When I first heard of The Africana Bible, my first reaction was, oh, here we go again. What haven’t black scholars already said about Black Interpretation and The Bible. I’ve already read and own Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation, as well as True To Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary. I really didn’t understand the difference until I read Hugh Page Jr.’s essay, “The Africana Bible: A Rationale.” He sees The Africana Bible “as a work produced by those who function as poets and ‘storytellers’ in academic, church, and other settings” (page 5). In Page Jr.’s eyes, The Africana Bible can be used as a tool that “increases awareness of Black lived experience throughout the world” as well as “enables Black experience today to be viewed from a global perspective” (ibid). The Africana Bible is not a commentary, but a product of Africana expressive culture, as it “blurs the lines between literary prose, critical scholarship, and (at points) poetry” (page 8).

Leslie R. James’ piece, “The African Diaspora as Construct and Lived Experience” traces the history of biblical studies with the histories of oppressions of African peoples during European colonization. For example, European Christianities changed with the work of Albert Schweizer’s The Quest for the Historical Jesus; while Schweitzer seems to give up looking for Christ as a historical figure (within a particular version of European messianism), Frantz Fanon asks us to look for a New Humanity, one that lied outside the realm of Europe, and made available to all peoples in his Wretched of the Earth. Fanon had transformed the subaltern embodied experience of the colonized into a a gateway for universal truth. No, I did not stutter. The label of Africana is diasporic in nature, and we (I as a reader and the writers of this book) this term metaphorically. The allegory of Diaspora opens up the story of the Hebrew Scriptures to Christianities worldwide, and in the U.S. American context, Black Americans have learned true neighborly love, solidarity with the Other, the Israelites of the Bible through Israel’s stories. James contends, “Diaspora has to be perceived as ontological, epistemological, ecumenical, political, and practical” and may I add THEOLOGICAL as well (16)! We know that YHWH is the God of our ancestors, the God of our weary years through the stories of the First Testament, and in our experiences in Diasporic religions.

The multi-authored essay, “African and African Diasporan Hermeneutics: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Journey, Exile, and Life through My/Your Place contends that “Africana biblical hermeneutics are contextual, particular, and powerful” (19). However, Africana biblical interpretation, assuming it is done by Christians, is not rigidly situated and static, enclosed to our Africana communities. Rather, as I have argued with a Trinitarian and Black reading of the Acts of the Trinity, cultural and theological readings of Scripture are reconcilable because of the Trinitarian existence of our God, the Lord Incarnate Jesus the Messiah. Cheryl A. Kirk Duggan begins her portion of this piece, “A trinitarian God-presence and an awareness of the Bible emerged through my daily experiences of family, church, and culture” (21). Did you catch that? Trinitarianism and the concerns for holistic living (a Womanist theological concern) are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they go hand in hand! The multiplicity of ways people engage the Bible with other texts–”in multiple places and spaces”–embolden communities to work for justice and love (22). Kirk-Duggan continues,

“The Pentateuch, or Torah presents creation, sin, liberation, celebration, regulations, injustice, the mystery of God. and the import of faith. Royal histories warn us about messianism, flawed leaders and seductive failures of empires. Unfortunately prophets for justice often demonize women to show Israel/Judah their errors [me-ahem, like Ezekiel]. Wisdom literature, especially the Psalms, provides a liturgical corpus for confession, petition, and thanksgiving.” (page 22)

Africana theological hermeneutics of the First Testament should then include a reading of JUDGES that challenges the seduction of messianic bishops and pastors building empires. Africana theology and biblical scholarship should eventually become a part of the new black theology movement, and become inclusive of Early Christian writers as well. David Tuesday Adamo, in his “The Bible in Twenty-First Century Africa,” points specifically to the Alexandrian Fathers (Clement, Origen, and Athanasius) as Africans who used the Bible to fight oppression (pages 27).

Next up: The Africana Bible, Women, and the Arts.

Related articles

• The Africana Bible: Judges and Dethroning Bishop Long (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Book Reviews And I’m Taking Suggestions for Posts (politicaljesus.com)
• The Shape of Things To Come: Blogging for Black History Month (politicaljesus.com)

“We shall see the crumbs of bread…..and they will show us our way home again.”

This week’s episode of Grimm was the darkest and probably the best all around episode to date.  We open up with the image of a raven pecking, feasting on a corpse which had just been thrown overboard, into a river.  The raven, for those unfamiliar with the Brothers Grimm’s work, is a symbol for evil and wickedness, primarily from women (part of the residue 19th century Prussian liberal male sexism). Our usual suspects, Nick and Hank, are on the job, at the scene of the crime.

Next, we see Nick, going to Monroe (surprise surprise?) for advice, about his relationship with his significant other, Juliette.  Nick finally tells Monroe that Aunt Marie told him to break up with Juliette. Of course, this should bring out more of our suspicions. Is Aunt Marie right in this matter? And going back to last week’s episode, Of Mouse and Man, where there is a family spooked by the sight of Juliette, one has to wonder if she herself is not a Wesen (of course, that’s my take).

Hank and Nick take a look at the body, and find two holes in the neck of the victim. Sergeant Wu asks, “Anyone believe in vampires?”

Throughout the investigation, Hank and Nick discover the victims are usually homeless street kids, renting P.O. boxes., going to the free clinic, taking temporary employment opportunities. Hank summed up the situation: “Sounds like migrant labor.”

This modern day Hansel and Gretel re-telling stayed faithful to the original tale which begins as a story of economic oppression. When Nick and Juliette take Hanson and Gracie out to dinner, Gracie tells them, “It’s pretty simple. Our parents sucked.” Oh, but it’s still the mother’s fault. Don’t forget that. Women are evil. T.V. is always a good reminder of that. Thankfully, the big bad Wesen this week were not the center of the story (which they shouldn’t) but we met a Fuchsbau for the first time, a cat-like creature who sells dried up, grounded human organs for a price, and he begs Grimm not to kill him. Of course, this indicates that Marie and other past Grimms had a history of extreme violence and murder against the other Wesen. The other Wesen this week was a Geier, a witch-like troll, with a crooked beak. She seems to be the one behind the whole “free health clinic turned human organ selling cartel” scam. Enter Captain Renard: “Well which ever way you look at it, it’s still cannibalism.” And in a moment of truth and dark humor, Sergeant Wu corrects him “Uh, I think it’s pronounced capitalism.”

Nick, being so goodhearted, attempts to save the Geier, but she falls into a pit of fire (happens at the end of the actual Hansel and Gretel story too!). At end of this, Renard recieves a package, a box, with the Reaper emblem on it. It’s the ear he sliced off from another Reaper who tried to trespass on the Captain’s territory. A mysterious voice, speaking for “the Ferrat” (I can only assume to be the ruling council of Reaper warns Renard, “A Grimm on his own is like a Samurai with his Master.”

Renard counters that this one has a badge and conscience. Does that make all the difference, with Grimm’s family past history and all? Perhaps Renard is more complex than I first realized. Maybe he, like Nick, is a rebel against his own tradition, although Nick is not aware of it yet.

I just simply cannot wait for next week: Amy Acker (FRED FROM ANGEL) will be guest starring!!!

Related articles

• Grimm: Of Mouse and Man (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Game Ogre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm, the Pilot: A Great Lost Episode of Joss Whedon’s Angel (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: The Three Bad Wolves (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Variations on a Theme (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Danse Macabre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Bears Will Be Bears (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Lonelyhearts (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: BEEWARE (politicaljesus.com)
• TV Friday: Grimm (canada.com)
• A Preview of Grimm Episode 1.10 – Organ Grinder (dreadcentral.com)
• Once Upon a Time Vs. Grimm Ep 9: Daddy Issues (tor.com)

Girls Who Bite Back: Witches, Mutants, Slayers, and Freaks came in the mail yesterday. Can’t wait to finish reading it. Already completed one essay essential for my current work on race and science fiction/ fantasy: “‘Cuz the Black Chick Always Gets It First: Dynamics of Race in Buffy the Vampire Slayer” by Candra K. Gill.

On Wednesday, Professor Anthea Butler responded to Bishop Eddie Long’s enthronement. Please read her article, for she gives great insight into the cult of the pastor in the black church. First, as a disclaimer, I don’t want to make this just about New Birth or Eddie Long. It’s significant that a religious community is attempting to reach an unreached people group in the U.S.; Black males, no matter, and that a church sees itself as political. However, what I want to deal with today is something no one really likes to talk about, and that is the royal ideology behind the Black Pulpit (well, really, the American Protestant pulpit). Part of the reason why I am afraid of working for a church is the cult of the pastor, the sectarian veneration of preaching leader of a congregation.

Part of this comes from U.S. American theology’s obsession and too optimistic reception of the Monarchy period in Ancient Israel. We like to talk about David who had a heart for God; David, had a heart for worship. Sure, we acknowledge he was wrong for murdering one of his great soldiers and taking his wife, but David’s greatness as king, his reputation as a worshiper over turns that little blemish. What ends up happening is that churches use this ideological gaze in which we look at David, and turn it on the person at the center of U.S. American Protestant worship services: the pastor.

Challenges to the royal ideology of pastoral authority are rare, even from progressive circles. It is seen as a reality to be dealt with and managed. I have grown to not accept this “reality” as such, for I feel that an adequate challenge to this brand of authoritarianism can be built from one of the strangest and most violent texts in the canon: Judges. From a very young age, for some strange reason, I have always been fascinated with the book of Judges. The stories of Gideon, Ehud (he was left handed, and you know, lefties are the smartest), Deborah, the moron Jepthah, and Samson have a special place in my heart. When I took a Judges class in undergrad, where the mode of interpretation of reader-response was prevalent, I felt a greater appreciation for Judges, especially its politics and history. How do I JUDGE a bible translation? Some scan through Romans, and others the Gospel of John, but for me, it is Judges. It is the reason why I do not like the New Living Translation in part because of its take on Judges 6:12, that YHWH calls Gideon a mighty hero– that places a value on the label of Gideon as a soldier which was not there before. Gideon, my favorite character in the Bible, is the anti-hero who struggles with embracing the royal ideology himself (as we discover by Chapter 9).

Many interpreters choose to read and promotes Judges 1-18, and skip over chapters 19-21 because of the gruesome imagery of male on concubine rape, as well as the degradation of cutting the women’s bodies to shreds as a call to war. I find this trend disturbing. I wait each Sunday to hear a sermon on Judges 19 to no avail. Alas! One example of this type of sugarcoating Judges is from The Global Bible Commentary, by Fidele Ugira Kwasi. Certainly, a liberationist reading of Judges from his Congolese context would help him to battle economic justice. The idea of God displaying divine wrath against social inequality is a fair reading of Judges, but this is the problem with contextual reading that are static. We are not allowed to move to hear other voices.

Walter Brueggemann, in his essay in Struggling With Scripture, entitled “Biblical Authority: A Personal Reflection,” argues that the Bible as the inherent Word of God, “is not a fixed, frozen, readily exhausted read; it is rather a ‘script,’ always reread, through which the Spirit makes new” (page 12). Making interpretations the settled and closed words of humanity demands colonizing churches with the familiar, and making them, in Walter’s words, playgrounds for idolatry. This is exactly the case we have with Black and White U.S. American Christian readings of 1st & 2nd Samuel, as well as 1st & 2nd Kings. Alternative voices appear in the text, they are just silenced. I oppose the idea what others call “the preaching moment” as sacrament for this very reason, that idolatry takes place too often in ecclesial bully pulpits.

In The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures From Africa and the African Diaspora, Randall Bailey chose not to avoid those hard texts, the ones in Judges where the bodies of nameless women are violated. Instead, he has provided a reading that makes these nameless marginalized women the center of the text. The focal point of the book of Judges is not therefore, that of Pastor Bishop So And So charismatic leaders who lead Israel into battle, but the victims, those who suffer the most from Israel’s infidelity to YHWH. Bailey concludes his piece, “Somehow, although the men get the titles and books named for them, it is often the sisters who get the job done. Could this be why you are bitter, Peaches? [from Nina Simone's 'Four Women'] Or are you angry because the book does not show God intervening to help any of these women in dealing with the oppression they face or in saving their lives from the excesses and foolishness of the men in their lives? (122)”

Are you laughing at the congregation at New Birth for their enthroning of their Bishop? Are you angry with yourself having once dreamed of being treated like king in front of the whole congregation? Do you taste the bitterness of Jepthah’s daughter or the Levite’s concubine?

Related articles

• Bishop Eddie Long is crowned ‘king in God’s government’ (VIDEO) (thegrio.com)
• Eddie Long ‘crowning’: Why do black churches often put pastors on a pedestal? (thegrio.com)
• The Shape of Things To Come: Blogging for Black History Month (politicaljesus.com)
• Eddie Long crowned ‘king’: New Birth criticized for ceremony that went viral (thegrio.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Well well. It seems like Anonymous stumbled upon some e-mail conversations, and found NeoNazis (American Third Position Party) collaborating with Ron and Rand Paul at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee). Should anyone be surprised, really? Paul’s charade has gone on long enough. He is free to be a member of A3P if he wants, just be honest about it, dude.

For more:

Read– The International Business Times: Anonymous Expose Nazi Third Position ‘Bridging Tactic’ with Ron Paul

Muchos gracias to Joel Watts

Related articles

• „Anonymous” Reveals Close Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis (dokmz.wordpress.com)
• “Anonymous” Reveals Close Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Anonymous Hacks Account of Alleged White Power Supporter, Finds Emails Coordinating Meetings With Ron (and Rand) Paul (minx.cc)
• Anonymous Claims Neo-Nazi Links to Republican Ron Paul (ibtimes.com)
• Anonymous Hacks White Supremacist Site, Finds Direct Links to Ron Paul (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Well, I know I have not been posting recently, but I plan to get back to it. I have some things in store.

I want to do a controversial series to make everyone squeamish, so I wanted to do what has turned out to maybe a 5 or 6 post series on Racial Justice and Science Fiction. Included in that will be C.S. Lewis, Octavia Butler, Aldous Houxley, and Olaf Stapledon among others.

I also have plans to do my series on The Africana Bible, and first up will be an introduction and a reflection Judges (My Favorite book) as a response to Bishop Eddie Long’s Enthronement.

#MISBEHAVING

Check out Amanda Mac’s blog as she hosted this month’s Biblioblog Carnival: Biblioblog Carnival for February 2012 at Cheese-Wearing Theology

Babylon 5

 

“I don’t wear the dress. You make Paul wear the dress.”- Mallory Kane

Last week, Amanda Mac gave her glowing endorsement of Haywire in her movie review.

So, I took her and Chuck’s advice, went and saw it. I must say, the first 10 minutes of the movie, the acting was sub-par. But other than that little blip, I found the movie quite entertaining and provocative. It was interesting how gender wasn’t ignored, neither was it over-done, like say, that gorramm awful Catwoman (2004) movie starring Halle Berry. I also grinned with the Wonder Woman reference by a police officer to Mallory when she was under arrest. Overall, I would compare Haywire to those who are familiar with The Bourne Trilogy, and just as enjoyable as the Bourne Ultimatum.

I haven’t thought of a ratings system yet for PJ. Maybe that will be next. Any suggestions? How about 5 Yoders? Or 2 Moltmanns up?

Related articles

• Female Characters Who Kick Ass: Introducing Mallory Kane (politicaljesus.com)
• Movie Review: #Haywire (politicaljesus.com)

Postcolonialism and Science Fiction by Jessica Langer

I am really hoping this one arrives, I really am.

Related articles

• Postcolonialism and Science Fiction: An Excerpt (3quarksdaily.com)
• A Book Recommendation: James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction (politicaljesus.com)
• Langer’s Science Fiction and Postcolonialism (adamroberts.com)

Traditionally, the Patristics and their work were used as apologetics to protect Christians and our propositional truth claims. Tertullian agrees with me! No Augustine agrees with me! Origen is a heretic! Clement of Alexandria? Can you say liberal?

Recently, there has been a trend in the discipline of black theology to use Early Church thinkers toward anti-racist ends. The cover story in The Christian Century: The New Black Theology highlights this move brilliantly.

“What is revolutionary about these three black theologians is that they rely heavily on dogmatic texts from the patristic period to the Reformation. Why is this novel? Because nonwhite male theologians have historically been hesitant to trust these sources—and for good reason. In the worst of times, classic theological texts have been used to oppress persons of color and women. In the best of times, the overwhelming attention given these particular voices obscured other voices, giving the impression that the only Christians speaking and writing about God for the last 2,000 years were European men. Those who did not fit that description simply did not know how to relate to a tradition that claimed to speak for but did not reflect them.”

I would highly recommend that you give the article, linked above, a read. I am filled with excitement for this trend, if you couldn’t already tell. But first, I would like to show gratitude to the theological foremothers and forefathers who came before me, the crazy Zilpha Elaws, Julia J.A. Footes and James Cones, whose sharing of the Gospel have had a great impact on me theologically. The great news about this “new” black theology, Black Theology 2.0, is that theological resources from Early Christianity, and from the Antebellum South are read as equals. These acts in themselves are subversive, for they challenge our racist, sexist academic canons in theological studies that now exists as the hegemons that racial minority scholars have to face.

Two more important and encouraging signs about this theology is that #1, these black male writers are arguing how racism against blacks has its history intertwined with the histories of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism, as Frantz Fanon argued a long time ago. Secondly, the “new black theology” has begun to make Christian theology an essential resource for critical race theory in general. That is why, even though I really, really hate neologisms, I have some desire to tentatively call this new theology, to escape the black-white binary, Critical Race Theology. I am still working on it, so it is a work in progress.

For more information about what I am calling “CRITICAL RACE THEOLOGY”:

Visit J. Kameron Carter’s blog and read my review of his book: Race: A Theological Account

Read my review of, and read Willie Jennings’ The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race.

See also Brian Bantum’s blog, as well as from the evangelical perspective, Anthony Bradley’s site.

Network on FACEBOOK with theologians and religion scholars doing critical race theory:

Theology and Critical Race Theory

The Journal for Race, Ethnicity, and Religion

Society of Race, Ethnicity and Religion

You may also be interested in reading my Master of Theology Thesis, Beyond Liberated: Divine Transcendence and Cultural Hybridity in the Theologies of Clement of Alexandria and James Cone.

Related articles

• The Patristics And The Abolition of Slavery (politicaljesus.com)

Last year in December, Joel made note of the similarities between the Pastoral Letter of 1st Timothy and Plutarch.

As I was reading Plutarch’s Morals on Kindle myself, I noticed a few similarities between this 2nd century thinker’s viewpoint and the apostles. One difference I would maintain is that for Plutarch, his code of ethics is for males who were born of good birth.

Plutarch wrote his Morals because he believed that ethics was philosophy, and vice versa:

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 207-13 |

Philosophy, therefore, ought to be regarded as the most important branch of study. For as regards the cure of the body, men have found two branches, medicine and exercise: the former of which gives health, and the latter good condition of body; but philosophy is the only cure for the maladies and disorders of the soul. For with her as ruler and guide we can know what is honourable, what is disgraceful; what is just, what unjust; generally speaking, what is to be sought after, what to be avoided; how we ought to behave to the gods, to parents, to elders, to the laws, to foreigners, to rulers, to friends, to women, to children, to slaves: viz., that we ought to worship the gods, honour parents, reverence elders, obey the laws, submit ourselves to rulers, love our friends, be chaste in our relations with women, kind to our children, and not to treat our slaves badly”

The life of virtue is one of an on going nourishment:

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 1653-55 |

For just as nurses mould with their hands the child’s body, so tutors, receiving it immediately it is weaned, mould its soul, teaching it by habit the first vestiges of virtue.”

The language of teachers being serving as mothers, breastfeeding the soul is reminiscent of Clement of Alexandria’s views on the Church, giving breast milk to all of her little babies: CoA refers the nourishing Father who provides us with milk to drink, which is the teachings and sacrifice of Christ in Clement’s The Educator.

Plutarch continues,

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Note Loc. 269 |
I will next state something quite as important, indeed, if anything, even more important. That is, that life must be spent without luxury, the tongue must be 15under control, so must the temper and the hands.”

Do not these words ring with the Wisdom of the Letter to James:

“But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing. If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” James 1:25-27

The pure religion has a bridled tongue, solidarity with the poor, and a sanctified lifestyle to offer to the Father.

What I found to be most interesting is Plutarch’s take on wives submitting to husbands, or rather husbands not ruling over wives as complementarians would have us to understand the cultural context,

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 1365-67 |

But the husband ought to rule his wife, not as a master does a chattel, but as the soul governs the body, by sympathy and goodwill.”

Plutarch is not trying to appease egalitarians out of some dream of political correctness, as egalitarians like me are accused of. No, what he is saying is that there is an essential unity between man and woman in marriage, and so the overlordship that complementarian academic scholars like the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is not consistent with Greek philosophy of the 1st and 2nd centuries Common Era. My point is that Plutarch’s understanding of submission, although not perfect, or Christian, still come pretty close to what egalitarians have been arguing about men being the SOURCE of women (like Adam “birthing” Eve in Genesis)–Thanks Suzanne!

I have been wondering silently to myself what a Christian Plutarchian understanding of kephale would mean when Christians read 1st Corinthians. Maybe if we took consideration of the Incarnation, how the mystery of the Logos became one with the anatomy of a fetus inside the womb of a 2nd Century Jewish virgin. A soul governing the body? Sound familiar? Read the above paragraph again. Think about it.

Plutarch had a good grasp of what justice is; it is not vengeance or privatized judgements in favor of one person over the other. No, he had a social understanding of justice.

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Note Loc. 1736 |

For virtue, when it considers what it ought to do and what it ought not to do, is called prudence; and when it curbs passion, and sets a fit and proper limit to pleasure, it is called self-control; and when it is associated with our dealings and covenants with one another, it is called justice”

Justice cannot be understood without relationships with others, without covenants. Plutarch’s admonition for his audience (rich Greek males) to practice self-control rings odd in the ears of our hedonistic society today, where the rich get richer and more hedonistic (even when they do go to church) while the poor get poorer and the Republican lecturing circuit.

I will end this post with Plutarch’s political advice to those of us living in the United States today:

Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 327-28 |

Abstain from beans: that is, do not meddle in state affairs, for the voting for offices was formerly taken by beans.

Beans beans they are good for your heart, if you eat too many, they will make you fart. Don’t vote, folks, or you’ll get the runs!

