He remains oblivious to the suffering his actions cause. He does not want to know about that and represses crucifying experiences from his life.
The God of success and the apathetic man of action completely contradict what we find at the core of Christianity: the suffering God and the loving, vulnerable man. On the other hand, the crucified God contradicts the God of success and his idol-worshippers all the more totally. He contradicts the officially optimistic society. He also contradicts the revolutionary activism of the sons of the old establishment. "The old rugged cross" contradicts the old and the new triumphal theology (theologia gloria) which we produce in the churches in order to keep pace with the transformations of an activistic and rapidly changing society.
We, too, find the memory of the crucified God discomforting. We gladly falsify it by changing the cross into an idol of our driving practical optimism in various crusades. As Douglas Hall has written: "The greatest misfortune would be if Christians used the Theology of Hope as just another religious aid for avoiding the experience of the cross that many in our sector of the battlefield can no longer avoid."In fact, there is no true theology of hope which is not first of all a theology of the cross. There will be no new hope for humanity, if it does not arise from the destruction of the apathetic "man of action" through a recognition of the suffering that he causes. Apathetic existence must be changed into its opposite: an existence of pathos leading to sympathy, sensitivity, and love. There will be no Christian, that is, no liberating theology without the life giving memory of the suffering of God on the cross.
Two hundred years ago, European society was already travelling the optimistic and erroneous path of active world improvement. For the Enlightenment period, the world of nature, principles, and ideas was a reflection of the power and glory of God. If man would only correspond morally to this glorious world of God, then the kingdom of God would be realized! Then in 1755 came the famous Lisbon earthquake, and optimism collapsed, reverting into pessimism and even nihilism.
The corresponding "earthquakes" of our time are not found in nature and physical evil, but rather in history and in inhuman evil. For my people, as executioners, and for the Jews, as victims, it is Auschwitz. As a German I do not have the right to say it, but for the American people, as executioners, and for the Vietnamese, as victims, it may be called Vietnam, not to mention the sad history of slavery between white and black in western civilization. For us who are white, rich, and dominant, it is the cry of the starving, oppressed, and racially victimized masses. For our technocratic society, it may become the silent death of nature, carrying us to destruction. At this point, too, our optimism collapses. What will take its place? Cynicism and apathy?
Allow me to become personal here for a moment. Ten years ago, I went through the remains of the concentration camp at Maidanek in Poland. With each step it became physically more difficult to go further and look at the thousands of children's shoes, clothing remnants, collected hair, and gold teeth. At that moment I would have preferred from shame to be swallowed up by the earth, if I had not believed: "God is with them. They will rise again." Later, I found in the visitors' book the inscriptions of others: "Never again can this be allowed to happen. We will fight to see that this never again comes to pass." I respect this answer, but it does not help the murdered ones. I also respect my own answer, which I gave at that time. But it is not sufficient.
How is faith in God, how is being human, possible after Auschwitz? I don't know. But it helps me to remember the story that Elie Wiesel reports in his book on Auschwitz called Night. Two Jewish men and a child were hanged. The prisoners were forced to watch. The men died quickly. The boy lived on in torture for a long while. "Then someone behind me said: "Where is God?' and I was silent. After half an hour he cried out again: 'Where is God? Where is he? And a voice in me answered: 'Where is God?. . . he hangs there from the gallows…. (Jurgen Moltmann: The Crucified God) Full article can be found on the blog face page.