Well, now there is another kick-ass character to add to the list: Mallory Kane.  Mallory Kane is played by MMA fighter Gina Carano in the movie Haywire.

Haywire is The Bourne Identity meets Ocean’s Eleven.  It has the feel of the 80’s action flicks of Jean-Claude Van Damme, in which the movie isn’t dependent on the star’s acting ability.  That being said, Gina does a pretty good job holding her own in the acting arena, and given a few more films, she will be pretty good.  (Remember that the trio from Harry Potter had no acting background before they got pegged for Philosopher’s Stone, and look at how they matured in their acting over the next seven films).

Move over JVC, Bruce Willis, and Jason Statham.  There is a new action hero on the scene.  But the question is, will audiences accept this 21^st century heroine?

Some people might be uncomfortable with the fight scenes because of their realism.

It is this realism that caught me off-guard during the first fight scene.  Fight scenes with characters like Buffy and Sydney are almost cartoonish.  But this was different.  You can tell that Carano does all her own fight scenes, and there is nothing flashy about them.  She is doing what she knows, grappling and striking, leg locks and arm bars.  All of which makes the fight scenes have a strong sense of realism about them. Compared to the cartoonish fighting of Alias and BtVS, Mallory is fighting ‘dirty’, and is not relying on stunt doubles, special effects, wire-fu, or highly stylized choreography.

Add to it that all the fight scenes are Mallory versus guys, and there may be some discomfort at the violence involving a woman, since we’re all taught that men aren’t supposed to hit a lady. But as Ewan MacGregor’s character says to Michael Fassbender’s character “Don’t think of her as a woman”, meaning that to do so will be to underestimate her.

To those who may feel uncomfortable, I would suggest that if that is the case, ask yourself, “Would I feel uncomfortable with this violence if it was done by a male action hero?”  or “Do I feel this uncomfortable when Buffy is wailing on the vampires?”

The other thing I appreciated about this movie and the Mallory Kane character is that the movie doesn’t make her into a sex object.  It would have been easy.  An action movie for a mostly male audience means that the movie can show skin and sex appeal or even sex itself.  This movie is discreet.  The romantic sex scene is all innuendo, with the scene cut after the kiss, and restarted the morning after.  As well, when Mallory has to go undercover in evening wear, she shows just how uncomfortable she is with it.  It is not her.  She is playing a part.  But more importantly, the evening wear isn’t skanky or revealing; it is classy and elegant.

From what I’ve seen, the movie is getting decent reviews.  I hope that means that we will see more of Mallory Kane/Gina Carano in the future.  At the very least, hopefully it shines a spotlight on the female MMA circuit. There are some very talented female athletes who compete and who don’t get nearly the coverage that the male-dominated UFC gets.

I am speaking out of my capacity as someone with Methodist and Wesleyan friends, as well as someone who agrees for the most part with Wesleyan theology. John Wesley would not approve of the prosperity anti-gospel, and the Word of BANK  Faith movement. I have already made my opposition known to Tither-Driven Churches; I would now like to use John Wesley himself as an example, especially in light of lame-line seminaries aligning themselves with heresy in order to make a cheap buck. It’s pretty unbelieveable that this same school United Seminary has a member on its board who would rather go on an anti-Catholic rant (he’s a Methodist pastor) rather than confronting heretics. Apostacy wins. Tradition loses.

There is a difference between Catholics and the Word of Bank Faith movement. Catholic priests preach the Gospel, the Good News God ordained for the poor, for the broken hearted, for the unborn, and for the elderly. The prosperity anti-gospel does the exact opposite; we cannot compare the two. Catholic clergy and laity affirm the content of the Gospel while the prosperity anti-gospel movement, they CHANGE the content of the gospel to its very antithesis.

This leads me to reflect on John Wesley’s sermon on 1st Timothy 6:9; now, 1st and 2nd Timothy are not just friendly pastoral letters telling us how we should run our “CHUCH”; no indeed, historically, Paul is confronting rich women who were trying to take over the life of the church by their wealth and power. Theologically reconsidered, Paul’s message to Timothy and his church matches Jesus’ priestly ministry, that God just does not have a heart for the poor, but that they are His very heart, His existence, and, as the song goes, He is the Defender of the Weak, a Comfort to those in need. Our love and solidarity for the poor do not take a backseat to ecclesiology or pastoral authority; rather it is the reverse.

John Wesley preached on thedangers of riches, and greed ruled his day like it does our: “How many thousands do we find at this day, in whom the ruling principle is, the desire to enlarge the pleasure of tasting! Perhaps they do not gratify this desire in a gross manner, so as to incur the imputation of intemperance; much less so as to violate health or impair their understanding by gluttony or drunkenness. But they live in a genteel, regular sensuality; in an elegant epicurism, which does not hurt the body, but only destroys the soul, keeping it at a distance from all true religion.” Of course when you believe in either a hedonistic god like John Piper who only works for His own good please, well, I guess it’s okay to affirm a capitalism where each works for his own good.

Philosophically, John Wesley was a contemporary, and a vocal opponent of the pagan philosopher economist Adam Smith. United Methodist theologian Joerg Rieger notes in his book, NO Rising Tide that it was faithful Christians like John Wesley who first confronted Smith and his unbiblical theories, not any “godless Marxists.” Justice must include covenant, and the New Covenant, just as the First Covenant, gives first priority to the widows, the orphans, the elderly,the exiled, and the unborn over those concerned with the here and now, the middle-class, and those who see themselves in “stable-homes.” This goes against the logic of “satan likes to see a poor preacher’; that’s just bad anti-gospel theology, and misses the whole point about Scripture’s message (and John Wesley’s view) about stewardship.

Are modern-day Protestant clergy here in Amerika superior to the apostles and disciples, that we don’t have to go through persecution, or fellowship with the disabled, or suffer through poverty, chosen or unchosen? I guess according to UTS and Copeland, they are. Maybe Protestants need to start learning from Catholics and start taking Vows of Poverty.

“I am impelled not to squeak like a grateful and frightened mouse but to roar….”

Juliette to Nick, “At least I know who you are.”

Well,  at first this episode fit the profile of the past seven episodes. Oh, btw, **SPOILER ALERT**  Someone gets murdered. The body gets dumped. Nick and Hank meet up with Sergeant Wu to examine the gruesome details of tonight’s mystery creature. Even Nick Burkhart takes a nonchalant attitude to this case, “Sounds like your basic bully.”

Then, all of a sudden, things started to get dark.  First, a person of interest, Marty Burgess claims that Natalie and her boyfriend (the victim we see in the first scene) Leonard Drake were having an argument, that Mr. Drake was a “terrible man” and “had a difficult life to turn out so mean.”  The second person of interest is a lawyer, Mason Snyder heavily involved in the lives of Natalie and Leonard.  Meanwhile, there were a couple of suspicious stalkers spying on Juliette.

Nick visits Monroe, who identifies Mason as a Lausenslange, or an evil snake dude, and Marty as a harmless Maushertz, or mouse guy. Grimm, unfortunately, has no files on a Maushertz because they really keep to themselves (except for their whole cartoon scam they got going). While they were talking, Eddie gets a phone call, a gig to fix a watch in Boston. Monroe is really excited, and has to leave Nick on his own for this case.

Later in the show, we see that a gang of big bad creatures gang up on Monroe for what the audience is left to assume, retaliation for aiding and abetting a Grimm) Monroe is beaten to a bloody pulp, and on his car, it is vandalized with his own blood, with a mysterious symbol- the Reaper that we saw in vaguely mentioned in the first three episodes or so.

Back in Portland, Grimm and Hank are closing in on Marty and Snyder as the primary suspects for Leonard’s murder. Marty warns Snyder to stay away from Natalie (Marty obviously has a crush on her), to which Mason responds, “You will never be anymore than what you already are. A little rodent with a little rodent’s life.”  Marty sees visions of his dad talking down to him and ends up kills Mason.

Marty and Natalie have dinner together, and Marty tells her of his plans to move, “We make our own truth. Don’t let anybody ever tell you what you can’t do.” Of course, Nick and Hank have caught on by now that their man is Marty, and get him in the end.

This episode had more story arc than the previous seven combined, and has given me a glimmer of hope. The final scene, Nick visits Eddie at his home.  Nick sees Monroe, bruised and battered, “Whew. What happened to you?” Monroe, “Funny you should ask. You happened to me.”

Monroe,”You start messing with the status quo, there are gonna be some people who are not necessarily sanguine about that.” Nick offers to not receive any more of Eddie’s help, and Monroe, in his own fashion “I’ve never been a status quo kinda guy.”

I’m glad to see the Reapers are back in the picture. I think we are just getting started folks.

Related articles

• Grimm: The Three Bad Wolves (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Variations on a Theme (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Danse Macabre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Game Ogre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Bears Will Be Bears (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Lonelyhearts (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Let Down Your Hair (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: BEEWARE (politicaljesus.com)

First, I blame Herman Cain, Mr. Pokemon himself:

Then, the President tried to earn his cool card back:

Now, Ole Mitt Romney thinks he can reach Joe Average Voter by singing such benign songs as “Happy Birthday.” See, he isn’t that much of a stiff!

Image via Wikipedia

I am still up in the air when it comes to the apostle Paul and his views on the enslavement of human beings in his letters.  It’s more ambiguous than what either side is telling us, that’s where I stand right now.  In the history of Christianity, just as ambiguous as Paul’s position, “THE CHURCH” has both defended slavery and revolted against it.

Slavery was a fact of life back then, no doubt, so to say something in protest of it would probably draw the ire of social elites as well as your everyday country bumpkin. Recently, Father Ernesto posted on how he learned about the early Eastern Orthodox father’s stance on human bondage with Gregory of Nazianzus, Eustathios of Sebasteia, and later thinkers like Theodore the Studite .

I would highly recommend that Father Ernesto also read Race: A Theology Account by J. Kameron Carter. Carter takes themes in Eastern Orthodox theology and turns them into a cases against racism, while exploring the history of racism in theological studies.

Related articles

• Zilpha Elaw: 19th Century Inerrantist for Abolition and Women’s Ordination (politicaljesus.com)

Cowboys and Aliens.

Cowboys and Aliens was a film recommended to me by some kids at school. I had high time decided it was time to RedBox a film I had meant to see in theaters. In the spirit of Joss Whedon’s Firefly/Serenity, Cowboys And Aliens was a science fiction work set in the Western Frontier, and apparently, word has it from friends on Facebook (they know who they are) it was a politically subversive graphic novel by Fred Van Lente. Similarities to Firefly include: a dead preacher, a prostitute with a heart of gold, a wimpy doctor who can’t fight if his life depended on it, and a femme fatale with paranormal abilities. Oh, yes, and hideous creatures that threaten the existence of humans, minus Firefly’s cannibalism. And that’s about it.

I think that Julie Clawson had it right in her review: the film remains unable to get past negative stereotypes of First Nations people. In fact, it is the slaughtering of Indians that give several characters status. At the beginning of the movies, as poor rancher Roy was bashing his boss, the Colonel, he says, “I don’t care how many Indians the Colonel put under neither.” Later, the Colonel to his Indian worker, “You get it through your thick Indian skull. Those stories weren’t for you.”The more Indian scalps you earn, the more larger than life you are in the Old West. This was exactly the case, as the Colonel and his son Percy have their way with the town. Their violent bullying not only represents hostility towards Native Americans (and our U.S.American history thereof), but also shows a lack of notion for an ethic of hospitality. Cowboys And Aliens promotes White male vigilante justice versus the dark Stranger. Before the last stand scene, Black Knife (the Apache leader) argued with Colonel, which leads Colonel to say, “There’s no reasoning with them [the Apaches].” The disagreement centered around Natives’ belief that the whites had brought the monsters. On the other hand, Colonel says that Black Knife, Apache leader IS the Evil One. Of course, we can’t accuse our beloved Newt Gingrich Colonel a racist, because he has a token Native friend, Nat Colorado, who vouches for him in the end, convincing the Apaches and members of the other tribes follow the Colonel’s military strategy by telling them of the Colonel’s kindness imperial paternalism.

Let me suggest that the community’s reception of the Apaches as well as Jake Lonergan and his gang is symptomatic of their individualistic religious sensibilities. As the aliens are invading, the preacher suspects it was demons; “a bunch of Bible stuff,” in the words of Doc. Doc continues to receive advice from the Preacher, who says that he needs to get a gun and learn how to shoot it (read: adopt rugged individualism and violence as a way of life). While “Reverend” Meacham is teaching Doc to shoot, he says that Doc has to earn God’s presence, recognize it, then act on it (by doing good). Grace is eliminated from the equation. What “Reverend” Meacham says is simply not true, from a Christian perspective. God freely sends God’s presence where God chooses. It is not by our actions that the Triune God is with us, but in the mission of the Incarnate Son and in the sending of the Holy Spirit. Meacham’s worldview reads more like an Enlightenment Deist, which went hand in hand with U.S. American rugged individualism. It is this Enlightment religion that advances a closed notion of the self, where the self works to over come the Other, and closes itself off from Others, to have life, liberty and the pursuit of property, ala John Locke. It is little wonder that an ethic of hospitality and openness is missing in this movie, and in communities that still adhere to such a view.

“Reverend” Meacham’s last words to Jake Lonergan, our protagonist, “God don’t care who you were, son. Only who you are.”

HOW CONVENIENT INDEED!

*Although I was highly critical and ripped this movie’s representation of First Nations peoples a new one, it was highly enjoyable, and I would recommend it, with a few qualifiers.

You can see the entire list here: List of Supporters: SOPA

Nichelle Nichols Met Martin Luther King, Jr. from: the Mary Sue.com

Related articles

• Leave it to Dallas to dishonor #MLKDay (politicaljesus.com)

Let’s go over a few tropes in Grimm so far: There’s a murder at the very beginning of the episode by a creature. Officer Wu is first on the scene. Hank and Nick investigate. Creature sends a message, murders someone else. Nick talks to Monroe. Monroe begrudgingly helps a Grimm. Monroe saves the day. Renard the police chief still behaves suspiciously. The end.

That’s basically how this episode went down once more. Only difference is, we learn a little more about Hank Griffin, how he has a history of being a corrupt police officer. In fact, it was his illegal actions that lead to the 300 year prison sentence of Stark, this week’s baddie, Siegbarste, an Ogre. Stark escapes from jail, murders the Jury Foreman, the Judge who sentenced him, and DA prosecuted him. Hank arrested him, so he is the target. Renard tells Hank to go into protective custody; later on in the episode, Renard and Wu convince Hank to meet with Stark alone in an alley as they nod to each other. Are Renard and Wu plotting against Hank as well? Will the writers reveal the nature of our villains instead of keeping them a secret?

Nick goes back to the trailer to see what his aunt had in it about Ogres. Ogre  guy attacks Nick in his house. Ogre recognizes Nick as a Grimm. Are Grimms creatures? What form does a Grimm take? Juliette saves Nick’s life, and instead of running, she threw scalding water on Stark. Nick lands in the hospital with 3 bruised rib and a mild concussion.

Monroe the Blutbad is called upon (AGAIN- he should just have his own show). Nick is told by Eddie, about Ogres, “These guys carry grudges to the grave. And usually it’s your grave.” Nick sends Monroe to get the poison that can kill Ogres. Eddie sees Marie’s trailer [and really, this should have been a more dramatic moment than it was-- a Blutbat, with the files and histories and weapons of the Grimms].

It seems to me the writers are worried about getting the audience sucked into the story world and introducing a new creature each episode, with no relation to the other. They had the world established after the first two episodes. It’s time to reveal something new about the characters, and their relationship to each other. Grimm is doing just enough to keep me interested. Just enough.

Related articles

• Grimm: Lonelyhearts (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Danse Macabre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Bears Will Be Bears (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: The Three Bad Wolves (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Variations on a Theme (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: BEEWARE (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm’s bloodiest episode ever is still bloody boring [Tv Recap] (io9.com)
• Grimm: Let Down Your Hair (politicaljesus.com)

“Just a note Joel, I would not press this “trash” that Rod has put up, again this is simply not Christian, and now my wife has seen it, and she will simply go liable, is this is continued! I could care less myself, but then I don’t speak or live by myself. Lets just say she has legal experience. And beware of a woman’s wrath!

*A word, saying I am sorry works wonders with my dear wife. She is Irish, and she is very upset!”

Without further ado,

An Apology to Commenter Tom Finland AkA Father Robert.

NSFW

PICTURE FOUND ON TWITTER.

Wise Ultra Lounge, you guys are an embarassment. That’s all I can say right now.

I can think 0f some many other heroes more deserving than Green Arrow. But hey, if he was popular on Smallville, maybe it could be a good spin-off. Would love to see Chloe Sullivan too. Just imagine all of the liberal-progressive propaganda monologues that will happen in each episode.

This, and the possibility of Booster Gold on Syfy can make 2012 even more excited for geeks everywhere, as long as the networks make sure that these programs do not air at the same time (like Grimm and Supernatural on Fridays).

For more, visit K-Site: Green Arrow Possibly Coming To The CW In Arrow.

Related articles

• GREEN ARROW TV Series Coming to The CW (geektyrant.com)

“I am the Callileache–the Gatekeeper to the spirit world. You have torn the veil between the worlds.” [...] “Tearing the veil between the two worlds has created a new world.”- The Callieleache to Lady Morgana, MERLIN ‘The Darkest Hour, Part 1′

And then consider:

“And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.”- Mark 15:38

“We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.”- Hebrews 6:19-20

Last year, about this time, I posted on Merlin, MLK, and JFK. In last Friday’s season 4 premiere of Merlin, Morgana’s quest for vengeance has reached a climax. Through the first 2 season, we saw Uther trying to suppress magic and the supernatural, executing wizards and warlocks who violated his decree. After a failed coup, Morgana and her half-sister Morgause are introduced to us as exiles in “The Darkest Hour, part 1.” Morgause’s face is disfigured, and we are not told why she expresses like she has experienced a fatal wound. All we know is from season 3 finale, The Coming of Arthur, Merlin badly wounded her. Morgana goes through the struggle of not wanting to sacrifice her sister, if its the choice of vengeance against Uther or her sister’s life, with it’s a difficult one for Morgana. Morgana choose to sacrifice her sister, and castes a spell that tears the veil between the realm of the dead and magic, and the world of the living.

Throughout this episode, we hear the screeching of the Dorocha (the souls of the dead), and I was truly creeped out. I am not really into the horror film genre, but the ghosts in Merlin’s season premiere sent chills up my spine for some reason. The words of the Callileache reminded me of the description that Mark the evangelist wrote in his gospel, about the curtains in the Second Temple tearing as Christ is dying. I would say that the Messiah’s victory in obedience paved the way for the opening of the covenant and direct access to fellowship with YHWH. What believing in a personal God means in terms of politics is a different matter. There is a vocal group of Christians who believe that the existence of a personal deity demands the establishment of a Christian domination system in His Name. On the other end of the spectrum (isn’t there always), there are religious folk who criticize these “dominionists” while in some form or another, affirming an impersonal divinity, a process or force in the universe.

There’s no denying the deep ties between the legend of King Arthur and the civil religious establishment in Great Britain. The myth of Arthur is traditionally understood as King David Redivivus in British and Gaelic garb. Coincidentally, in the Hebrew Bible, King David’s son Solomon is seen as the one responsible for the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, but it is David who gathered the materials. The story of David, like many narratives of the monarchs of the Ancient Near East, puts to question our assumptions about the “separation of church and state” as well as the role of the government.

Read, for example the history of Babylonian temples and religion, and then the oracles of Ezekiel. In the Mesopotamia, emperor’s counted on what were called kalus, or chief-priests to dedicate the temples. The destruction of the temple literally meant that the boundaries between the sacred and profane had been blurred and therefore the difference between human and divine had become lost. In order to reconstruct the temple, the emperor had to choose a kalu priest to preside over the purification process. The sacred society of Camelot is falling apart in Merlin, all is in chaos, just as ancient Judah was. Why? Because Morgana sacrificed her priestess half-sister to make the supernatural and the natural intermixed when Uther had worked so hard to keep these things at a safe distance.

We like to think of the relationship between religion and politics are simple. We could go the Dominionist route, and control god, use His name to lift up our systems and our majorities. Or, we could join some progressives, deny any personality to the divine at all, and try to keep religion at a safe distance in the name of “tolerance.” I think both groups have problematic ideas as they relate to church-state relations, even though I affirm a personal God and still come out as a church-state separationist. I am still working this all out, however.

For more on Ezekiel as the kalu of YHWH, check out:

Launderville, Dale F.. Spirit and Reason: The Embodied Character of Ezekiel’s Symbolic Thinking Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007

For months now, the Bibliobloggers’ own conspirator-in-chief, Joel Whats-His-Name? has sounded the liberal alarm about right-wing dominionists like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.

I have been wondering how their plan for world domination, to bring revival to this country, and restore America’s glory has been going for them.

In the New Hampshire primary, Perry received less than 1% of the vote (.7%) while Michele Bachmann has dropped out of the race.

Fred Thompson, anyone? Anyone?

Related articles

• Dominionists’ Problem with Christus Victor Atonement (politicaljesus.com)
• New Hampshire Primary Results: Live Updates (huffingtonpost.com)
• Ephesians 6 & Dominionists’ Emotional Appeals Defending Slavery #VV11 (politicaljesus.com)

Consider this post along the lines of my post from yesterday on The Acts of the Trinity. As a Baptist from childhood, we have it programmed into our hard-drive that the Letters to Timothy and Titus are the lone authority in determining Baptist ecclesiology, the structure of our churches, and the nature of who our male pastor should look like. If I could set apart the gender issue for a second (because, if you may be well aware I reject the exclusion of women from pulpits), I would like to consider what happens when we put these letters (Scripture) in a closed box, and claim to have the final interpretation on these texts.

Jesus the Messiah is said to be the center of many Christians’ biblical interpretation, yes? If His life, death, and resurrection is the very content of the Gospel, and the Gospel is what the New Testament authors are all about, then would it not be suffice to say that the Pastoral Letters ARE NOT all about us, and how we handle our affairs? The other possible option would be to reject the Letter of Timothy all together, with verses like 1st Timothy 2:12 that have been used to silence women, and 1st Timothy 6:1-2 where human enslavement remains uncontested. As a Christian trying to live faithfully, I remain very skeptical of both of our alternatives here: either the love it and shove it position or just scrapping it does not work for me for a few reasons.

Bible scholar and Liberation theologian Elsa Tamez argues that if we reject 1st Timothy, “it becomes impossible to consider important and interesting aspects of this letter: it’s proclamation of universal salvation (4:10); its critique of riches and wealth (6:17-19); its reference to wealthy women (2:9); and especially its identification of the desire for money as a root of all evils (6:9)” (Global Bible Commentary, page 509). Tamez argues that the author of 1st Timothy is rejecting the Graeco-Roman patronage system, which favored the rich over the poor, within the church. The women “Paul” targets in 1st Timothy 2 may have been well to do women who could afford jewelry and get their hair-braided (2:2). I had to pause after reading this possible take on 1st Timothy 2, because for a few years I have heard egalitarians claim that these women may have been teachers of gnosticism, as if that was the only possibility. Of course, avoiding class considerations would distract us from discussing Timothy as a letter all about us, us us, the church church church rather than Christ, the Son of YHWH, the God of the Widows and Orphans.

If indeed all of Scripture is God-breathed (2nd Timothy 3:16), who does this God desire to give life, and how? Would that not be a more appropriate and concrete question (rather than keeping on with the abstract debate over inerrancy)? I submit that the teaching of the letters to Timothy have less and less to do with our ego-centric apologies for the our demoninations’ existences and have much more to do with who and how God has chosen the poor, elderly widows over the rich, young ones (1st Timothy 5:5-6;9).

The Election of the Poor is not by anything that they have done by their own means; it is only through the “one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all.” (1st Timothy 2:5)

AT THE INTERSECTION OF CULTURAL INTERPRETATION AND THEOLOGICAL EXEGESIS

We have all probably sat either in a classroom or church, and hear the teacher or preacher, so smoothly announce that she believes that the Acts of the Apostles should be renamed the Acts of the Holy Spirit. This is a good observation that has quite frankly worn itself out. Of course, I maintain my continuationism, but a focus on pneumatology in Acts causes exegetes and honest Christians to skip Acts 1 and start with Acts 2. I say that if a person begins with Acts 1, she could find a emphasis more on all three persons of the Godhead and their relations to each other. The Risen Christ maintains the Trinitarian distiction between himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit while acknowledging their equality. Jesus informs the 11 apostles and company that the Father alone knows the time that Israel will be restored (Luke 10:22; Acts 1:7) and to wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit that the Father had promised to send in Jesus’ name (Acts 1:4; John 14:16).

Theologically, the mission of the Trinity is important in sending the apostles; the sending of the Son and the Spirit corresponds with the sending of the apostles from Jerusalem and Judah and into the world. In terms of occupying space within the universe, and within the canon itself, one could understand the immanent Trinity to be hidden within the witness of the prophets of Israel and the economic Trinity and its life unfolding (and connected to the mission to the Gentiles) as we see in the pages of the New Testament. This approach, I believe, gives me sufficient reason to avoid so called “Christo-centric” readings of the “Old” Testament, where everything is allegory while the history of the Jewish people is superseded. The Trinity remains the same deity throughout Scripture, just one remains primarily hidden, the other primarily disclosed. At the heart of this possible Trinitarian hermeneutic is an emphasis on the difference between the Economic and Immanent Trinity, something that needs to be maintained contra Karl Rahner and certain conservative evangelical theologians who agree with him.

Now, one space where theological interpretation meets the cultural appropriation of the Acts of the Trinity (the Incarnation) is African American Christian traditions. In early colonial America, Quakers, Baptists and Methodists who were abolitionists tried to teach free blacks Christianity with passages such as Acts 10:34-36–”God is no respecter of persons” and Acts 17:36–”he hath made of one blood all the nations of men [and women].” It was these same passages that [one time] Calvinist 18th century black preacher Lemuel Haynes refuted “the great” Jonathan Edwards’ claims that it was God’s will for blacks to be enslaved. Demetrius K. Williams in his contribution to True To Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary, notes that 19th century preachers such as Bishop Reverdy Ransom found their goals for social justice for the Negro Church from the Acts of The Trinity (page 216). The stories such as the Ethiopian Eunuch (8:26-40) to the Jerusalem Conference (13-14:28) show that there is a movement from the inner life of God to the economic workings of the Trinity to bring the Good News to all of the world. Because of the essential unity of YHWH and the Messiah (the Incarnation, both God and Humanity), the theological can indeed be reconciled with the cultural, without these being mutually exclusive as we have now in biblical studies.

*Edit*: suffice has been changed to sufficient. Thanks for the correction, Joel!

In my world,  Senator David Palmer became the first black president. That’s my story, and I am sticking to it. It’s been a while since I last posted on the series finale of 24. I have some great news: the filming of 24 the movie has started. I am hoping for 6 (4) hour movies to actually to 24 hours. That would be awesome. Check it out:

Jack Bauer is on his way to the big screen.

Related articles

• 24 Movie – Kiefer Sutherland Gives an Update (geektyrant.com)

I found a site that is collecting calls for papers at one location, in the areas of religion and/or philosophy. If you know of a conference that needs paper presenters, please submit to:

Religion and Philosophy Call for Papers

Now, it looks like Keith Olbermann is on his way out at Current TV.

Honestly, I don’t like either creep. I vehemently disagree with most of what they say, and they are both angry bigots who should not have a stage.

You’re welcome.

Related articles

• Keith Olbermann Back On Current TV, But Will It Last? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Pat Buchanan May Be Done At MSNBC: Phil Griffin (huffingtonpost.com)

May I ask you a question? Do you know of any lazy Negroes? Apparently, the Republican Party knows a lot of lazy black people. These people are a hott topic on the campaign trail nowadays. How about Iowa Caucus surprise runner-up Rick Santorum:

“He added: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
“And provide for themselves and their families,” Santorum added, to applause. “The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling again.”

I side completely with Chauncey DeVega on this one:

“First, poverty in America is racialized. The image in the public imagination is of black welfare queens, or illegal aliens birthing “anchor babies” who live off of the government tit, profiting from food stamps and the generosity of the American people. The white poor rarely, if ever, enter the picture. Second, black people are parasites of white people (Santorum’s “someone” else). Here it is implied that black people are also “lazy,” and a dependent class, unable to take care of their families except for the generosity and benevolence of white people.”

Black means poor and lazy and bodily and sexual promiscuous and angry and emotional; white continues to mean pure and virginal and virtuous and hard-working and American and middle-class. It does not matter if historically whites have benefitted from social welfare programs–remember that Social Security was established during legal segregation, and the tax dollars of African Americans were used to pay for the retirement funds for many of their racist oppressors. Who’s the racist? Who’s doing the class warfare? It’s the rich, the privileged, the status quo, that’s who!

If indeed politics is about the creation of imagined communities, as DeVega correctly argues in Iowa and Beyond: for the Tea Party GOP the road is paved by lazy blacks, then the racial imagination is quite essential to politics, particularly to conservative white folk who claim not to see color. The Tea Party and the Rest of the GOP may as well just join the movie, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, “Be Our Guest!”

No matter the contributions by people of color, the message will always be the same: you still owe us whites, therefore, shut up and mop our floors. Right,Newt Gingrich? Even sadly, Ron Paul’s racist rants against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes to show just how perverted the racial imagination of many conservatives are. Now, honestly, I think that liberals and conservatives can be equally racist; political ideology is not the point. My point is that the practices within the conservative movement, the pointing to the poor racial minority as lazy, require a particular racial imagination that is unhealthy; in a word–

RACIST.

Related articles

• Santorum: ‘I Don’t Want To Make Black People’s Lives Better’ Through Welfare (huffingtonpost.com)
• Marc Morial, Urban League president: Santorum ‘black welfare’ comment is ‘racist pandering’ (thegrio.com)

Hilarious. I love when drama plays out this way, just those awkward moments in our infamous legal system.

Hats off to The Washington Times.

Also, I will give a review with as few spoilers as possible of The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.

I also have an interpretation of Octavia Butler’s KINDRED that may feature some aspects of Womanist biblical interpretation.

Outside of science fiction and theology, since this is a Biblioblog, I plan on going through The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora. I do plan on completing my Liberating the Future of Seminary series sometime this month. Research is holding me back.

Readers: I was wondering if there is any topic as it relates to biblical or theological studies that you would be interested in reading? Any book from the Bible? chapter Topic? Name it, and I will give heavy consideration (I promise) to blogging on it. Let me know your thoughts. I am open to suggestions.

Best finish? 2nd place, Whedony Warriors dueled it out until the end. We lost by a few points, even though I started Drew Brees, his Monday night performance last week would not be enough. A Yahoo League.

Also, I came in 3rd place in 2 other leagues: D-Warehouse 13 (DeMarcus Ware+ Warehouse 13, get it?) and the vaunted SyFy Empire. DW13 coulda been in the championship game had I started Steven Jackson over Jackie Battle. Sigh. What coulda been.

I wound up in 4th place in one ESPN League. So close, but just indecisiveness, benching Matt Hasselback and Julio Jones cost me and my team, iGLAD.

Lastly, I ended up in 7th place in the other ESPN league and my team, Your Mom is a Cylon.

It was a good season overall. I need to learn to trust my instincts, especially when it comes to picking defenses. One week, I would pick a defense, surmising they would explode after weeks of being horrific (part of my hunching abilities), and they would actually score 2 tds the following week. Happened 2 weeks in a row during the FFL playoffs, first with Jacksonville Jaguars, then the Buffalo Bills. I just need to go with my own instincts and ignore Yahoo’s and ESPN’s projections. Not trustworthy at all.

Also, Amanda Mac will be hosting the Carnival in February. May the Odds be ever in her favor.

And yes, I can confirm, the rumors are true. On that great month ordained by Caesar Augustus, the Eighth month of the Calendar Year, and what happens to be the best month where only the greatest people are born, I will be hosting the Biblical Studies Carnival on here at Political Jesus in AUGUST 2012.

A Response to Roger Olson‘s Some Thoughts About Christian Feminism

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet several theologians, including Rosemary Ruether, at a small gathering of liberation theologians. One of the most awkward moments at the event while I was there was when I accidently bumped into Ruether in line for breakfast, and her coffee spilled on her shoes. To say the least, a lot of fears were running through my mind, “Would she think that I did it on purpose because I am male? Will I be called a sexist?” It was an extremely awkward moment, and I just didn’t know what to think, fumbling and mumbling in the presence of a great thinker. Fortunately, she said nothing, we gather some napkins, and cleaned up my mess. Recently, on the blogosphere, I have read some rather awkward posts on gender, particularly from egalitarians and their hang ups with feminism.

First of all, I appreciate Roger Olson’s honest and open thoughts on Christianity and feminism. However, that being said, I disagree with the portrayal of Christian feminist theologians, especially Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Rosemary Ruether, and Elizabeth Johnson, S.J. Olson does not deny the existence of sexism and its power in society, just the way that these theologians approach it. While Olson has personally interacted with “Ruether, [the late Letty] Russell and/or [Susan] Thistlethwaite and [...]Johnson, he has qualms about their “gender feminist perspective” as it pertains to “with regard to language about God, the nature of the Bible and Christian tradition (i.e., basic orthodoxy), and contemporary worship.”

Notice something that Olson leaves out; the tradition that Ruether and Johnson come from is Catholicism. What is deemed orthodox from Olson’s perspective is going to differ from what Ruether’s and Johnson’s religious peers are going to say is orthodox. Take for example, Olson’s critique of feminist theology:

“First, it is not clear to me at all that there original revelation (e.g., scripture) is normative. It seems to me that something called “women’s experience” and “feminist consciousness” is elevated to that level. The result is that “anything goes” so long as it is liberating and culturally relevant (i.e., speaks to and promotes the feminist political agenda). ”

If I am not mistaken, is not Sola Scriptura a Protestant doctrine? So why should we expect feminist theologians who are professing Catholics, to accept this view? It seems to be something that Olson has overlooked. I am not a Catholic myself, I am just trying to state the obvious differences in the starting points for theology of evangelicalism and Catholicism. At no point in the U.S. Bishops Report on Elizabeth Johnson’s work, Quest for the Living God, did they question her for not being biblical enough. It was a debate about whether Johnson’s text was consistent with Catholic tradition.

Olson goes on to accuse feminist Christian theologians of denying divine power in the Death of Christ; Feminists “do not think his crucifixion was a divine act. Instead it was a martyrdom that unmasks the evil of patriarchy. The cross and redemption theology in general tends to take a back seat (if not in the trunk!) to creation and re-creation theology. In this I find it often less distinctively Christian than pagan.”

Any serious reader of Christian feminist theology would not make this accusation, at least of mainstream feminist theology. God’s divinity is not found in forcing HIS SON to die a gory and bloody death; God, rather, manifests God’s power in suffering love, identifying with the victims of history, and then in turn, rebuking all forms of violence in the Resurrection.

Unfortunately, Roger Olson does go on to commit a “Hitlerum Ad Reductio”; painting feminists as Nazis, which is so easy to do on the Interwebs. And I quote:

“Revising imagery of God to suit our own needs (one feminist theologian said she needs a “God who looks like” her) seems dangerous to me. Pretty soon we leave biblical imagery of God behind and use imagery we have invented for our own purposes. As Donald Bloesch used to point out, this is exactly what the so-called “German Christians” did in the 1930s. (I am NOT comparing feminism with Naziism! I am pointing out a danger in moving away from biblical imagery in favor of culturally preferred “relevant” imagery. Where does it stop? What limits it?)”

Why bring up Nazi Germany in the first place but to push the old old label of Feminazis? This was a rather unfortunate occurrence, and I do hope Olson resists using this fallacy.

Olson’s case against inclusive language sounds more like men who play victim since they accuse feminists of being aggressors. This post, reflects, I fear, what Hugo Schwyzer rightly diagnosed about much of men’s anti-feminism:

“All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive, wrathful, “man-bashers.” The painful thing about all this, of course, is that no man is in any real physical danger on the internet— or even in real life — from feminists. Women are regularly beaten and raped — even on college campuses — but I know of no instance where a man found himself a victim of violence for making a sexist remark in a feminist setting! “Male-bashing” doesn’t literally happen, in other words, at least not as a result of arguments over feminism. But that doesn’t stop men from using (in jest or no) their own exaggerated fear of physical violence to make a subtle point about feminists.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Related articles

• “The Johnson Case”: How Do We Receive Revelation? (womenintheology.org)

Here is the description:

“Nuestro vino de plátano, y si es agrio, es nuestro vino.” – José Martí
(Let us make our wine out of plantains, and if it comes out sour, it is still our wine)

“Although a space has been carved out for scholars of color, the scholarship taking place within that space continues to be ignored; and because there are numerous sessions and groups during Academic conferences – so many of our sessions are forced to conflict with each other, seldom providing the opportunity for scholars of color to cross-pollinate. We must ask if we inadvertently constructed impressive exclusive cul-de-sacs from which to master our particular disciplines. Like a four-leaf clover, our separate cul-de-sacs operate side-by-side with few of us ever venturing into the adjoining communities. Solidarity may occur from time to time, but it usually happens with little intellectual engagement. If we rile against most Euroamericans for not engaging our scholarship, then in all honesty, we must also hold ourselves accountable, for few of us, in our numerous books and articles, actually quote or dialogue with other communities of color.
Many of us are content to remain within our own academic niche. Others, because of the numerous sessions at academic conferences, are unable to ever visit the neighboring cul-de-sac. More disturbing is when scholars of color are oblivious to how they and their communities are locked into structures that cause oppression to other communities of color. Where do we explore how our separate marginalized communities remain complicit with disenfranchising other groups, whether those groups are marginalized due to darker skin pigmentation, language, gender, sexual orientation, economic class or different religious traditions?
To this end, we (Stacey Floyd-Thomas, Anthony Pinn, Miguel A. De La Torre) propose creating The Society of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion (SRER). The purpose of this multi-discipline Society is to create a space where communities of color can gather to discuss among themselves so as to advance their scholarship though the power of synergism – a space where we can engage, learn, and be challenged from communities of color other than our own. Please note we are not the leaders of the Society, just coordinating the first meeting. At our first meeting we hope a leadership council is established representing a male and female representative from each community of color
WHEN: April 26-28, 2013 (tentatively)
WHERE: Chicago (tentatively)
WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU
1) Forward this email to scholars of color you believe would be interested
2) Become a member of SRER by sending a $100 membership check to:
Society of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion
c/o Miguel A. De La Torre
Iliff School of Theology
2201 University Blvd
Denver, CO 80210
Send the check my March 15, 2012 so that you can be listed as a Founding Member of the Society; and we can have a head count so that when we travel to Chicago in late March 2012, we know how many people are really interested and can make appropriate reservations for accommodations. Include with your check a) Your name, b) Institution, c) Email, d) Phone numbers, and e) if you plan to attend the first meeting
3) Get involved, we need people who have legal experience that can incorporate us; have CPA experience who can file our 501(c)3; have grant writing experience who can help find monies for getting the Society off the ground and provide scholarship for students to attend; and can help us set up a webpage/blog where members can discuss and help plan that first meeting.
4) When we have our first conference, space would be created to organize ourselves more efficiently. Meanwhile, our first task is to discover how many colleagues of color are truly interested (measured by membership) and then, actually meet.”

I just wanted to inform my new followers and subscribers about the series. On Amazon, there has only been 2 reviews so far, the second one coming after I was informed of a review that was more of a personal attack versus McGrath. Criticism is always acceptable, but never personal attacks.

Overall, the volume should be seen as an excellent addition to the emerging discipline of reading science fiction texts/films and religious texts together.

If you do take up my recommendation to read Religion and Science Fiction, please review it on Amazon, without the personal attacks, please.

Related articles

• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 4 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction: Introduction (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction: Chapter 1 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction: Chapter 3 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 5 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 8 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 7 (politicaljesus.com)
• In Life and in Science Fiction, Allegory Is Everything: A Response to James McGrath (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)

So last year Rod did his predictions for 2011.  He’ll probably have predictions for 2012.  I thought I would offer my own predictions.

Warning: I do not claim to have the gift of prophecy, or specific predictions creds.  I’m just a person who reads a lot and has a penchant for snarky commentary (thank you Fark.com)

Entertainment:

Grimm will be canceled (sorry Rod).  The writers will fail to develop the ‘hero’ and the only intriguing character will be Eddie Monroe.  The show will be put on hiatus, canceled, and then redeveloped as Blutbad with a Heart.

The Avengers will be a huge success, catapulting Whedon to stardom, and networks will give him free reign to do a long-term series (just not on Fox).

Technology:

RIM will go bankrupt.  Bye-bye Blackberry brand.

Apple will release it’s first major product post-Jobs, and it will be wildly successful, proving that Apple was more than one person’s genius.

Politics:

Increase in third party votes in US election.  Obama will still win because the Republicans won’t get their act together.

Ontario’s minority government will not survive beyond the summer.  Ontarians will go back to the polls in the fall.

Evangelicalism:

The gender wars will hit a fevered pitch this fall with the release of Rachel Held Evan’s book on biblical womanhood.  Egalitarians will be called heretical and unbiblical.  There will be no ‘dialogue’ but rather those on the comp side will dig in their heels, and those on the egal side will dig in their heels.

Rod has called Patheos the Borg.  Patheos will swallow up several religion blogs, become as generic as belief.net and several prominent bloggers will jump ship to become independent bloggers.  They will the “Hugh”s, disconnected from the collective and able to find their own voice.

POLITICS (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE MAYAN CALENDAR)

#1: The world will end in 2012. Just not in December. The Apocalypse will happen on Election Day 2012, Tuesday, November 6th. On that day, both the Tea Party and Democrats will experience misery as they never have before. The Mainstream Media will continue it’s uncritical praise of President Obama, and it will cost them in the short future.

#2: The GOP will take back the Senate, by a small majority, perhaps 2-3 seats.

#3: The GOP will continue to make gains on the state level, taking more state legislatures.

#4: Because of the corporate driven nature of national electoral politics, Occupy Wall Street will take a step back. The MSM will become even more close minded in order to shut up the opposition.

#5: What will happen to the Tea Party? See #4.

#6: Unfortunately, education reform will continue to grow as a movement. More states and cities will adopt voucher programs, charter schools, standardized testing as well as harder lines versus teacher unions.

#7: The economy will get slightly better, because of the census, as well as the extension on the payroll tax cut that will happen AFTER February.

#8: The War on Immigrants will get to the back of the bus. Serious study into the issue will tell people what we already know about xenophobia and laws already on the books: it’s the Federal government’s job, plain and simple.

#9: The march towards the U.S.A. having a valid Third party will happen by summer/late fall of next year. There will be a lot of discontent no matter the outcome of the Presidential election.

#10: Don’t throw stones at me for this one. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will make a comeback.

#11: Because of the rise of Newt Gingrich (dear gods!), Hillary Clinton will also make a comeback in terms of prominence, especially since this is her last year in President Obama’s administration. She’ll either return to politics, or to her origin, doing children’s/education advocacy. Can I have all of the above?

RELIGION

#1: Due to the back lash of Lowe’s having ads during All American Muslim, there shall be an all out blitz by cable news networks and the MSM to show positive portraits of Muslims (as if that shouldn’t already have been happening?), but none of these entities will deal with the historic prejudices of empire and Orientalism, or Occidentalism for that matter.

#2: New Age spirituality in North America will go out of style. It reached its peak with the movie Eat Pray Love and Deepak Chopra, and now it will go the way of Transcendentalism and the USSR. Of course, something has to take it’s place.

#3: New Age spiritualists will instead opt to take sides, whether it’s Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, agnosticism, atheism, what have you

#4: In Christianity, two mainline denominations will split over the issue of LGBTQ ordination. Perhaps a third will more closer in that direction. When it comes to marriage and ordination, both sides will become, if not already firmly entrenched, and more interdenominational debates will start to happen between the parties.

#5: Without Christopher Hitchens, the New Atheists will find new voices to represent their cause.

#6: John Piper and Mark Driscoll will write another 15 books.

#7: The Emergent/Emerging church will finally be declared kibbutz! Farewell! Wait, has that already happened?

POP CULTURE

#1: Science Fiction and Nerd Culture will make even greater strides in taking over this country. Yah, we’re taking our country back! Comic movies will make a huge splash.

#2: Twilight and True Blood will experience their last gasps. The new T.V. show on Syfy, Lost Girl, as well as the second season of Being Human (USA) will move us from the dark ages of the vampire genre and into the light. Game of Thrones will continue to impress everyone but me.

#3: In music, Justin Bieber will record another 5 albums. Coincidently, he’ll try his hand at reggae as well.

#4: The media will hype the comeback of Chris Brown and everyone will sip the kool-aid but me.

#5: The cartoon, The Boondocks will comeback with a bang, taking aim at Herman Cain, the Tea Party, and glory to goodness, Tyler Perry once more. Aaron McGruder will take his rightful place among the black intellectual elite. Just as soon as he joins twitter and/or facebook.

#6: Marginalized racial minorities in Hollywood will get mad, and will start talking about what to do about their exclusion, without actually doing anything. But talking is a start, right?

SPORTS

#1: Because of they are playing fewer games, the USA men’s basketball should win the Gold Medal due to the NBA’s shortened season. Common sense would tell you that the NBA season should be shortened during an Olympic year anyway, from 82 to 50 games. Congress should do something about that. No, I am being serious.

#2: Junior Hockey leagues will grow in popularity in the U.S. at an alarming rate. Canada, get ready, get ready!

#3: Soccer will decrease in popularity here in the USA. Not apologizing for that one.

#4: By late summer of 2012, the NCAA will be having serious talks about changing the Bowl Championship Series to avoid another SEC versus SEC matchup. They will likely go with a Plus One over a playoff.

From Optymystic Chad:

A Generous Heresy: Rejecting Chalcedon

My Experience With Occupy Dallas

From Amanda Mac

By Way of Introduction

Interacting with God of the Oppressed 1: Working Through the Prefaces

From Rod of Alexandria

Firefly and Theology: Captain Mal Reynolds and Serenity

Sex in the Trinity: Willialm Paul Young’s The Shack part 1

Related articles

• Apparently Chad Thinks of Me as One of the Great Church Fathers (politicaljesus.com)
• My Oracles for 2011: A Wrap Up (politicaljesus.com)
• Sex In the Trinity: Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack p5/6 (politicaljesus.com)
• Sex In the Trinity: Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack p 6/6 (politicaljesus.com)
• Coming Soon: Official Mal Reynolds pistol from Firefly (winextra.com)

In 2011, I had rather a tame year; on several occasions there were ample opportunities for me to call out other bloggers for being wrong, and I was just like, whatever, I’ll read your B.S. in apathy.

2012. It’s gonna be a different story. First up, Patheos.

For those of you all that haven’t heard, Patheos has become the Borg of religious blogging; (with a few notable exceptions) with their posts in sounding alike, even their more conservative evangelical sites are quite non-controversial. I didn’t know we lived in a world where all Christians believe in relationality, networking, and theological education…. oh wait….

What’s the big deal about religious understanding? (Peace yes, but under whose terms?- my continual harping at hegemony). I side with David Sehat in this regard, on religious freedom. The USA changed from a country where Protestants were free to establish hegemony to a nation that is free to engage in nonviolent legal, political religious conflict (the culture wars, we call them), where our difference are out in the open, where no one denies them. A free and open space which should resist any form of hegemony, public or free market.

So, I am joining Joel Watts in aiming to misbehave in 2012. There is no amount of money that could lead me to accept an invitation from Belief.Net (yeah, good luck trying to keep commenters there) or Patheos for that matter. The purpose of Political Jesus is for persons to have free access to information and opinions that our audience is interested in. It always has been that way, and always will. It is this principled stand for academic freedom, which includes freedom from corporate influence that causes China to ban PJ from its citizenry. Its okay China, I’ve already called you out as the next great empire, and you’re just threatened.

Joel has invited others to join his squad of Browncoats:

“Well, why not become a contributor here…

I don’t censor, except for profanity and vulgarity (unless you are talking about the Song of Solomon, of course… or Ruth or Esther…).

First and foremost, I really would like to open up the floor to women. Their voices need to be heard on the blogosphere, especially as it relates to biblical and religious studies.

Also, really looking for people who can focus on science and religion.

Maybe someone to bring a different political spin… or one with more developed political spin…

And maybe an actual Reformed Christian….

Do you have a blog? Well, you can fold it into this one…

Want a wider readership? Well, join this one.

Stop the signal (Patheos)…. Join us…”

Related articles

• Hemant Mehta Declares WAR on Freethought Blogs! (freethoughtblogs.com)
• The Story Behind Patheos (patheos.com)

“1. The beginning of the Decade of Anger: 2010 marks the end of the decade of awkwardness. My prediction is that citizens, inspired by the Tea Party and the student protests in the United Kingdom will start to look for the smallest thing to get upset over, especially the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell isn’t an issue any more, so, I guess we will have to go back to square one, with the struggle between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Abortion seems to mobilize liberals and conservatives like no other issue. Sex drives the world. As a Chad said today, it will be the decade of the angry GenX all over again.”

Was I right on this one? Were there multiple displays of Anger in politics? Did anyone get angry this year and NOT protest? Let’s see Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, the USA, among others; then there was the Occupy Wallstreet movement that I posted on before it caught on.

NEXT!

“2. There will be an increase in comic book movies and t.v. shows: Due to the lack of knowledge of history (in general) that teenagers have these days, as well as Science Fiction becoming more mainstream, I think that in order to pacify temporarily the enraged masses, the entertainment industry will substitute revolutionary violence with the fantasy violence of pop culture.”

Well, even with Smallville and Batman:Brave and Bold coming to an end, Booster Gold is going to be given a try on Syfy. In addition, there were appearances of Green Lanterns appearing in public schools for some reason. Why was that Optymyst? Also, the comic book movies for this year did fairly well, and everyone is excited about next 2012.

Next!

“3. A Disgusting Amount of Television Coverage for 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates: This is already happening with Fox News & C-Span, but eventually, MSNBC and CNN will catch up. CNN has cozied up with the Tea Party Express for one GOP debate.”

Ummm, did you all read any of my posts on the GOP debates, like majority of the 20 billion debates, right?

Next!

“4. The Downfall of Christian Pop Culture as a Valid Alternative: Given the fact that the Christian music and book industries continue to spiral into irrelevancy, Nashville will no longer be the center of Christian or Gospel music. Instead, more underground artists and writers will slip through the cracks of Christendom and either remain independent or sign with “secular” labels or publishing companies.”

That’s still up for debate, we still have the rest of the decade to determine this. Hey, you hear about two famous pastors using secular publishers to talk about marriage? Yah, odd, huh?

Next!

“5. SyFy channel will break someone’s heart: Of course, the always love-to-hate them SyFy network people will cancel a very popular show, adding to a rage fueled by government inaction.”

Answer: Eureka; Sorry Joel!

Last, but certainly not least:

“6. Before the decade is through, a third “undeclared” war: U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan until a least 2018, with military advisers scheduled to stay until a few years afterward. Pakistan or North Korea will become our new Iraq. It is only a matter of time. Since candidate Obama did promise us this.”

Well, that was easy to answer: Libya

A week or so ago, I had mentioned that Celucien Joseph, Phillip Luke Sinitiere, and I are scheduled to do a panel on Black Religions and the Harlem Renaissance at the 2012 Southwest Commission on Religious Studies. Lou’s focus will be on Langston Hughes, Phillip’s will be the Negro Church’s and Movement’s influence on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and mine will be a comparative study on the science fiction literature provided by Samuel I. Brooks and C.S. Lewis.

A good scholar/independent researcher is always looking forward, moving on to a new topic. Celucien plans to move on to the religion of Zora Neale Hurston; in particular, Lou’s investigating “her religious vision through the American tradition of pragmatic religious naturalism.”

Anyone who could like to help out Lou with any recommendations, please visit his blog, and comment here.

The second project dealing with Zora Neale Hurston and theology actually is a paper proposal that has been fueling in my mind for a year or so. But, last week on Twitter, I found a way to articulate that idea. So, here goes. On Labor Day of this year, I did a reflection What Happened to Moses? I noticed that several Patristic theologians wrote entire books on the Life of Moses, including a missing text by Clement of Alexandria (if only, if only). In addition, I have observed that in the slave spirituals that Moses is brought up a lot as a part of the African American religious pantheon, and that persons such as Booker T Washington were referred to as the Negro Moses. So I have decided that I would like to do a paper dealing with the Patristics rendering of Moses and read those alongside Jewish theologians and a post-colonial theological interpretation Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain. If you have any recommendations for reading for my proposed project, please comment here or share with me on Twitter. I would very much appreciate it.

Related articles

• What Happened to Moses?: Thoughts on Labor Day, Unions, and Theology (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)

“It would be nice for a biblical or New Testament scholar in particular to explore how the Quest  for the Historical Jesus as an intellectual movement in the West has contributed to what Carter  has phrased “Race: A Theological Account.”  In other words, how have NT scholars of the Historical Jesus Movement in Western countries  participated–of course in the intellectual sense—in the theological narrative of race (about Jesus of Nazareth) and modernity’s racialist discourse and definition.  Anyone who has been following the debase closely since the time of Renan, Schweitzer and others would find this topic both  exciting–at least, it is exciting to me!– and useful to write a monograph on that subject.”

For more, see Celucien Joseph, J Kameron Carter: ON the theological problem of whiteness and the inadequacy of black liberation theology

Related articles

• Race: A Theological Account by @JKameronCarter (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)
• On Alcohol: Jarena Lee, Moderation and @ScotMcKnight (politicaljesus.com)

A thanks to The Mary Sue.com

“what do you call an educated negro with a B.A. or an M.A., with a B.S., or a PhD?” The answer? “You call him a nigger, because that is what the white man calls him, a nigger.”- Malcolm X

“However, it is not wrong, in my view, to believe that some races generally excel others in some particular respects. One coach at a midwestern college was fired because he asserted that black athletes are, on the average, better sprinters and jumpers than whites. His superiors claimed that his remarks were racist. In my view that was an injustice. The coach’s views, in this case, were very probably true, and he should have had freedom to express them.”- Reformed theologian John Frame

“But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration”- Thomas Jefferson

“In music [blacks] are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time”- Thomas Jefferson

“[The blacks'] inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. . . .” -Thomas Jefferon

Jefferson quotes taken from his Notes to Virginia

I am willing to bet that you have heard the argument that Black people are better than white people at sports. Some of you in certain parts of the U.S. have even learned from family members or friends that Blacks are better than whites at sports. Without question, the vast majority of professional athletes in the National Football League and National Basketball Association are of African descent. So logically, wouldn’t it make sense to affirm what we have always believed about the races, that blacks are biologically predestined to be good at somethings, and other races, at other things, oh, like math (Asians), organizing/governing/leading society (whites), or being close to nature (Native Americans)?  The idea that African Americans excel at being sensual and entertainers did not die with Thomas Jefferson. When I was in high school, one of my heroes was the late Reverend Reggie White, the football player. Imagine my disappointment, even back then, when I read in his autobiography, In The Trenches, that he believed that through biology and divine predestination that the races were received different gifts. For blacks? You got it, it’s worship and sports. And whites? Running society! This from an African American from Tennessee, too.

Frantz Fanon argued that what sustained colonialism and U.S. American apartheid the idea that the Negro was “the predestined depository” of all things aggressive, emotional, and bodily (Black Skin, White Masks). “The white man wants the world; he wants it for himself alone. He finds himself predestined master of the this world. He enslaves it. (BS, WM)” When people argue that blacks are good at singing and sports, imagine what would happen if someone just replied with a simple question, “And what do you believe white people are good at?” See, the logic behind “black people are fine athletes and singers” is that there has to be a flip side, there has to be a white side to go with the black, right? The racist logic behind biological determinism and Jungian archetypes (see Fanon for his case against Carl Jung too, against the idea that our racial stereotypes are biologically inherited) may seem like people are giving a compliment, when in reality, they are passing on the same racist myths that Thomas Jefferson held. In Fanon’s survey to overall 500 persons, one of the words associated with “Negro” was athlete, which, along with the prevalence of reality tv shows of their wives, is evidence enough to show that the black athletes are still being, in Fanon’s words, “singularly eroticized.”

This tone-deaf non-athletic black intellectual has enough evidence in his own right to prove that not all black persons are gifted in sports or worship. I join Chauncey DeVega in asking “If the best and brightest of Black America are just felons and drug users in the eyes of populist conservatives [I would add mainstream liberals too], what of the legions of working class, hard working, regular folks?” Of course, there are always reminders for Blacks about their place in the world, like the case of Tim Tebow. Someone who I personally root for as an underdog, but no black quarterback will be portrayed as having the odds stacked against him, except for if he went to prison like Michael Vick.

The quarterback is a position of status the QB is, ideally supposed to be the most rational and the person most capable of leading the team on the field. Black quarterbacks from the time they entire college and then are drafted, always hear whispers of position changes (like this year’s Heisman Trophy Winner Robert Griffin III). In other words, the opportunity to be seen as a leader, to grab the national spotlight is always a position coach’s decision away for the black quarterback, since blacks are only supposed to be good at singing and entertaining.

In reality, as long as good well-meaning people remain committed to “the blacks as natural athletes myth,” the odds will always be stacked against racial minorities.

Related articles

• White Skin, Black Masks: Sammy Sosa, Beyonce, Fanon & Beauty (politicaljesus.com)

Right around Christmas time, we Protestant Christians like to rush right through the Incarnation, spit on the idea that YHWH arrived here on Earth as a baby, and start talking about Easter. It happens in Protestant pulpits, and you know it! One of the common talking points in all of the Crucifixion talk is the idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, as Eve 2.0. Now, for people who continue to affirm Original Sin as something that is biologically inherited, this allegorical interpretation of the text fits quite nicely. For others, such as myself, who do not affirm Original Sin as something transmitted through our bodies, this view remains a problem in that women remain the scapegoat for human wickedness on a large scale.

The thing about allegorical interpretation is that it is not absolute, and there can be other paradigms used within reason (I would say measured by the Canon and Tradition). In some forms of Judaism, there are four types of interpretation, and one of the being REMEZ, that uses “patterns and models [that] allude to all experiences […] of the past, and intimate the gamut of possibilities of the future.” (Mihaly, Eugene. The Passover Haggadah as PaRaDiSe. page 18). Many historians have noted that in the Medieval Ages, Scripture (alluding to the image of Ezekiel’s Chariot) was seen as having four senses of interpretation. Among these are the literal sense, the moral sense, the anagogical sense (the hope for the future), and the allegorical sense. I believe that this was the Scriptural project taken up by Gregory the Great (I am going by memory here). Now, there is no mistaken that there are some forms of allegorical interpretation that are harmful (one can look no further than Augustine’s terrible readings of Judges 6 and Romans 8-9). Augustine’s allegorical reading of Judges 6 is an example of why it is important to take the original context of Scripture seriously; interpretation is no light task. The only way that Judges 6 could be used as an anti-Judaic text is if the interpreter himself has a vendetta against Judaism (I.e., Augustine).

Being a fanboy of the Alexandrian school of theology (including it’s High Christology, Mariology, and preference for allegorical interpretation ) in Early Christian history, I am also well aware of some of it’s blind spots. I see no reason why conservative Christians like Joel want to have “Mary as Eve 2.0″ be the final interpretation for Mary as Theoktos. No one argues that Joseph is Adam 2.0, I mean, why not? Adam was married to Eve, makes logical sense, yes? There is no allusion of a garden in the Nativity story, no forbidden fruits or trees.

Mary as Noah 2.0

I would suggest that, through the use of the Synoptic Gospels (specifically Luke & Mark), the stories of Mary & Joseph, as well as Elizabeth & Zechariah could be read allegorically as a Noah story 2.0. That is, to clarify, that Mary and Elizabeth inhabit the Noahide prophetic tradition. An typological understanding of Revelation 11:19-12:17, primarily Catholic in origin, understands Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. Like Hannah in 1st Samuel 1 & 2, Mary is living in the midst of religious and political crisis. Just as the story of the prophet Samuel involves the movement of the Ark of the Covenant, so does Mary’s story. Noah’s Ark is an Ark of Covenant (Genesis 6:18), that God covenants with Noah before and after (Genesis 8:20-22). At this point of the narrative, it is obvious that the author of Genesis 6-8 is very familiar with the sacrificial system put in place during the days of Moses (thus the allusion to clean and unclean animals).

Typologically speaking, I would like to suggest that Jesus is the Ark of the Covenant (since Peter does recognize the Ark as an early vision of baptism–1st Peter 3:18-22). Just as the oppressive Philistines forced the Ark of the Covenant into Exile, so does the Roman government in Mary’s day force Joseph and Mary into Exile in Egypt. Noahide imagery appears in Mark’s introduction of John the Immerser and Jesus. Jesus is left in the wilderness with animals (Mark 1:13), while John is clothed with animal skins (Mark 1:6). The Immersion into water of Jesus by John the Immerser is an inversing of the flood; water and animals are being used to save human beings rather than displaying YHWH’s wrath towards their sinfulness. The image of the dove (the idea that the Holy Spirit anoints Christ) has some covenantal significance, for in Genesis 8, Noah sends out a dove to see whether what God has spoken is true (the flood ending after 40 days or so); in Luke, Mary and Joseph are so poor they can only offer a dove or pigeon according to the Law of the Covenant (Leviticus 5 & 12, Luke 2:24).

If this be this case, then I submit that the Virgin Mary and her cousin Elizabeth fit the role of Noah/Hannah, as prophets of righteousness (2nd Peter 2:5), who remind us of God’s magnificence and our limitations in our creatureliness (see the Magnificats: 1st Samuel 2:1-10/Luke 1:46-56).

“The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”– 1st Samuel 2:7-9, NRSV

Let Heav’n and Nature Sing!

DISCLAIMER #1: The following blog post is NOT theological criticism or a heresy-head hunting game by any stretch of Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack. I am more sympathetic with open & process theisms, so there is no need for this author to scan The Shack for doctrinal errors.

DISCLAIMER #2: Be aware that what I share are from a 2010 joint-presentation I and my friend Adam DJ Brett, a PhD entering his first year of work at Syracuse this fall. Post 5 of this 6 part series will be mostly his research, and his intellectual property. If you wish to use this information, please cite him as the source. Also, given that this setting is a blog, I do not assume that everyone is familiar with the concepts I shall place forth, so, unlike the paper and hopefully forthcoming journal article, I will be making available definitions and sources if need be.

Towards a Negative (thea/theo/thee) -logical anthropology

The problem with much of Christian fiction (film and novels included) is that white privilege goes utterly ignored. So thus, every film that is dipped in Jesus sauce gets to be called speaking for all Christians, when it reality, they do not. The Passion of the Christ? It is one voice of  many who identify with Vatican I Catholicism. Fireproof? White Conservative evangelicals of the married and employed persuasion– the perfect movie for Tither-Driven churches. Jumping The Broom? Conservative upper-class black Christians worried about the state of the “Black family”–whatever black may mean, right?

William P. Young’s The Shack reveals liberal Protestant Christianity’s blindspot to racist histories, and I would say that anyone that embraces the racial Others in The Shack uncritically is guilty of the same thing; this is not pointing the finger at every fan of The Shack, but I would say ideas such as The Shack Bible Project would be culpable in this regard. It seemed to me in my and Adam’s endeavor here that we encountered a number of arguments (i.e., emotional appeals seeing this as an attack on Young’s person) that verified for us the accuracy of our findings.

What Christians need to do in their fiction pieces is to start talking about what human beings are NOT meant to be, in other words, a negative thea/eo/ee-logical anthropology. This should involve input from communities that have been historically discriminated against, and ignored as legitimate voices in “The Church.” I would suggest that instead of using The Shack to talk about g*d, why not race relations? There isn’t a textbook about how to go about racial reconciliation, so why not use The Shack as a conversation starter, in exposing how our oppressive gazes interfere with the lives of Asian, Black, Latin@, and Jewish friends alike.

Here Is The Series IN IT’s Entirety for reference:

Sex in the Trinity part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

DISCLAIMER #1: The following blog post is NOT theological criticism or a heresy-head hunting game by any stretch of Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack. I am more sympathetic with open & process theisms, so there is no need for this author to scan The Shack for doctrinal errors.

DISCLAIMER #2: Be aware that what I share are from a 2010 joint-presentation I and my friend Adam DJ Brett, a PhD entering his first year of work at Syracuse this fall. Post 5 of this 6 part series will be mostly his research, and his intellectual property. If you wish to use this information, please cite him as the source. Also, given that this setting is a blog, I do not assume that everyone is familiar with the concepts I shall place forth, so, unlike the paper and hopefully forthcoming journal article, I will be making available definitions and sources if need be.

Ain’t That A Drag?

Today’s piece is primarily the work of Adam DJ Brett, a PhD student a Syracuse, who focuses on continental philosophy, theology, and interfaith dialogue. If you would like to contact Adam about his work, do so at this link.

Growing up, I often heard the words, “Imitation is the best form of flattery.” The hell it is! In today’s world, parody can go both ways, either as a tribute, as in a sign of respect (such as tv knockoffs of hit movies like The Hangover) or as insults, even when they star Jesus himself with Tim Tebow. In the history of the United States, white people doing black face has always been a national past time. The Black is the symbol of evil and everything not American, not white, and not male.

The latest version of black face comedy comes to us from Canada (I know, right?) with a Chuck Knipp who has as an act, a black woman named Shirley Q. Liquor. You can find a number of Shirley’s videos on Youtube, but the gist is to basically have a white male version of Madea (don’t get me started on Tyler Perry). What ends up happening is that Mr. Knipp is still abusing his white male body privilege to promote racist stereotypes by capitalizing off of racist histories in the U.S. and Europe. You don’t think blackface is an issue anymore? Go ask the Dutch about Zwarte Peter at Christmas time?

Wait, Rod, you say, what does this have to do with William P. Young’s The Shack? I now bring to the floor, Adam Brett’s case:

Papa as Parody
Papa is not the feminine personification of God, but instead is a parody. God ‘the Father’ imitates the feminine as Papa. Parody is imitation, like wearing a mask, or painting one’s face. Parody is linguistic mimicry using satirical language. Parody is comedic performance for the sake of performance and therefore is not subversive.
Judith Butler deconstructs parody, using drag as a way of explaining and dealing with the socially constructed nature of gender. Drag has two main components: the first is linguistics and the second is theatrical performance. Within the linguistic theatrical nature of drag there are three elements at play: 1) anatomical sex 2) gender identity and 3) gender performativity. Drag points out that something we believe to be fixed and natural, such as gender, is not indeed fixed, but instead it is a performance. Drag is a double inversion that points out “appearance is an illusion.” The linguistic theatrical nature of drag destabilizes the rigidity of gender perceived as “gender reality.” In order for Young’s character Papa to be a form of drag, the whole parody needs to be seamless, exhibiting no rupture between the linguistic and theatrical performance of gender. [Parody as lacking a linguistic dimension and drag as seamless performance}
Young establishes God as a white male. From the beginning of The Shack, the essence of Papa is white and male. The masculine name Papa subsumes the Feminine nature of God. Young uses The masculine pronoun “he,” whenever referring to the divine notions of Papa. Papa only becomes “she” sparingly, when performing human tasks –stereotypically those performed by women. At the end of the book Papa’s true form is revealed. Papa is, in fact, a white male who conforms to Mack’s expectations for the divine. Young does not linguistically destabilize God as male, but instead ‘Father’ God performs as a woman. Papa only retains a partial female identity until the character Mack is ready to experience God as male –not just linguistically but also physically. The Shack defines masculine as “normal” and feminine as “abnormal” through Butler’s “linguistic hegemony.” The presentation of the divine feminine with a masculine name and a female body only reinforces the notion that language is phallogocentric. Linguistic absence characterizes the feminine once again in contradistinction to masculinity. Papa is caricature: a white male God in black face wearing a dress and parroting black southern dialect. Linguistically, God is paternalistic. Every single masculine pronoun and noun Young uses affirms the phallogocentric notion of God.
Drag is an art form that requires and demands a seamless performance between linguistic and theatrical representation. Drag critiques gender identity and performance in such a way that the actor’s biology fades into the background. Butler’s notion of parody and of drag reveals Papa as white male pastiche in the form of a black woman’s minstrel show.

Sources cited: Madan Sarup, An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, 2nd ed. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993). and Judith Butler, Gender Trouble : Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge Classics (New York: Routledge, 2006) and

Young’s Papa, by book’s end, represents a racist queering of the godhead.

Related articles

• #Warehouse13, Science Fiction & Sexism: When Inclusion Become Oppressive (politicaljesus.com)

THIS IS MY DECEMBER- BY LINKIN PARK

My goal is to finish a couple of series this year I have yet to conclude, the “Sex in the Trinity: my review of William P. Young’s The Shack” as well as Liberating the Future of Seminary this week, starting with SITT tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Oh, and that Firefly and Theology thing, I will keep working on it. Promise. I’ll finish it someday.

Image via Wikipedia

Just sickening and disgusting on every level.

In response to my last post, on the prosperity gospel, Joel has come out swinging since I took aim at his beloved cemetary I mean seminary. Poor Joel Watts, so deceived. May the Triune God rest his soul.

“In a post which Rodney, at my request, abused the privileged of posting on my blog by linking to a blog post on his blog, he noted that United Theological Seminary had partnered with Kenneth Copeland Ministries. This was a few years ago, so it’s old news, Rodney, and you should be ashamed. But, at least you didn’t note that Copeland is going to give a feature sermon to DMin students this coming January. That would have been embarrassing.”

 

To read more, See: Rodney has no business attacking UTS’s partnership with Kenneth Copeland Ministries

New Thought positivism is nothing new. In fact, it has been around for a while, since the mid 19th century in the United States. Americans in the early twentieth century witnessed a rise in new religious movements that all clung to the notion of the impeccability of the human mind. According to theologian Stephanie Mitchem, “Many religious movements influenced the American public, including African American. […] In the 1840s, inventor Phineas Quimby began the New Thought movement, which involved the use of the mind to cure the body. Mary Baker Eddy, one of Quimby’s students, added a spiritual component and began the Christian Science organization, “that tuning into God’s inner-dwelling presence and achieving oneness with his spirit restored health and well being” (Mitchem, 52). Mitchem goes on to note that the religious movements in the northeast United States, including Mesmerism, Spiritualism, and Transcendentalism made a profound impact on the religious lives of African Americans who were just beginning to migrate northwards.

Today, New Thought philosophy has been mixed in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles to become the Word of Faith movement: If you believe it, you receive it. This country is going through a recession, and despite the immense poverty and joblessness people are experiencing, prosperity preachers refuse to acknowledge the pain people are feeling while asking for laypeople’s “seeds of faith.” In some circles, the prosperity gospel is a message for the rich. Church life, no matter if the church is mainline or evangelical, center around the wallets of the monied, and their interests. Want to make changes to worship? No, we can’t, silver hair donors will stop giving. Want to reach out to the married couples in our neighborhood? Ask why is that important. Because, the church wants more tithers for more programming to reach more tithers! Does your youth minister make a group of steady tithers in church feel uncomfortable? Put her on the hot seat! A candidate needs a few votes to get over the top? Let him say a few words during the service.

The church’s life already centers around the wealthy and those with influence, those at the center on our society. Seminaries that cooperate with prosperity ministries remain complicit in working against the spirit of Christmas. Christmas, the Holidays, Thanksgiving, these are not just times to be giving charity. Charity is the last thing on Luke’s and Matthew’s mind when they told the birth story of Yeshua the Messiah. In Luke @, when our Jewish Savior was presented at the temple, his family was so poor, Mary and Joseph had to give two doves or pigeons, according to the law of Moses (Luke 2:24). The author of Luke had in mind Leviticus 5:7 (NIV): “Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.” Mary and Joseph could not even afford one of the lambs that was probably in the manger with them the night Mary the Theoktos gave birth to our LORD.

What does this all mean? It means that God Incarnate refutes the logic of Prosperity gospel, New Thought heresy, and even Tither-Driven churches. The Incarnation of the Word de-centers the existences of the wealthy as the masters of our world and elects the poor as God’s missionaries in the world. It is this very election of the poor, the Tiny Tims in this life that the spirit of Christmas is all about; our theological education institutions and churches should respond likewise, by denouncing the heretics who preach the Prosperity non-Gospel, and declaring that little Baby in a manger as LORD.

Works cited:

Mitchem, Stephanie Y. Name It and Claim It?: Prosperity Preaching in the Black Church. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2007.

White, Male, and Harvard educated Bible scholar Douglas Stuart views exegesis as a scientific process where exegetes divorce themselves from all cultural and theological biases in order to get to the original text’s meaning: “The exegete must analyze the passage under review, in the original, to determine if any grammatical ambiguities exist.” [ see Douglas Stuart. “Exegesis” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary II. (New York:Doubleday, 1992), 685-686] He argues that words can be utilized with fluidity. “The exegete must strive to avoid such common faults as illegitimate totality transfer (thinking that all or any potential meanings of a word apply to that word in any passage where it occurs), excessive reliance on etymology (thinking that the original or “root” meaning of a word stays with that word and is part of its meaning in every place it is used), and extracontextualism (finding a meaning for the given term in some usage far removed in time, circumstance, or ethos from the passage at hand and assuming that such a meaning “fits” the term’s use in the passage.” Stuart’s approach has a couple of problems. While I agree with him that the Bible is the word of God, exactly WHO God is differs from person to person and thus, Stuart’s approach naively presumes that an exegete can recover the original meaning of the biblical text apart from one’s biases. While we can gather some idea about the world behind the text, our knowledge in that regard is very limited.

I agree somewhat with Stuart’s approach in that exegetes should ideally have at least a minimum familiarity with the original language that the canon was recorded. As clergy, we should learn to appreciate the cultures that the biblical narrative describes; in order to properly do this, we must attempt to learn the languages from which the stories of the Christian tradition depend. We cannot, however, sever the way God’s story unfolds in our lives from the story we find in Scripture. The Bible is not some text to be lorded over; God’s word is for us to eat and take in for our daily nutrition just as God’s word was for Ezekiel.

I agree with Eugene Peterson; exegesis is vital to spiritual formation and spiritual formation should be the purpose of exegesis. We should make God’s story the central focus for the way we tell and perform our stories. Stuart limits exegesis to the task of scholars. There should not be this division between our head, our heart, and our bodies Scholars are part of the Church Universal but exegesis is also for every Christian who chooses to use the Christian canon. The biblical text, according to Peterson, “[is] constantly becoming overlaid with personal preferences, cultural assumptions, sin distortions, and ignorant guesses that pollute the text.” Exegesis is necessary so that we can live cleaner spiritual lives. See Eugene Peterson’s EAT THIS BOOK, or you can see this link, reviewing and citing the book at Calvin College: Eugene Peterson: On God’s Standing Invitation: Eat This Book

That being said, I exhort all Christians to learn to do exegesis, and not simply rely on what they are told from the pulpit. This may mean a change in the way that Christian Education. Yes, I know what I am saying, but we should stop looking down on laypeople or those who have not had theological education as idiots. You would be surprised how much laity and clergy want to learn about Scripture. If you are going to eat something, you need to fix and prepare the meal properly, yes? In the same way, would suggest a couple of things to pave the way for more and more lay exegesis:

1. More curriculum authored by scholars and less and less by Christian publishers. Perhaps some collaboration should start happening.

2. Second, I would say for individual laypersons to find communities to read the Bible with, because that is the way that the Scriptures are to be learned, in a community.

3. Third, I would suggest to go to your local library, and perhaps read up a little on the world history. Part of the problem with U.S. American Christians is that we love to just think about U.S. American history, and nothing else really. That has to change to.

Critics on the Calvinist side say that these theologies are the same, as do some relational theologies themselves. This is understandable, since both Open and Process theologians affirm:

1. Libertarian Free Will

2. God’s omnipresence within creation rather than misguided views of transcendence that completely separate God from creation. And therefore, God has real relationships with the world.

3. God is affected by the world and responds to events within creation. God is able to suffer with humanity (passible).

4. Both models work as a critique against classical theism, whether it is Arminian, Calvinist, or Molinist in nature.

That being said, a close investigation into the differences between Open theism and Process theologies means that any honest thinker should take these particularities as real and by no means inconveniences.

1st Difference– Revelation

1. Through my reading of both process and Open theisms one key difference is the centrality of revelation, that is Special Revelation as a category for Open Theists. Perhaps this is due in large part because of Open Theism’s evangelical roots, which places a heavy emphasis on scripture. But what defines an evangelical Christian, well, all Christians, is the importance of the life of Christ Jesus, the 2nd century Jewish carpenter from Nazareth. Know Jesus, know who God is. It is this strain of God’s disclosure to creation and history (time, place, and space) and the particularity thereof that remains of the utmost crucial importance for Open Theist’s understanding of the divine.

In stark contrast, (and know, just as not every Open Theist believes the same things, that there is diversity among process theists) process thinkers such as Marjorie Suchockie and and Robert Mesle. Both represent two different forms of process theism, one (Mesle) process naturalism, and the other theistic process thought. However, creation vis-a-vis science is viewed as the form of revelation which we know God. There is nothing wrong with Natural theology/Natural revelation, but this is approach means a real difference in the conclusions we reach about God. In both Mesle’s and Suchockie’s texts, as well as other texts in process theology that I have encountered, the writers encourage their readers to discard with the differentiation between natural and special revelation.

This does not happen in Open Theist texts generally; our encounter with Special revelation shapes the way we engage Natural/general revelation.

2nd Difference– God as Personal Divinity

2. What does it mean for God to be Personal? How does one contrast an impersonal divinity from a personal one? It is not a matter of Jesus becoming our Privatized Savior for the sake of the few who get to keep all the profits, I mean get to heaven. The category of personhood for God is a very controversial one these days, especially since people like to invoke ideas that God is on their side, no matter how horrible their ideas are. The category of a personal God comes from both biblical precedent and philosophy. In the United States of America, in the latter half of the 19th century was a school of thought called the Boston Personalism, since it was first systematized by Methodist thinkers who were philosophers at Boston University. Personalism first and foremost, affirms unique subjectivity in the life of the Divine. makes a distinction between God’s experiences and our experiences (meaning, they are not the same, God’s tears are NOT our tears), and the idea that God freely chooses to limit God’s self.

What does belief in an impersonal God consist of? From process texts, God is limited INvoluntarily, God’s experiences are our experiences, and God as simply the name of the natural process that sustains creation, or creativity.

3rd Difference–Histories of Communities

3. Each theological community in Christianity has a history and backdrop from which it comes forth. If the Neo-Calvinism that has arisen today sees itself in the context of (after an honest look) of historical white conservative evangelical churches and preachers such as Jonathan Edwards, this must be the case for Process and Open theology camps. Process theologies have a better awareness of their own histories and sources, coming from mainline churches and seminaries such as Charles Harthshorne. Unfortunately, because of the shape that the debate has taken place over issues such as free will, Open Theists are still trying to find their history. Perhaps a possible way forward would be to look at sources and historical thinkers outside of white Christianities, Major J. Jones would be one example. And still another, Kazoh Kitamori. Although not specifically evangelical, their theological projects do have more in common with relational/open theologies.

For more information regarding this topic, please see Thomas Oord’s contribution to The Handbook of Process Theology, “Evangelical Theologies” and the 3 volume set by Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology (the parts on Personalism).

For his strong performance in Team America: World Police!

Check here for a youtube clip of what should have won this guy an Oscar.

Here was the proposal abstract:

“Black Religion(s) and the Harlem Renaissance

Chair/Comments: Keri Day, Brite Divinity School
Participants: Rodney A. Thomas, Jr., Celucien L. Joseph, Phillip Luke Sinitiere

For nearly a century now, scholars and writers have grappled with the social, political, cultural, and economic impacts of the Harlem Renaissance. Some work examines the forging of identities amidst the racial regime of Jim Crow that fostered artistic expressions of historical longing through the art of Aaron Douglas, for instance, and inspired the creative, imaginative writing of Zora Neale Hurston. Additional critical study documents that the era of the New Negro, complicated by its impact across class lines, sometimes fractured into competing camps based on conflicting approaches to the question of civil rights. While there are a few studies of black religion during the Harlem Renaissance era (e.g., Jon Michael Spencer, Randall Burkett, Jill Watts, Juan Floyd-Thomas, and Curtis Evans) the bulk of scholarship on this period tends to overlook the importance of black religion(s) during the era of the New Negro. This panel aims to contribute to the ongoing conversation about the role of religion in the Harlem Renaissance.
Building on the work of theologians Monica Coleman and James McGrath to consider
the history of black male speculative fiction and its relationship to black religion, Rodney A.
Thomas, Jr.’s “Dystopia & Dehumanization: A Comparative Study of the Theological Ethics in the Science Fiction of C.S. Lewis and Samuel I. Brooks (George Schuyler) in the 1930s” compares Schuyler’s views on race and religion during the era of the New Negro with the speculative fiction genre produced in Great Britain during the same decade of the 1930s by evaluating C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy.
Examining poetry and shorter writings Celucien L. Joseph’s “Langston Hughes’s Perspective on Religion and the Failure of American Christianity” considers Hughes’s work as the articulation of the condition of black America and as an expression of their culture, suffering, fears, hopes, and their spirituality or religion. Joseph’s paper explores Hughes’s critique of white Christianity and how he articulated his own perspective about faith.
Phillip Luke Sinitiere’s paper, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Crosses the Color Line,” reads Bonhoeffer’s historic years at Union Seminary (1930-31, 1939) in the context of the New Negro Movement. Analysis of Bonhoeffer’s letters, essays, and sermons in conjunction with the Harlem Renaissance writers he encountered (including publications by the NAACP), the expressive modes of faith he witnessed at Abyssinian Baptist Church, and the social gospel activism he observed at Union Seminary, this paper considers the New Negro sources through which he gained understanding of black religion and from which he would develop a constructive theological response to the injustice of racism.”

A more detailed abstract of my contribution to the panel:

“Presentation Title- Dystopia & Dehumanization: A Comparative Study of the theological ethics in the science fiction works of Clives Staples Lewis and Samuel I. Brooks in the 1930’s.

Proposal synopsis-

Womanist theologian Monica Coleman, in her Making A Way Out of No Way, argues that black women’s science fiction literature provides “imaginative models of creative transformation.” According to Coleman, speculative fiction written by black women, is utopian in nature, with critiques of society and a ‘definition of genuine justice.’ These works of fiction “are interested in freedom, justice, and ethics for the entire community,” and present offerings of alternative futures. In stark contrast to black women’s science fiction, I contend that black men’s science fiction writings are dystopian in nature, filled with satire, as they grapple with the problem of race and masculinity. According to New Testament scholar James McGrath, “science fiction scenarios often imagine the future of technology, and thus provide a wonderful starting point for ethical discussions.” While studies between the intersection of theological studies and the genre of science fiction are relatively new, the history of black male speculative fiction and its relationship to black religion has been relatively ignored.

In this paper, I propose to compare texts by black science fiction writer and Harlem Renaissance thinker Samuel I. Brooks (George S. Schuyler) and a British contemporary, Clives Staples Lewis. Toward this end, I will engage in a theological interpretation of Schuyler’s racial dystopic work, Black No More and another piece of speculative fiction Africa, Black Empire. For this portion of the presentation, I will explore Schuyler’s views on race and religion in his New Negro movement context. In addition, this author plans to compare historic black male science fiction with the speculative fiction genre produced in Great Britain during the same decade of the 1930s, evaluating the Space Trilogy of C.S. Lewis, his notion of a dystopian society as well as his attitude towards science fiction. I conclude that what makes a social nightmare in black men’s science fiction is distinct from the white British version because each of these sub-genres exist for differing purposes. It is this difference, I would argue, that make for competing visions of alternative futures.”

The session where it will take place is the Saturday of the SWCRS, March 9th, 6:30pm, for the Arts, Literature, and Religion session. For more information, visit the Southwest Commission on Religious Studies website.

I am willing to bet $10,000 (take that, Mitt Romney) that in every culture, there is a Maid in the Tower myth. No matter the version of the tale, whether it’s Ten Things I Hate About You or Perisinette, the moral of the story will be: overprotective parents can lock up their little girls and keep them away from all the bad elements boys offer, but there is always going to be some prince who meets with her secretly, calls out her name, and the daughter ends up pregnant with a boy and a girl. Whooops! That’s the original Rapunzel story.

I was hoping for a discussion on gender and sexuality in the spirit of the original Rapunzel narrative from Grimm tonight, but alas, the focus was on a re-interpretation of the sins of the mother. What do I mean? Well, in the original Rapunzel stories, the mother convinces the father to steal rapunzel (a flower) or lettuce or radish (depending on which variant of the story you go with), vegetation that was irresistible. The writers of GRIMM cleverly made Rapunzel (Holly Clark’s) mother a drug addict whose daughter gets adopted. As it turns out, Holly is really a Blutbad like Monroe, who has really let her hair grow out. On a camping trip a long time ago, she bit a neighbor, the neighbor, Jim Addison shoot her with a buckshot and left her to die. Lost in the woods, the sins of the mother became the sins of the daughter. Holly becomes the stereotypical white female pot-smoking hippie from Portland. Hank and Nick re-open the missing persons case in order to find Miss Clark. In the episode, we discover that Eddie as a Blutbad can communicate with his kind, by glaring into their red eyes, sending them into a trance to persuade them to do what they want.

In Brothers Grimm’s ending originally, Rapunzel’s tears cure her blind prince; the television show, Holly’s red-eyed glare into the suspect line-up to point at Jimmy Addison as the perpetrator of her disappearance.

Moral of today’s story: people who are addicted to drugs are people too.

Part 1: Oord Addresses A Major Blindspot in Theoloogy:

Love is viewed as an afterthought for systematic theologians, Oord argues (page 1). Usually when professional theologians discuss love, its about issues relating to marriage and sexuality. Oord believes that love is THE central message of the Bible and his goal is to portray God as lovingly relational (i.e., not impersonal) against thinkers like Paul Tillich, as well as the necessity of love (contra Karl Barth) (pages 6-7). Oord defines love as “To act intentionally in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others to promote overall well being” (17). I especially appreciated the potential of “promoting overall well being” as well as Oord explanation of that portion as linking love to justice. “Justice and love are not enemies” (20). Part of being loving is working for the common good–a notion that could potentially be compatible with liberation theologies, especially ones that begin with reflectons on love (see Gustavo Gutierrez’ A Theology of Liberation). The empathy/sympathy portion of the definition means that in a loving relationship, the relational bond partly determines the existence of each party (22). Oord finishes his introductory chapter arguing that God calls all complex creatures to love according to the light given to them, and that God’s love is solely not self-sacrifice, ala feminist theology (26-28).

Part 2: Oord Problematizes Past Theologies of Love

Oord goes on to criticize Anders Nygren’s theology of love, for stressing agape love, one that makes human beings passive recipients of God’s love in Christ. Nygren avoids the Hebrew Bible in his arguments, and prefers the language of master and slave. Oord finds Saint Augustines view of love as primarily acquisitive desire, enjoyment for short. Oord says, “God is not entirely egoistic” (81). Lastly, Clark Pinnock, while Oord uses the Open Theology framework that Pinnock and others proposed a few decades ago, Oord says that any idea that we have to believe in Creation Ex Nihilo, that God created everything starting from nothing. Not only is this an unbiblical idea according to Oord, it is advancing a god who coerces contrary to the nature of love.

Part 3: Oord Makes A New Proposal for a Theology of Love

Oord argues that God must be Essentially Kenotic, that is necessarily self-limiting. This commitment is involuntary (125-127) since a voluntary kenotic God can still be blamed for the existence and prevalence of evil in the word (124). Oord proposes a new Open doctrine of love for Creation: creation ex creatione a natura, something he states is better than creation ex nihilo or creation ex deo. An essentially kenotic God is not “weak, uninvolved, or inactive” but at the same time, there is no guarantee of victory since there is no possibility of coercion (156). He concludes the text, “I think good theology must be be lived. Just as practice informs theology, good theology must be live in practice.”

Part 4: My Criticism from a Liberationist & Postcolonial Perspective

Oord states that his constructive proposal for a Creation Ex Creatione a Natura has “nothing about the view logically problematic.” For starters, while I enjoy works in constructive theology, there is such thing as having a text filled with too many neologisms. In my view, in light of the purpose of the text, which was to construct a theology centered on love, Oord hides behind obfuscation, creating a neogolistic word cloud, concealing clarity of thought. I think it was over the top, for example, when Oord randomly renames his brand of panentheism, “theocosmocentrism”(147). It was really quite unnecessary and there is not really an explanation for the preference, or any background. Oord’s Creation Ex Creatione a Natura reads more like Creation Continua, a combination of process thought in biblicist garb. There is a problem with the logic of Creation Continua, that it promotes politically essentialism and permanence. As Willie Jennings in The Christian Social Imagination noted, Creation Ex Nihilo affirms the fundamental instability of all things. “When view through this hermeneutical horizon, peoples exist without necessary permanence either of place or identity. This kind of anti-essentialist vision facilitates a different way of viewing human communities” (28).

My second problem with Oord is his excessive biblicism; the text itself is a rather odd blend of philosophical theology and citation of scripture with very little background or exegesis given (a lot like one of my favorite theologians, Jurgen Moltmann). Oord believes that the Bible’s metanarrative is centered on love, and that it is the Bible that is “the supreme love witness” (119). Does this not make the Scriptures more of a revelation of the divine over Jesus? Christ, creation, and the church are all put on equal pairing in terms of ethics, but the Bible is at the top of the hierarchy according to Oord’s logic. If you are going to do a book on philosophical theology, stay with philosophical theology. I guess I could say the same of most evangelical theology, which, outside of those like Stanley Grenz, theology becomes nothing more than the Bible Wars being played out all over again.

Lastly, I felt the tone of the book made it read like Oord did not want to disagree with anyone, and therefore caught in a controversy of some sort. It is an utter contradiction to argue on one page that God’s kenosis (self-emptying) is involuntary, and then a couple of pages later, claim that God is self-limiting. This is theological-double speak. You are either advancing process theology or you are not. Don’t try to appeal to divine voluntarism, but then criticize God following through on God’s promises as assurance God will be loving (page 145). Oord would neatly fit the description of a process theist (but alas, what person fits neatly into any category?) if it was not for his (correct) orthodox view of God as personal. This is where Oord could have aided his own argument, using Christian tradition to support his views. Yet, Tradition is the part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that Oord neglects (he gives us a healthy dose of Christian Experience, the Bible, and Christian Reason).

I hope my criticisms are helpful in Oord’s future texts, and that Oord’s view of relational theology reaches a wider audience and changes theological determinist hearts in U.S. American Evangelicalism.

Who were the Brothers’ Grimm? What was their inspiration? Were their stories original? For a few years now, there have been “re-tellings” of familiar fairytales, Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella. NBC’s new drama GRIMM began to pique my curiosity for the source of the stories. When I Googled “The Brothers’ Grimm” and religion, I found some perplexing answers. So, I decided during the Thanksgiving holiday break to do some research.

Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm were born in Hanau, Germany in 1785 and 1786, nearly a century before the unification of the Prussian provinces. The boys had come from a long line of German Protestant clergy; this is why in the Grimm household, education was of the utmost importance. School for Jacob was much easier than for Wilhelm, but both boys were studious. Their lessons included logic, ethics, French, Greek, Latin, and philosophy by the time what is now considered to be junior high in contemporary U.S. American culture. They attended the University of Marburg, tuition free, despite the fact that they were the sons of a city administrative official all because their mother wrote a letter for an exemption. (See, higher education has always had class barriers). Jacob became renowned for studying Germanic law and comparative linguistics, Wilhelm for his contribution to literature from the Medieval Ages. The Brothers Grimm, originally employed at a library, eventually were hired at the University of Gottingen. Ernst August of Cumberland took over Gottigen, and with one move, dissolved the Constitution, depriving professors of their rights to academic freedom and free speech. Inspired by none other than Martin Luther, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm make political speeches in front of students protesting this tyrannical act. Their reward? Along with 7 other professors, they were canned! The Grimms felt it was their Christian duty to speak for human rights, even if it was contrary to the will of the king.

While the Grimms’ were fascinated with democracy and German Romanticism, they were more interested in the culture of the Volk (pop culture, if you will). The German masses passed down wisdom through the ages, and the Grimms, with a team of writers went from village to village (at times) record fairy tales to have them published. According to certain accounts, the Grimm Brothers’ preferred variation, for not each fairytale was told the same way. Also, Jacob, ever the cultural linguist, desired to have editions of fairy tales from other cultures as well (the Scottish version of Cinderella, the French, etc.). Folk tale traditions did not stop at German borders. Some folk tales were based off true crimes and stories. Others found their inspiration from Norse Mythology. It is this connection with the Nordic past that the folk community fell prey to Nazi propaganda. The Grimm Brothers’ legacy, unfortunately, has been soiled by Disney and Hitler. Each of the heroes from the Grimm Brothers’ tales were converted into loyal Germans to the Third Reich. The Brothers Grimm dreamed of a day when all cultures everywhere could share their stories with other cultures, a dialogical approach to national cultures if you will. The Nazis would have none of the Grimms’ virtue ethic, one of empathy, kindness, gentility, and charity.

Someday, one can hope, the legacy of the Brothers Grimm will be recovered. Someday, when we no longer have Nazis or Disney telling their stories.

For more information on the Brothers Grimm, I would see, The Brothers Grimm and Their Critics by Christa Kamenetsky.

“The works of Joss Whedon — from his hit television shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly, to his popular comic book writing on Fray and X-Men, to his upcoming and highly anticipated Avengers film—are among the most influential pop culture phenomena of the last two decades. They are also among the most provocative when it comes to explorations of religion, family, friendship, sexuality, forgiveness, redemption, hope, love, and other dimensions of the human condition. While several volumes have been written on Whedon’s opus from philosophical and cultural studies perspectives, relatively little attention has been given to the theological significance—and implications—of how he portrays these subjects.

We are soliciting abstract submissions for an anthology volume on Joss Whedon and theology. Accordingly, submissions should address any of the above topics or other themes pertinent to Whedon’s work through a broadly theological lens. We are looking for critical engagement from any religious (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist) or non- religious (e.g. atheist, agnostic, humanist) perspective and also welcome theological approaches informed explicitly by issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc.

Please send a 250-300 word proposal and your CV by email. Both should be in Word or PDF format. The deadline for submission is February 29th, 2012. Finished essays will be due by June 30th, 2012. Proposals, CVs, and other questions should be sent to Anthony R. Mills (cardinal.tony@hotmail.com), John Morehead (johnwmorehead@msn.com), and J. Ryan Parker (jamesryanparker@gmail.com).”

I wonder if Amanda Mac will submit something. The deadline is June 2012.

A big thanks to James McGrath and Settled Catholic Joel Watts

Let’s take a look as some of these myths Koppisch is spreading, shall we? One Native American (the lone one interviewed for the article who obvious agrees with Forbes’ side–it’s called racial self-hatred), Yellowtail, says “We accept the myth of communalism. And we don’t value education. We resist it.” Now why in the world would Native Americans not value education for? Could it be that there was an epidemic of colonial violence, sexual abuse, and religious indoctrination at the missionary schools that is just now being uncovered?

Yellowtail’s hope is in his tribe to assimilate to Eurocentrism and the triumph of the religion of corporate capitalism over the traditional religious beliefs of the Crow tribe. The myth that neo-liberals and white supremacist crony-capitalism pushes is that the victims of history are where they are at in life due in large part to their own actions. There is no way that Andrew Jackson ordering the Trail of Tears, the removal of red (red being the racial construction of the dark bodies of Native Americans) bodies from their homes and placed on reservations, where the very worst land and water conditions were provided. The histories of the Native Americans, interconnected with the histories of all colonized peoples read like an open and shut case for Euro-centric thinkers like Koppisch:

“If everyone owns the land, no one does. So the result is substandard housing and the barren, rundown look that comes from a lack of investment, overuse and environmental degradation. It’s a look that’s common worldwide, wherever secure property rights are lacking—much of Africa and South America, inner city housing projects and rent-controlled apartment buildings in the U.S., Indian reservations.”

Wait, how did Africa become a symbol of lack in the first place? And South America? The Inner-city: imperialism, more than a century of racial segregation, but we don’t like to acknowledge those ugly details do we, Mr. Koppisch? For many Native Americans, because of their religious convictions, Vine DeLoria argues that their identity is tied to the land, and not the history of the left/right divide (God is Red, page 61). Crony Capitalism and racists would have us to believe that our religions must be defined by sets of objective belief, and this describes Native Americans conflict with the U.S. American court system (282).

The Native American religionists’ NO to proponents of “private property as prosperity” is a YES to the Spirit of Life, and creation, which respects the “universal planetary history” of all of creation. Tom Koppisch’s view represents the prevailing tribalist viewpoint, that our love for creation should submit to the economic decision makers of the world. But this should not be so, for just as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued, to deny religious freedom is to deny our equality before God.

But that’s the points of Corporatism, isn’t it? Capitalism, as libertarians and free marketers argue, has little need for notions of economic equality. Shoving lies down people’s throats, telling others that the victims in life (particularly the darker peoples) are lazy all the while the Powers that Be offer handouts to the Status Quo.

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would try to show how much I care for my kids’ friends from the ghetto. I would use the internet and Facebook, and even follow them on Twitter, or was that Black Twitter?

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would reach out to racial minorities and urban areas through my church. Perhaps I could get the youth group to have a one-week mission trip to an minority-majority part of the city, on the wrong side of the tracks.

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would listen to the music that poor black kids like, hip hop. I may even be open-minded enough to let my own kids try some of it.

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would talk about the myth of meritocracy, and how we should still believe in it, inspite of racist histories or barriers that may still exist.

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would advise poor black kids to buy an Apple computer rather than an iPad or iPhone. That way they don’t have to even walk the few blocks necessary to visit their local library and use the computers there.

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would tell the poor black kids to do the impossible and get a job while being under the age of 14, and accepting minimum wage.

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would recommend to poor black kids to listen to all the rich white people about the rewards of hard work and dedication, and that they too can live the Horatio Alger dream.

If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I would continue telling minorities how lazy they are. Someday they might even believe it.

*If I were a rich white dude who works for Forbes Magazine, I think I would be smart enough to know that it is not likely that poor black kids would be reading Forbes Magazine.

*I am indebted to a text message from a friend (they know who they are) for that one.

That’s the illogic of Fox News for you, my friends. In this article, “Why are anti-Christian bigots so eager to prey on Tim Tebow?,” Todd Starnes compares Anthony Bradley, a professor of ethics at an evangelical school (whose black), of being like Bull Connor for criticizing Tim Tebow.

“Perhaps the good professor would suggest Christians enter restaurants through the back door and use separate drinking fountains?”

Ummmmm. What, come again, Todd? Who brought up race in all of this? This is about religion, right? Oh wait. Let’s make that white privileged move to compare every struggle to the Civil Rights movement.

It’s so funny how Mr. Starnes can compare Bradley to pro-segregationists (even though he is black, right?) when Starnes ends his post with a rather racialized conclusion:

“At the end of the day, though, which NFL star would you want your little boy idolizing? A dog killer? A guy who beats up his girlfriend? Someone who is communicable? Or a man who loves Jesus, helps orphans and builds hospitals for the needy?

I’ll take Tim Tebow in my huddle any day.”

HUmmmm, pray tell? Who is the Dog Killer? Oh, and Someone that is communicable? You mean someone who is not those inarticulate, uneducated black athletes, like Michael Vick, right?

I hope Tim Tebow fans can call out Starnes for his racially biased defense of #tebowing.

Check out the link here: Blogging where no one has blogged before!

A big thanks to Sci Fi Catholic.

I love being a Browncoat blogger!

Tonight’s episode of Grimm was more romantic and lighthearted (yeah, that in spite of two murders occurring) than most of the other episodes. The obvious fairytale reference this week was The Three Little Pigs. In the GRIMM world, the Blutbaden (big bad wolves) have had an ancient feud with the Bauerschwein (pig humanoids). We are introduced to Eddie’s friend, “Hap” Lasser, Hap is short for Happy. He’s a happy-go-lucky Man-Boy party animal (think Seth Rogen in any Judd Apatow film) who just happens to be a reformed Blutbad. Sadly, Happy falls victim in the line of fire between his sister, Angelina and Lieutenant Peter Orson, an arson expert who has ruled that the recent rash of arsons at blutbad’s houses were accidents. Orson, it turns out, is a Bauerschwein. Of course, Monroe, yet again, comes to the rescue “You have to you know, honor the bond,” Monroe about Hap and him to Nick. There was a small thread of defining what family was. Angelina resents Nick because he is a Grimm. Captain Renard (a villain or bully fighter) turns his back on a fellow cop, “I’m not going to protect a dirty cop, but make sure you’re right.” Peter expects Nick to back him up
“Our families have never been enemies,” suggesting a history of friendship between Bauerschwein and Grimm.

I would be interested to see what creaturely form Grimms take. From my reading and understanding of the Grimms’ they could be portrayed as giants, or even ravens. I am thinking in particular of Eddie’ comments to Nick from the pilot, that all persons have a creaturely form. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Monroe has become the star of the show, one moment he’s all like,”it’s taken all of my self-control not to help her [Angelina],”Eddie, but in the last scene, the episode hints that Eddie aided Angelina in escaping the authorities (yeah, and he remains in denial that he is in love with her). It will be interesting to see where Monroe’s enigmatic personality takes the audience, as well as the mystery behind the terrorists known as the Grimms.

The fairytale that inspired tonight’s episode of Grimm was “The Jew in the Brambles.” The Brothers Grimm, like many of the intellectuals in their time, had a problem with the people we call the Jews. That problem’s name is ANTI-SEMITISM. When I saw the preview and the title for tonight’s show two weeks ago, I immediately knew the story reference. “The Jew in the Brambles” is racist propaganda, a form of literary bullying if you will. There is a fool who is at the service of a rich man. Instead of getting paid his wages, the rich man gives him nothing but 3 pennies. The fool gives his last 3 pennies to a gnome who grants him three wishes. One of his 3 wishes is for every time he asks a favor, someone will do what the servant wants; another one of the wishes was for a fiddle. Well, the servant runs into a Jew, who the servant (like a good Aryan Third Reicher would) accuses the Jew of stealing money from others. So, playing the fiddle, the servant coerces the Jew into dancing in a bush filled with thorns. At the end of the story, after the Jew has alerted the proper authorities of the servant’s actions, the servant plays the fiddle, and forces the Jew to confess to a crime he did not commit. Like a certain Jewish savior for Christians, an innocent Jew was executed. The message of the story: There’s economic injustice in the world, so much so that foolish men-servants prosper, and the only thing to do about it is to find a scape-goat. That’s where the Jew comes in. On a religious symbolic, nay, theological level, “The Jew in the Brambles” represents a perverted religion, a complete inversion of the Cross–the Jew Christ Jesus wore a crown of thorns on his head and was crucified, hung high because he promoted spiritual and economic shalom. It is racist cultural narratives such as these that makes the notion of a transcendent God necessary, to combat radical evil in the world (by transcendent, I mean a divine Spirit who goes “to battle in front of humanity,” to show us the way to holiness).

Now to the televised rendition of this racist folk tale, Grimm’s Danse Macabre At the beginning of the episode, a mangled man’s body, Paul Lawson, was found in a car, apparently eaten alive by rats. Roddy Geiger becomes a person of interest, since his dad owns a pest control company. When our heroes Grimm and his partner Hank inquire about Roddy, he is playing a violin, “captivating” a group of rodents. Roddy’s dad complains, “I am tired of them treating us like garbage.” Roddy becomes frightened of Nick, afraid as a Grimm, he will kill the Geiger men right there at the trailer park.

Economic inequality and bullying loomed large in this episode. Captain Renard says that the department’s chief concern is about how a popular teacher at a private school for rich kids was murdered (and not any concern fro the victim as such). The obvious classwarfare between the rich (Carter Brimley and his family) versus the poor (The Geigers). “You’re gonna pay” Roddy promises Carter. “Some of us can afford to,”Carter replies. Sarah’s mother (Sarah we discover is Roddy’s and Carter’s love interest) tells Hank and Nick, “This boy does not belong at our school.” Hank (the Token Black) finishes the sentence for her, “or in your neighborhood.”

Nick convinces Eddie, the Big Bad Wolf (who just happens to play the cello as well), to talk to the Reinegen (rat humanoid monster) Roddy, and Monroe asks (in typical comic yet prejudiced fashion), “He’s not a rapper, is he? Nothing against rappers, but where is the melody?” Grimm tonight was a fantastic fantasy telling of the inner turmoil that the marginalized suffer. Carter Brimley the bully, and his friends are shocked to discover that their favorite local DJ, DJ Retchit Kat, was actually Roddy himself. DJ Retchit Kat (“a rapper”) represents the poor struggling to become included into society by the rich. [edit] The fiddle playing-cat comes from the story, The Poor Miller’s Boy and the Cat (another fairytale about class differences). [end edit-12/9/12] This alter ego is what W.E.B. DuBois called, a “double conciousness” or two souls warring against the other, one vying for acceptance and an integrated society, while the other struggling to affirm the self as is (much like the Jew exiled in 19th century German or the American Negro during the days of segregation).

Another interesting part of the story, as part of the story-arc over all, is the fear that creatures have around Nick. A plumber who happens to be a creature turns around, takes one look at Grimm, and runs out of the house without completing his task (fixing the refrigerator). It was the same kind of terror that Roddy had in his initial encounter with Nick. I suspect there is a trend here, that the Grimms are not just criminal profilers historically, but also terrorizing bullies as well. Perhaps a tongue-in-cheek critique of the current power of militarized police forces in the USA these days?

For further commentary on “The Jew in the Brambles,” as well as “The Poor Miller’s Boy,” see the text, The Annotated Brothers Grimm.

Also see this link for an abridged German version of  Christ Crucified “The Jew in the Brambles”: A Jew in the Brambles

Link to the Poor Miller’s Boy and the Cat: Poor Miller’s Boy and the Cat

Related articles

• Grimm: Lonelyhearts (politicaljesus.com)
• ‘Grimm’ Preview: Music, Rats and a Look Behind-the-Scenes for This Thursday’s Episode (buddytv.com)
• Grimm: BEEWARE (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Variations on a Theme (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Bears Will Be Bears (politicaljesus.com)

So, here at Political Jesus, I want to open up this post for people to add their favourite Christmas ‘the sky is falling’ story.

Like the school bus drivers who were told to undecorate their school buses.  The bus drivers’ response to the whole situation, ““This is totally not a religious thing. This is about Christmas.” (facepalm).

Or how about the directive that Service Canada offices in Quebec were to have no holiday decorations that could be in view of the public, that was quickly overturned.

Your turn:  What’s your favourite ‘it’s not Christmas without outrage/overreaction/hyper-political-correctness’ story?

My series on Liberating the Future of Seminary was featured on Remnant of Giants’ edition of the 69th Biblical Studies Carnival. Also several posts of note on Secularism, Biblical studies, and SBL. All of the aforementioned protest posts, well, I agree with for the most part and their protests are part of the reasons I refuse to join the Society of Biblical Literature. I will stick with the American Academy of Religion, thank you. I wish I could have been in San Fran this year. I will make my return to academic conferencing and networking one day.

Image via Wikipedia

In Season 4, episode 8 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, written by THE Jane Epenson, one of the more annoying displays of white liberal guilt was displayed by Buffy’s witch friend, Willow. From the beginning of the episode where she recognizes Thanksgiving as a day of remembering white genocide to her refusal to help Buffy fight the vengeful Indian spirit gone mad (you know, there isn’t any use in struggling with the Angry Minorities, because they are right). The evil (up to this point) vampire Spike lectures Willow, because you know the West won, “Caesar didn’t say, I came, I conquered, I feel really bad about it.” That, and along with Giles the senior vampire-slayer mentor and English gentleman not being able to resist calling his U.S. American friends “bloody colonials” made for a tongue-in-cheek commentary on Thanksgiving from both sides.

Willow’s liberal white guilt, along with Spike’s reactionary unapologetic defense of genocide are two sides of the same coin. In both instances, the characters (and those people we know who agree with S & W) are overcompensating for lost identities. Because we are all interconnected, the slaughtering of one people group by another, and the subsequent colonial lies that are told means that untruths rule the day. Deception, as Howard Thurman states in his classic Jesus and the Disinherited, destroys the soul.  I would amend Thurman’s argument to say that existences founded upon falsehoods mean that both the oppressed and the oppressors do damage to our inner lives, our very souls.

Not to say that Willow or Spike are not without some truth, but that it is the incompletion of that truth that leads to the false sense of self that each character is advancing.

In “Pangs,” the Native American evil spirits can transform themselves (hide their true identity) in the form of animals, a wolf or bear for instance. I could say this plays into the stereotypical Indian Other, that Natives on film are turned into animals for the sake of animalizing their personhood. To a limited extent, there is some recognition by writers and producers that in Native American religious mythology, people turn into animals. However, the purpose of this, according to Vine DeLoria in God Is Red, is to teach religious adherent the idea that all of life is interconnected, closer to Whiteheadian process thought (89,93).  Deloria says, “the task or role of the tribal religions is to relate the community of people to each and every facet as they experienced it” (84).

Now, knowing some of what Epenson has written for television in regards to religion (I watched every episode of Caprica twice!), religion is portrayed as something that may be beneficial to people as individuals, but in public spaces, it is primarily divisive.  However, like the idea in Native American religions, it is not lost on the writers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that there are places that are sacred.  For Vine Deloria, the conservative/patriot is overcompensating, “But their allegiance is to democracy, a powerful idea, but it has not relationship with the earth upon which we walk and the plants and  and animals that give us sustenance” (page 59).

It is good that people like Willow want us to confess our corporate guilt in the matter of the Native Americans’ genocide, but the approach to reconciliation of “giving them what they want” is just a sign of surrender, discouraging dialogue and relationships of mutuality.  In short, the Native colonized Other becomes just another recipient of the Westerners’ goodness.  The idea of democracy in the abstract still prevails over the care of nature and sacred spaces.

What if instead of making Thanksgiving about white liberal guilt trips or conservative patriotic misinformation, we begin to use this time to remind ourselves to give gratitude to our Creator, living in the power of the Eucharist, to take care of our environment in preparation for the New Creation? Just a thought.

*Faculty Scenario 1*

A junior scholar, a person of color is invited to provide a message for a seminary’s chapel service. In the middle of his homily, he describes instances of institutional racism at churches as he makes the case for racial reconciliation. The crowd grows silent. Students begin to feel uncomfortable. At the end of the message, the audience gives a half-hearted applause. Hours later, on a social networking site, a group is formed, “This Seminary Allows Marxists to Preach in Chapel.”

*Faculty Scenario 2*

New to the Seminary faculty, one scholar of color was hired to run the Chinese Church Studies program. Because she is also the Pauline New Testament scholar on board, she has the double burden of running the CCS, teaching Intro to New Testament, as well as being an advisor for PhD students. In addition, the CCS hosts a yearly summer dinner, where there is a guest speaker who is an expert in Asian religious studies; the said faculty member must use all of her energies to network, inviting Chinese Christians outside the community to join them for this one splendid night. All the while, she is expected to write articles and books, present papers at conferences, and deal with students. Because all of her time is spent trying to grow the fledgling CCS, she is able to produce fewer articles/texts, and thus is less able to compete for tenure. If she neglects her responsibilities at the CCS, she risks losing her job. It’s really a catch-22.

*Faculty Scenario 3*

A teaching assistant for a faculty member, who is a person of color, has been rather stressed out recently. A small number of students are complaining, accusing the professor of reverse racism. “Why does he give us such low grades? Is he racist against white people?” The TA is caught in a bind. Since she grades for the teacher; if she gives good grades to racial minorities, it will be seen as preferential treatment; if she gives A+’s to everyone, the faculty member will question her competence. The outlines for grading are clear. If there is something missing from the outline, points come off of the assignment. The TA is still bothered by comments that she hears. Seems like professors of color have a chip on their shoulder, and take out their rage through grading and having too high standards.

End of scenarios for Seminary Faculty.

“On the other hand, I also cannot write like the badly-treated minority, because I’m not that.”- Gayatri Spivak

In each scenario I presented, each based on true events, I tried to show how much institutional racism defines scholars of color roles. In the first instance, racism compels scholars of color to become act as the prophetic voices for reconciliation and justice, in the second instance, the desire to fight racism through the provision of a safe space for racial minorities is quite time consuming, and is a very lonely affair. In the third story, it shows the two-fold concerns of the image of the professor of color, who is seen as subjective, emotional, angry, and vindictive, while privileged students in the CLASS room vie for even more special treatment through the institutional implementation of grade inflation.

Last week, theologian Kwok Pui Lan wrote a post suggesting how minority scholars could be better able to get published. I suggest you take a look at the post and Pui Lan did point out the responsibilities that are time consuming that minorities have to engage in, this is assuming that the seminary has a [enter the name of the Minority] Church studies program/ Urban Ministry Center/ or [enter the name of the minority] Leadership center.

Pui Lan wrote, “For racial and ethnic minority scholars, finding time to write is such a luxury. Many of us do not teach in research universities and have a heavy teaching load. We are put on all the committees and we have communities of accountability outside the school.”

More than likely, the token minority scholars at seminaries and other religious education institutions are going to be placed on the committee for diversity or multicultural competency committee or racial awareness or urban outreach campaigns. Whatever name these gatherings go by, the goal is the same: to assuage feelings of guilt for the racial exclusion that did take place and is currently happening. If the seminary has more than one (and that’s a rarity in and of itself) selected space for racial minorities, these committees act more like party planning committees, so that the racial Others can spend on night feeding and entertaining the Majority.

Racial stereotypes do matter. I myself have been labeled the Angry Negro because of a presentation I gave on the Enlightenment and pedagogy. Research shows that overall, black professors, particularly black males, are viewed more negatively than their peers. As evangelical theologian Anthony Bradley pointed out in June, persons of color who teach have to worry about appeasing students to avoid scathing class evaluations. This time of racially-tinged, subjective feedback regulates the pedagogical practices of scholars of color.

Quote from Bradley’s summary of the research he provides,

“The most successful attribute for black professors at white colleges is being perceived as “warm” (and non-threatening). If one’s “blackness” scares white students the black professor is doomed. Black professors should not use facial expressions, hand gestures, and the like, that communicate aggression or feed white stereotypes about black people. I wish someone had told me this in graduate school. Black professors will have to put their own cultural norms aside and adopt those that communicate “caring,” and “warmness.” For some, taking acting classes in grad school may be a good idea (I’m unfortunately not kidding).”

Race as a construct is part and partial to the idea that the scholar of color is a commodity. It’s like the black/Latin@/Asian/Korean/First Nations seminary professor is expected to be a babysitter of sorts, and coddling and nursing white students into becoming successful Masters students rather than challenging their embedded theologies and cultural anthropologies. The racialized nature of student feedback at the end of the semester is a form of silencing junior scholars of color who are struggling to earn tenure, i.e., academic freedom to speak truth to power.

The class privilege that comes with being part of the majority also involves the phenomena known as “Grade Inflation.” Grade inflation, or the dispersal of excellent marks going up across the board, means in essence, low expectations and a handcuffing of the fierce humanities. The pressure that scholars of color find placed on them comes from their peers (who don’t want to rock the boat, you know, not bite the hand that feeds them literally), administrators who are solely focused on productivity, and students who use appointments scheduled at the last weeks of class to argue why they should have gotten higher grades. The professors’ success is due in part to how well they negotiate with students, peers, and superiors. Whether it is at the elementary level of schooling where science is being neglected at the private and public levels in favor of teaching kids the basics of reading, writing, and arithematic, to the graduate level theology courses, where just reading textbooks with our liberal/conservative talking points will be enough to get by, grade inflation really means that the market favors a dumbing down of American pastors and laypeople.

Class rules everything around us.

In the next part, part 2, I will look at the current relationship between Masters students’ Vocational Concerns And Academic Interests of scholars/professors and how they interact. For those of you wondering about the constructive portion of this series, there will be part of the last 2 parts, entitled, PRAXIS. I want to have to parts to give my best of a constructive proposal for a Seminary of the Oppressed, liberated for the future.

Read here: SYFY orders pilot script for a Booster Gold TV series

I absolutely loved Booster Gold in the Smallville episode Booster,written by Green Lantern writer Geoff Johns; hopefully they could get Eric Martsolf to be in the role.

MASTERS STUDENTS

*Seminary Scenario 1*: For a final assignment for a biblical studies course, a person of color works for two weeks on a 15 page paper. Over the course of those two weeks, the student is inspired to add on to the works of a person who interpreted the history of a Major Prophet theologically, but still within historical context. In addition, the student sees similarities between the Judeans position of exile and historical experiences of racial oppression, and considers a number of songs related to said Prophet to be valid interpretations of the text. A few weeks later, the student receives a grade marked with excellence, but the comments by the professor are quite strange: This paper sounds like a sermon. Interestingly enough, the student decides to share his work with other Masters students. The other Masters students scoff at the idea that a song written by an uneducated, marginalized people group could ever count as “real” biblical exegesis, even though the student had worked hard to show similarities between contemporary and ancient appropriations of said Prophet. In a separate incident, the same student reads similar comments from a professor whom he worked with on an independent study; what does it mean for rigorous academic work to be considered “sermonic”?

*Seminary Scenario 2*: A class was hearing a teacher give a lecture about how different churches within their traditions conduct themselves in worship. In the middle of said lecture, the professor let it be known that what was wrong with black churches was that ALL (without qualification, mind you) black families were single parented by a black mother. When the one token black student spoke up that she was raise by both parents, the professor dismissed the students’ experience as an impossibility. After the incident took place, a group of white students let their anger be heard through social media.

*Seminary Scenario 3*: A group of students notices that their seminary promotes diversity and inclusion on paper. However, the paper assignments they are given center around the traditional Euro-centric canon, while scholars of color are referred to as marginal or cultural critics. When a select few inform a few faculty of their concerns, the interests of the students are dismissed as petty whining.

End of Scenarios for Masters Students

It was a little over forty years ago that James Hal Cone wrote his controversial text, Black Theology & Black Power. In this book, he makes it clear that he seems himself as invalidating the knowledge of good and evil in US American society in continuity with the late Dietrich Bonhoeffer (140). Much like Martin Luther generations before him (118), Bonhoeffer denied the absolute authority of the religious leaders of his day. The examples of Luther and Bonhoeffer are used by Cone to demonstrate what Cone saw Black theologians and Black Power advocates doing: challenging the truth regime of US American white liberal Protestantism. Rather than assuming that the truth regime was legit and natural, Cone and subsequently, Womanist theologians critiqued false claims of universality by the white liberal US American theological establishment. Cone’s use of strong language against (speaking truth to power, and in love) White Liberals emboldened a group of students at Colgate-Rochester Crozer Divinity School in New York to take a stand a demand a space for Black religious intellectuals. That place became the first to have a Black Church Studies Program.

One curious passage that I wish to look at from BTBP: “Such a value system [from black theology] , of course, an end to the influence of white seminaries with their middle class white ideas about God, Christ, and the Church. [...] What is meant is a removal of the oppressive ideas from the black community which the seminaries perpetuate. [...] Instead of having course dealing with the theology of Reinhold Neibuhr or Rudolf Bultmann or Emil Brunner, we need to deal with the theology of Henry Garnet and other black revolutionaries.” (page 131). Question: Have you had a course on the theology of Julia A. J. Foote? No? How about Vine Deloria Jr.? I doubt that you have, if I am writing to an undergrad religion major or seminarian. Why? Because the Academy, THE IVORY TOWER, still has a canon that is as white as snow, with the Western, North American, and European experience at the center all in the name of “objectivity.”

As Miguel De La Torre states in his Philosophy of Pedagogy, the classroom is really a room where class exists. That is, our bodies, our privileges, all of our experiences enter one four-cornered, four-walled space for us to read texts that we bought with our privileged monies. However, some students from the get-go are held in higher esteem than others. They are given the benefit of the doubt simply because of the color of their skin. And as such, these students wield a sense of entitlement. This shall be discussed at length in my next post (part 1B on Diversity Matters and Faculty members who are minorities).

PHD & ADVANCED DEGREE STUDENTS

*PHD/Advanced Degree Program Scenario 1*: Because the Academic canon is exclusive and closed, the number of languages one is encouraged to take are limited to Hebrew, Greek, French, and German. When someone asks questions about why French and German only, the members and leaders of the status quo stubbornly insist that nothing of importance or relevance has been written for biblical studies except for in English, German, and French. Of course, England the majority prevails. What else is new?

*PHD/Advanced Degree Program Scenario 2*: It was time for a PHD student to decide the topic of her dissertation. Of interest to her was a theological interpretation of musician Billie Holiday. Although she had passed her exams and her language requirements with flying colors, a couple of her dissertation advisors wound up dissuading the said PhD student from pursuing her desired topic. They were concerned if she did not address the writings of Karl Barth (a popular topic for today), she would not be able to land a job in the region where she wanted (the Bible Belt).

End of scenarios for Advanced Degree/PHD students.

In each of these scenarios for Advanced Degree students, the problem of the Eurocentric closed Academic canon looms even greater. It affects their very livelihoods, in the end. Should faithfulness to a small collection of books function as a hegemon to regulate how others think? Of course, there should be boundaries between all disciplines, but the matter of interdisciplinarity and canon must become justice issues for seminaries now and in the future.

In the next part of Part1 (part 1b), I will discuss Diversity Matters as it relates to Faculty Members.

Related articles

• Cornel West Returning to Union Theological Seminary (nytimes.com)
• Series This Week: Liberating the Future of Seminary (politicaljesus.com)
• Interacting with God of the Oppressed 2 – The Importance of Experience (politicaljesus.com)
• Interacting With God of the Oppressed 6 (politicaljesus.com)
• Interacting with God of the Oppressed 5 – What is the Good News? (politicaljesus.com)
• Liberal, Conservative and Progressive Christianity 3 (politicaljesus.com)
• New Series: Me and Black Liberation Theology (politicaljesus.com)
• Interacting with God of the Oppressed 4 – The Social Context of Theology (politicaljesus.com)
• Liberal, Conservative, and Progressive Christianity part 1 (politicaljesus.com)

So, rather than just screech and complain about that, I have decided to use most of my blogging superpowrs this week to sharing my hopes of what I see as the liberating potential that divinity schools and schools of theology hold. Please join me in this conversation if you like.

Part 1a: Diversity Matters: Will focus on issues of cultural, racial, gender, and religious diversity in the seminary arena, and dealing both with student concerns

Part 1b: Diversity Matters: Continued focus on issues of cultural, racial, gender, and religious diversity in the seminary arena, and dealing both with FACULTY concerns

Part 2: Vocational Concerns And Academic Interests: Thoughts on how intellectually rigorous the seminary challenge is and its often conflicting nature (in some people’s eyes) with being irrelevant to ministry concerns.

Part 3: Church/Academy Cooperation: A reflection on the current and hopefully the future relationship between churches, temples, as well as religious communities and theological educational institutions.

Part 4A: Praxis: A deconstructive questioning of current practices in the bible colleges now that are heavily informed by the business culture in North America rather than the Gospel

Part 4B: Praxis: A constructive guide to possible future practices taken up by the seminary of the future, I call The Seminary of the Oppressed.

Part 5: Concluding thoughts

In this week’s episode of GRIMM, at least two folktales are used as allegories. First, The Wolf and the Seven Kids is the German, Grimm Brothers’ version of the familiar Three Billy Goats Gruff (Norwegian folktale). The second is the Grimm’s German rendition of Frenchman Charles Perault’s Bluebeard, which was entitled Fitcher’s Bird

At the beginning of the investigation, Hank and Nick make a visit to the Bramble Haus Bed & Breakfast. In the middle of talking to their suspect, Billy Capras, Hank accidently steps on and squashes the life out of a toad. Saddened by the loss, Billy informs Hank and Nick, “The toad is an endangered species. It’s the first sign of our extinction when toads die.” It is then that Nick sees Billy Capra’s true Ziegevolk (Blue Beard/Goat) self in his reflection in a pond. As usual, Nick is confused, even after reading Marie’s profile on Ziegevolk and interrupts Eddie playing the violin to find answers. The reputation that Ziegevolk have as lovers, preachers, and celebrities (according to Monroe) may be borrowing from the former story (Wolf and the 7 kids), while the notion of a hairy murdering rapist may go with the latter (Bluebeard/Fitcher’s Bird). Later, Nick hires Eddie Monroe to spy on Billy; Monroe replies, “I know a Ziegevolk when I smell one, okay?” [...] “Dude, he’s a toad-eater? That means he’s not just a breeder, he’s herder.” Monroe’s intimate knowledge of the Ziegevolk scent as well as his inability to resist Capra (“No way! Dude, I can’t be around that guy. He’s way too potent.”) may be a rather vague reference to the The Wolf and the Seven Kids.

Captain Renard, played by Caprica’s Sasha Ruiz, reveals his territorial and authoritarian nature. You would think that all members of the Reapers of the Grimm sect would be working together to defeat the world’s last breathing Grimm. But no, Renard cuts off ear of other Reaper of the Grimms who desired to exact revenge on Nick, without Renard’s permission to be in the city in the first place (Renard’s logic). In my opinion, I do not think we can separate this scene from the overall narrative arc of the episode. “Lonelyhearts” was a dark yet polemical questioning of charismatic leaders and personalities. It was not by accident that preachers and celebrities were placed in the same archetype as the Ziegevolk. Perhaps the most telling is the crime scene, on the premises of the bed & breakfast, where men and women were discovered (herded) and locked up in cages, doomed for the rest of their lives until their were rescued. Is this not how our idols captivate us, preventing us from thinking critically and asking questions? We just have to take their word for everything, yes?

Last week, I went 2 wins and 3 losses. Here is the run down followed by a few roster moves I made due to injuries/disappointments being released.

LOSSES

YAHOO–

1. Whedony Warriors 96.30, the other guy who had a great day, 163.73

I had Drew Brees and Maurice Jones Drew. He had Tom Brady, DeMarco Murray as well as Houston and St. Louis’s defense. Not a good week.

2. My one Yahoo Team trying to make the playoffs 81, the opponents, 88.

I had Tom Brady as well as the Jacksons at running back (Steven and Fred), and that was still not enough. He had the Packers’ defense, and by Monday Night Football, after the 1st quarter, it was over.

ESPN–

3. Joan Harris 41, the other guy, 124.

I don’t know what happened, but there are about to be major changes taking place up on this team. Matt Cassel is out for the season, no choice but to make some pick-ups.

WINS

ESPN–

Your Mom is a Cylon 75, my opponent, 57.

DeMarco Murray, Kicker Dan Bailey, and the Raiders’ defense saved the day for me this week.

YAHOO–

The SyFy Empire 133, the other team 122.

I was really sweating this week. This team is undefeated, and I swear I thought that karma was gonna hit me in the nose squarely since in Fantasy Hockey, I beat the remaining undefeated team. It was tied at 122 going into Monday Night Football, and Adrian Peterson got me 11 points. Larry Fitzgerald and Matt Ryan helped me to overcome a team with Michael Bush (a crazy 30.5 points on a Thursday night game), Reggie Bush, and John Casey the Kicker.

ROSTER MOVES

For Joan Harris: I added Kendall Hunter (backup to Frank Gore), Andy Dalton, and Torrey Smith. I have a number of WRs questionable for Sunday (Stevie Johnson and Julio Jones).

For the one unnamed Yahoo Team, I have picked up WR David Nelson (becoming more of a target in the redzone lately) and WR Earl Bennett as well as trading for Mario Manningham, Laurent Robinson, Jackie Battle and Jeremy Maclin.

Hopefully with my playoff push coming up, these will help. We shall see.

If you are interested in this journal published by Sopher Press, please like them on FACEBOOK and keep up with them at Bible and Transformation.com

“Can Ethiopians change their skin or leopards their spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.”- Jeremiah 13:23, NRSV

For years now, out of my utter dislike for Disney movies and the Disney Vault, I wanted to watch and finish Song of the South (1946). I was expecting racial stereotypes galore and, well, that is what I received. What I did not expect was RELIGION! And by religion, I mean the most impure and unholiest of all religions, that of uplifting empire and racism. I say this not out of exaggeration, but in all seriousness. I was surprised to see that Disney’s Song of the South referred to Scripture, from the very beginning. The first tune that the (formerly enslaved) black minstrels (still living on the plantation btw) sang included the question, “Can a leopard change its spots?” Right away, bam! The holy writ, what Christians call Scripture, is used to sanction slavery and racial segregation. Is this a necessary move that the text itself (Jeremiah 13) makes? Highly unlikely. In even the literary context, Jeremiah’s oracle is confronting the sinners in Judah, who have brought upon themselves exile. Of course, we still have to deal with the first part of the verse about the Ethiopians, though, right? But one can safely assume that not all African Americans are from that country that the ancients referred to as Ethiopia.

By baptizing racism in pseudo-religious language, Disney does not have to mention god at all through out the film (well, except for the vague references to a higher power by our hero, Uncle Remus and other blacks). Of course, Uncle Remus is the black Uncle Tom (oh gods, I utterly hate that word) foil and servant, the fallen brother who had to be walked over so that the new Romulus could be born (the USA as the New Roman Empire). Without going into any of the modern politically-correct criticisms of this film, just to think what was going on back then, and consider the message that Disney was trying to get across. The cartoon was drawn, written, and finished during the late stages of the Second World War. African Americans strived and made great achievements in this era (the Tuskegee Airmen), and were about to head home to work for their human rights, fighting for democracy here in the U.S. after struggling and killing folk for it abroad. Brer Rabbit is an allegory, that he faces traps and even the threat of lynching after he leaves the Briar Patch is an omenous warning to the Negro Americans living in that day. Brer Bear, the big dumb, muscular sensuous Negro man, the Buck as he was known in the days of slavery, winds up being the one with his neck in a noose. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Patriotic Negro soldiers shouldn’t ask questions, right?

Further along in our story, there is the “save the kitten trope” only with Uncle Remus’s massa’s kid, Johnny saving a puppy from drowning. See, even though Johnny is going to grow up being racist, and advance the goals of the Jim Crow South, it’s okay, because he is doing it out of compassion. Johnny comes to learn from Brer Rabbit, to become wise and cunning and not use his brute strength. Brer Rabbit, at one point, is tricked into fighting a tar baby, getting trapped by Brer Fox. Brer Fox, representing the typical sly Negro con artist who always has a scheme but ultimately fails, chases after Brer Rabbit’s laughing place instead (which was a bee hive–hahahahhaha, yeah!). Johnny admits to Uncle Remus at the conclusion of our film that Johnny’s laughing place is the slave quarters where Uncle Remus lives. One man’s joy comes at the expense of another’s racial oppression.

The final and closing reference to religion comes again in the form of the formerly yet still enslaved Negroes singing a chorus at the door of Johnny’s family’s home. They are only allowed on the outside as Johnny lies in his bed, hurt from an injury. “Have faith in Him. Have faith in him.” God is again called in again sanctify the racist part of America’s history. Of course, Johnny’s resurrection (albeit a false, oppressive narration of rising up again), coincides with an encounter with Brer Rabbit, a creature who Johnny’s mother worries will make Johnny disobedient and not very submissive.

Of course, there could be a redemptive counter-narrative to my criticism, that Johnny’s mother (as she is the status quo) fretting over the danger of the Brer Rabbit stories, as well as Johnny and Uncle Remus holding hands represent the possiblity of a new South, blacks and whites holding hands. But this vision of racial harmony would be far from mutual, and would exclude blacks the privilege of earning political rights.

“Everything is satisfaction.”- Uncle Remus

************

There are several pros and cons to Cone’s approach to interpreting Scripture. Indeed, many times, the positive aspects of Cone’s approach are at the same time negative aspects. Take, for example, one of the strongest aspects of Cone’s approach: the dialectic between Scripture and experience. Cone is correct that our cultural-socio-political environs affect how we read and interpret Scripture, and it is important for theologians to admit it, and also for students of theology to recognize it as they evaluate and interact with different theological positions. Unfortunately, in Cone’s work, this dialectic isn’t all that dialectical. While he says that Scripture is important (Cone, 29), experience takes priority. Experience influences his reading and presentation of Scripture, and there is little evidence of when or how Cone would allow Scripture to influence his experience. While it is true that Cone cites Scripture, he seems to pick and choose which passage of Scripture best fits to validate his theological model. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that the reason is because there is only so much space in a book of this type, but the tone of his writing suggests that he has a Marcionite approach to Scripture, ignoring or dismissing those passages, or even entire books, that don’t fit his theology.

This leads into the next strength and weakness of Cone’s approach, namely his emphasis on the Exodus event. It is true that the Exodus event was a transformative event for the people of Israel, an event that would lead to their formal covenant with Yahweh. Over and over, throughout the Old Testament, God reminds Israel that He was the God that brought them out of Egypt. This was a defining moment, one that Israel needed to look back on and remember in the annual Passover celebration. But by focussing so intently on the Exodus, Cone ignores other actions of God that are not based solely on liberation. For example, Cone starts his exploration of the Scriptures at the Exodus and ignores the book of Genesis. He ignores the promise to Abraham, and the possibility that God’s action of liberating Israel demonstrates that God is faithful, more so than it demonstrates that God is liberating. Cone suggests that Israel is God’s people “only because Yahweh has delivered them from the bondage of political slavery…” (Cone, 210). Exodus 2:23-25 suggests that Israel was already God’s people before he liberated them, that they were his people because of His promise to Abraham.

Indeed, even the Israelites, in recounting the history of their people and recounting the faithfulness of God, do not start with the Exodus. For example, in Nehemiah 9, after Israel has been released from exile in Babylon and have rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, they hear the Law read out to them, and they call out to God, repenting of their sins. In their prayer they start with the God who creates (Nehemiah 9:6), and the God who covenants with Abraham (9:7), before they describe how God brought them out of the land of Egypt. Also, Cone does not address the fact that the God who liberated Israel from Egypt is the same God who permanently exiled the Northern kingdom of Israel to Assyria, never to be heard from again, and exiled the Southern kingdom to Babylon, where they were left until they were ready to repent and return to the covenant with Yahweh. How does this impact Cone’s description of a liberating God? (Indeed, it would be interesting to see if there are any Liberation Theologians who deal with this, or whether it is by and large ignored.)

Another strength of Cone’s approach is his emphasis on Christ coming and dwelling and identifying with humanity in all its messiness. Cone sees the work and mission of Jesus as the epitome of liberation, but is it the only aspect of Jesus’ mission? By defining Jesus’ mission of liberation so narrowly, his definition of sin and even of the Gospel is also narrow. For Cone, sin becomes a political sin, one that is defined by injustice (Cone, 217). The Gospel, in Cone’s understanding, is only for the politically oppressed, and thus his theology demonstrates a rigid doctrine of election. In general, Cone seems to redefine key theological terms. For example, not only does he redefine sin in political terms, he also redefines sanctification as “the slaves acceptance of their new way of life” (Cone, 213).

So is there anything of value in Cone’s Liberation Theology for those who are not ‘oppressed?’ At times it would appear that Cone would say no. Even those ‘oppressors’ who wish to take the side of the oppressed are not fully welcomed as dialogue partners, but rather are to take their place as submissive observers. By so narrowly interpreting Scripture, and by extension what constitutes the Christian community, Cone has excluded all those who disagree with him from the ongoing theological conversation (including not only white but also black theologians). Through his ideological approach to theology, Cone has created an environment where any legitimate critiques of his work from white theologians means that he can dismiss their critiques as merely a product of their whiteness; that their critiques are indicative of just how much they are outside the community of the oppressed, the community that Jesus chooses to dwell within to the exclusion of all others.

Read it from the New York Times:

Cornel West Returning to Union Theological Seminary

The 30 billionth Republican Presidential debate this year was held tonight in South Carolina, and the focus was foreign policy. The two candidates I agreed with the most for were Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman (not surprisingly) since both have pretty much moderate to pro-peace foreign policies. I only bothered to watch the first hour of the debate aired on television, and I just have to say that in that 60 minutes, there was a big elephant in the room that no one talked about, the one with small ears. Of course, I am playing on the imagery of the GOP elephants and the little discussed country of India.

True to the original use of the elephant as a symbol, most of the Republicans used fear tactics, pushing extreme Sino-phobic positions just to score brownie points for believing in their version of American exceptionalism. Perhaps the best indicator of Republican foreign policy is the candidate’s shooting of the wind since everything revolves around Israel. Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich all agreed that America needed to start with $0 in terms of foreign and and simply discriminate which country to help based on their loyalty to us. But the world is not that simple, and actually, one of the brilliant parts of the debate went to Michele Bachmann (she wore black tonight, reminded me of Hilary Clinton as the stateswoman in the field–not joking), who explained that the Pakistan situation is far more complex (Al Quaeda versus U.S. & Israel). The situation is quite more complicated, and I would agree. She should have said that we should work with our other friends, you know, like our friends in India to deter Pakistan as a rogue state. Of course, this would call for a sense of mutuality, and the Republicans’ Sinophobia could doom them if India emerges as the world’s next superpower rather than China.

Sigh. While we have 2 of the GOP nominees who oppose waterboarding, it would be suffice to say that these debates have been brutally boring, and should be considered a form of torture.

In this week’s episode, Greenwalt and company borrowed images from the Brothers Grimm story, The Queen Bee. I obviously missed the Disney movie on that one. Anyhow, it seems like an interesting story and someday I may read the original Grimm stories I have never even heard of. I keep thinking that this show is a reminder, with a little bird flying above my head chirping, “Someday you will have to re-learn German for a PHD program. German German German.”

*SPOILER ALERT*

Now, to this week’s episode of GRIMM. After reading some previews, I had a very different idea of what this particular episode was going to be about, hopefully a take on gender and such. But, to my surprise and delight, the show was not what it advertised tonight.

Another ANGEL similarity immediately appeared within the first 5 minutes of the episode; a tall tower occupied by an all white, law firm with the propensity for evil is the set for the center of the drama.Insert the one token lawyer joke here. Wolfram & Hart, anyone? Anyhow, the episode takes place first with a female lawyer being murdered by a flashmob on the subway. Her wounds are that of apitoxin, the natural toxin made by bees that causes our bee stings to swell up. Grimm gets suspicious and visits a professor who also happens to be a beekeeper, and who just happened to BEE (hahahah, I know) returning from a conference of bee scholars. To add to Grimm’s and Hank’s confusion, the flashmob has the same alibi. They all met on twitter, and they claimed to want to have fun with strangers.

Grimm goes to the trailer to do research (ala Angel and his investigations in the sewer–hint hint) and learns of the existence of Mellifers, or people who have some of the physical and social characteristics of bees. Their constant communication via Twitter and other social media was a part of their clarion habits. In the words of my favorite character Eddie, “It’s just some fancy pants mumbo jumbo for saying they just like to gossip alot.” Things get complicated when Nick and Hank are ordered to protect Adalind Schade, who Nick has identified as a Hexenbiest, aka, an evil murderous witch. At the conclusion, Nick is put into a situation where he has to ultimately decide whether to let the Queen Bee and her hive kill Schade, or to do his job, and protect his enemy.

Prior to the close of “BEEWARE,” The Mellischwuler (the Queen Bee), played by Nana Visitor (Colonel Kira from DS9!), warns Nick, “He’s coming for you.” “Beware, it’s close.”

I think that this episode is a dark tale that could serve as an allegory of the function of social media in our lives, and how destructive ugly rumors, facebook & twitter statuses are. In addition, there are flashes of how complex our moral choices can be, given our residing in multiple identities. Nick is a police officer sworn to protect the public, but he is also a Grimm with the task of ridding the world of bad monsters (but keeping the good ones like Eddie). As the police force was tracking the Twitter message and it’s location, Sargent Wu joked, “Of course I can, I’m Asian.” His race has nothing to do with his ability to master technology, but the idea of the construction of race in the formation of our identities, especially with stereotypes and social roles, is there out in the open. Something no doubt the writers wanted us to BEEWARE of.

LOSSES

ESPN:

Your Mom is a Cylon, 77, others, 103.

I had the players to win this week. It was the upset that did not happen. I went with Cedric Benson over Willis McGahee,Eli Manning over Phillip Rivers, and the Raiders Defense over the Jets Defense. Unbelievable. At least DeMarco Murray got me 17 points.

That other team I run in Yahoo, 69, my opponent, 70.

What do I say, bye weeks again, a donut from Devin Hester and flat performances from Fred Jackson and Tom Brady. AAARGH! Sigh.

YAhOO:

Whedony Warriors, 94.55, other guy, 110.73

Admittedly, bye weeks and injuries hurt me. Very close game again in this league, I was so desperate I had to sign Joe McKnight just to get in a measly 1.85 points. Wow. I know.

WINS

ESPN:

Joan Harris, 110, other guy, 91.

Starting Julio Jones for the first time all season, along with Brandon Marshall, as well as picking up Jake Ballard helped me to the win. Wide Receivers carrying the day? Yah, I know, but picking the Chiefs defense was a waste of time: -2 points!

Yahoo:

Syfy Empire, 112, opponent, 98.50

My closest game in this league thus far. Matt Ryan’s 3 td passes, and the Eagles Defense in a valiant losing effort was just enough to put me over the top.

Check out Christian’s week last week and Adam’s

No. Jesus would not be a part of the current Occupy Wall Street movement.

That might shock some of you, and yet lull others into a false sense of being right. So let me explain. If Jesus somehow were to have come now to the world rather than 2000 years ago, he certainly would have some things to say about our current system of oppression. But, Jesus would not have waited for the middle class to get upset before he acted. Jesus would have been at the forefront of protesting (or non-violent social action) long before Occupy got its momentum. Jesus would have been at the forefront of teaching and growing the Kingdom of God movement. Perhaps it might have been called the Party of God, the Nation of God, The Community of God, the Dream of God, etc… but it would have addressed both the religious and the social climate of our day, as it relates to God’s will.

Perhaps it is backwards to ask whether Jesus would join the Occupiers, and perhaps more appropriate to ask if they would join him?

Remember, in the culture of Jesus, faith and politics were impossible to separate. So what happened religiously affected the political and social lives of the everyday people, and vice-versa. Therefore, when Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of God, was he talking about sphere of faith/religion or the socio-political sphere? Both. They were the same thing then. How then are we to think of how Jesus might address our current crisis? Would Jesus, as many of my good friends suggest, simply deal with the spiritual lives of people today, ignoring the socio-politics of the 21st century? Or, as many of my colleagues from the opposite end of the spectrum suggest, would Jesus simply address the socio-politics, and leave the religion behind as less important? I suggest these are false premises. Jesus, if his earthly life before was any suggestion, would have addressed both.

This might come as a surprise, but God is concerned about what people do, even if they are not followers of God or never will be.

God is concerned about Justice, whether or not it involves people being in “right relationship” with God. A few scriptures here might help.

Amos 9:7 reads, “Are you not like the Ethiopians to me,
O people of Israel? says the LORD.
Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt,
and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?”

The Philistines were the religious and political enemies of both God and the Hebrews, and yet God shows his hand in helping them similarly to when he helped Israel. And even while the Ethiopians were not Hebrews, God likens his relationship with Israel to them. You see, God is concerned with more than just “Christians.” A second scripture:

Ezekiel 49-51 “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. Samaria has not committed half your sins; you have committed more abominations than they, and have made your sisters appear righteous by all the abominations that you have committed.”

Here, the scripture states (and this should settle the homosexual issue regarding Sodom) that Sodom’s sins were pride, having too much food, prosperity, and not helping the poor and needy. I’m sorry, but Sodom wasn’t Hebrew, right? They didn’t have a “love relationship” with God, right? And yet God still cares whether or not they do justice? God still cares if they have too much food and wealth, and don’t aid the poor?

I can’t be the only one who sees this as a picture of how America is acting, right? Since many would claim, rightly or wrongly, that America is a Christian nation, would it not fall even more heavily upon us to take seriously the charges God leveled against a non- Christian nation? They hoarded wealth and did not help the poor and needy. Enough of that. If you won’t see it now, you likely don’t want to, and not amount of exegesis will help that. So back to Jesus.

Now that we have established whether God cares about things beyond the spiritual realm (and whether we should act for justice even apart from religion), we can turn to Jesus’ acts and teaching.

Jesus’ Teaching on the Rich

First, is it not interesting that Jesus does not address the rich, except in discouragement?
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.”"

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

[This one isn't about all rich people, just religious people who don't concern themselves with the poor, only with "getting people into "right relationship" with God] “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

“Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.” (contrary to popular interpretation, this was a condemnation of a system that placed tithing above a person’s ability to survive. This is not an example of how the poor should give)

Mary, singing about what God is doing through Jesus: “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.”

“God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.”

The story Jesus tells about the rich man and Lazarus should scare us, because it has nothing to do with religion, but only about how a rich person is rich, and a poor person is poor.

The story Jesus tells about the sheep and the goats is loaded with people who are “in a love relationship” with God, but in the end, are rejected and judged because of “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these.”

“There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. (for those who are eager to dismiss this verse as simply this man’s greed being the reason for Jesus’ words, you might want to look deeper. This man was violating a commandment. The command in Deuteronomy 15, “There need be no poor people among you…If anyone is poor among your people in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.”)

“How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”

Jesus’ Teaching on the Poor

“Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them.” It is interesting that Jesus addresses the physical ailments of these folk. Lame = walk. Lepers = cleansed. Deaf = hear. Dead = raised. poor = raised out of poverty…er… wait, why would Jesus help everyone else, but leave the poor with a message of post-houmous salvation? I respectfully submit that the “good news” may be about more than spiritual matters, but indeed included helping the poor out of their poverty.

“For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” Jesus hearkens back to Deuteronomy 15, where the law clearly states that if they desire it, there does not need to be any poor people among them. The idea that their generosity should be so great that the poor from other places are flocking to them, creates this effect of the poor “always being among them.” Shame on you for using the words of Jesus to justify not doing more!

“Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (once again, Jesus points religious people to the statute of helping the poor in Deuteronomy 15. It is not the need for a deeper spiritual life that Jesus is addressing in the man, but the plight of those around him that are suffering.)

“Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury.” (Wait, Jesus, you don’t mean to say that wealthy people aren’t paying their fair share, right? They keep the economy of the temple afloat! Surely this poor woman shouldn’t get a temple handout on the backs of the wealthy donors!)

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.” (err… Jesus, don’t forget about the rich, now. They need spiritual help too…. huh? The “gospel” isn’t just “spiritual?” That doesn’t make any sense. Now you better preach to the rich too, or we’ll sue…)

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.”

“But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.” (try preaching on this text on Sunday. Talk about a quiet room….)

“‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’” (what is this referring to? the wedding feast for the King’s son…)

“Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house.” (what? salvation came to the house when he gave the poor handouts? He gave them 4 times too much! Salvation should have come when he called on Jesus, not when he was unfair to himself by giving to the poor out of his abundance!)

Now, that certainly isn’t a comprehensive list. Most, if not all of the parables of Jesus contain economically subversive statements that take up the cause of the poor.

The Lord’s Prayer

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. (this should only take a minute. What is the Kingdom? It is very neatly explained in the following words. The Kingdom of God is where God’s will is done. That is why Jesus prays that God’s Kingdom come ON EARTH as it is in Heaven. You see, the message of Jesus isn’t escaping to heaven at the end of our lives, but transforming this Earth into Heaven as much as possible. Is there poverty in heaven? No. Is there greed in heaven? No. Is there injustice in Heaven? No. Therefore every step we take, religiously or not, towards making earth more like heaven, we are participating in the Kingdom of God)
Give us this day our daily bread. (this sounds like the prayer of a poor person, eh?)
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. (contrary to popular usage, the greek word refers to debts, not sins. Ergo, Jesus is saying that if people forgive others their economic and social debts, God will forgive them their debts to God)
And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. (dear God, we can’t afford to go to jail, even if we can’t pay our debts, please keep the taxman and the rich landowner away for a little while longer)
So what?

To say that Jesus was not political is simply very poor theology, verging on outright heresy. I am not claiming, now or ever, that Jesus was not concerned about spiritual matters such as teaching, prayer, scripture, sinning, forgiveness, worship, and the rest. That would be heresy as well. But to claim, as many Christians do, that Jesus is somehow apolitical and simply cares about our spiritual lives is false.

Still, I advocate that Jesus would not join Occupy Wall Street. If they cared about the poor and injustice, the Occupiers would join him, just like justice-minded people joined MLKJr, whether they were religious or not. He was about bringing this world closer to the kingdom of God, whether people knew it or not. Whether they cared or not. Whether they appreciated it or not.

A more practical question, though, is whether or not the followers of Jesus should join Occupy Wall Street and its affiliates. Based on everything above, and based on the fact that the church simply does not have the reputation for fighting injustice, and based on the fact that so many Christians are downright hostile to the poor, or those advocating for them, then I would say that unless you are doing something equally beneficial on behalf of the poor, oppressed, or hungry, then we should have a moral imperative to support the movement, even if we may not be able to be Occupying with them. To those who think that this movement is non-Christian, and therefore think that Christians should not support it, I would point out that tacit Christian support of America’s current policies are far more un-Christian than Occupy, and downright damaging to the conditions of life for others. Do you drink soda? Live in America? Own a computer? Ate candy lately? Wear clothes from a chain store? Cheered for a professional sports team? Then you have ALREADY participated in practices VASTLY more evil and destructive than Occupy could ever be.

Occupy wants to help. They are democratic to a fault. They reflect the vastly different groups of people that are a part of them (as does America at its best, no?). They don’t have it all figured out yet. They have a lot of growth to do. But they will do so, with or without Christian influence, as long as so many Christians shun them. Even if you consider them evil, or bad, or the enemy, how often have you loved them? How often have Christians taken them supplies they need? How many of us have fed them? Does not Jesus say to love our enemies? If you can’t even get it right on how to treat non-violent enemies who are doing YOUR job by advocating for the poor, then how do you really expect to get anything about Jesus right?

It appears we are unwilling, not unable, to see Jesus for who and what he was. Not simply a spiritual guide, filled with some vacuous Christ-conciousness. Not some kind of a Savior of our souls so we can escape this world and go to a better one. Not an absentee king who gives us pretexts for wars and exploitations in the name of the kingdom of God. Instead – A revolutionary, a brilliant tactician for the underdog. A flag-waver for the losers of the world. A son of God who tells us what is really important, and let himself be killed so the whole world would know that just because someone says they bring peace (Pax Romana), doesn’t mean that they won’t kill you in order to force it on you. And then rises to show us that we have nothing to fear by following God, because they can do their worst, kill us, and it will be ok, because God has that covered.

This happened to be the best debate of the year that I chose to watch. Why? Because I turned down the volume all the way to mute. We have heard all of the talking points over and over. Instead, I would like to subjectively interpret each candidate’s choice of attire.

Jon Huntsman: Skyish blue tie, wanted to give off a more moderate, harmless vibe. Hey, it’s working Jon, it’s working. You just don’t have my vote.

Michele Bachmann: She chose the color white again, but this time she avoided looking like she was married to Cap’n Crunch. If only she picked dark blue, she’d be a contender. Sad fact.

Rick Santorum: Darker blue tie than Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman. It says, hey, I believe in fascism, but I’m from the Midwest, so it’s cool.

Mitt Romney: His hair looked a little flatter and grayer, trying to push a working class vibe in the middle of all of these Occupy Wall Street protests. It didn’t work.

Herman Cain: Still wearing that same gold tie. His poll numbers should go down just for that.

Rick Perry: He’s running for the governor of Texas. He was just incapable of running a national campaign and it showed. Sorry, and a maroon tie with a white suit (for surrender) would have been appropriate for his sorry performance.

Newt Gingrich: His policy preferences are so regressive, but he’s so smart, right, right? Newt’s tie stood out among all of the rest– black and white diagonal stripes. Trying to be the distinguished statesman in this crowd, and coming from someone who grew up during the 1990s reviling Newt, only in this crowd would one be able to call Gingrich a statesman.

I honestly can no longer support men in national politics anymore personally. I’ll try to support women from now on.

Recently, my involvement with a Sunday School on Social Justice (at a “Southern Baptist” church no less–the quotations are there because officially, its not really SBC) as well as the current Occupy Everywhere protests have gotten me thinking about what does it mean to be Christian in public spaces. With Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry among the presidential candidates all claiming that God has called them to public office, we have to decide for ourselves which one is a liar (maybe it’s all of the above for $300, Alex)! Of course, there are Christians who believe that every politician that says the name Jesus after every sentence has the duty to be in public office, and to dominate that sphere.

Part of the tragedy of Christians and our denial of the Jewish origin of our religion is that we turn a blind eye to theologies found in the Wisdom tradition, where discernment is seen as something that is not privatized only, but also a political virtue as well. As of late, I am having a kind of Hauerwasian renaissance (not completely, especially on ecclessiology, and I am no longer willing to embrace an Anabaptist label). Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, in their classic text, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony, the authors make a definitive case against what they call “Constantinian Christianity” (I prefer Dominionism), which relies on the assumption that “the church is judged politically by how well or how ill the church’s presence in the world works to the advantage of the world” (30). This attitude in this dispensation prevails overwhelming on both the right and the left. Both liberal and conservative Christian dominionists heretically assume that the “American church’s primary social task is to underwrite American democracy” (replace the American as an adjective with any other country) or perhaps to say it more effectively, that the Church jump on the political bandwagon of the majority party to take charge of society (this would include both OWS and Tea Party types).

Seminaries, Christian home schools, and Christian denominations all alike are infected with the disease of the politics of unbelief. God remains superfluous in our plans so that we can adopt slogans such as “God and Country,” “Country First,” preach cute sermons on “Hope and Change” or start calls to “Occupy the Church”(36-37). Since we can push for a society where everyone who believes in patriotism, God and Country, there is no need for faith in the YHWH of Scripture (well, that’s unless you want to pay churches to do their jobs and call it “the faith-based initiative.”

I am aware there will be Christians who see this post as a call for sectarian withdrawal, and even some accuse me of promoting disobedience to God, since God calls all Christians to dominate their culture. I deny all of these criticisms because what I am calling for is for churches to be bold enough to be different, to be discerning first, and be more discriminating in their politics. We don’t need firms to decide how effective congregations are being; the Church is not a business, it is the Body of Christ, and the standard of success is a self-sufficient alternative, the one we see in the paradox of Christ’s Conquering of Death, since no agenda could ever take the place of the Resurrection of the Messiah. Now, in a world where “inclusion,” “tolerance,” and “openness” are seen as supreme virtues, it is perhaps a bit disruptive to call for more discriminatory practices (the application of Wisdom) to our freedom of choice.

Instead of saying yes to everything that has “Christian” or “Christ” on the brand name, we need to join the Triune God as the community of the Cross, and say no to the powers of death.

Both Jay Carney and President Obama both claim that the Bible says, “God helps those who help themselves.” No where is this is in Scripture, but yet as up to 68% of North American evangelicals believe that this is a passage from the Bible.

In 2002, President George W. Bush replaced Jesus from John 1 with America, as the Light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

Religion, justice, and scholarly biblical interpretation do not play a role at this point in the use of the Bible in American U.S. politics. At this sad point in history, it is safe to say that only to the extent that biblical receptions affirm our nationalistic and economic sensibilities that politicians find our Canon useful.

(UPDATED AND EDITED– 11/06/11)

*SPOILER ALERT!*

GRIMM is the closest thing to Joss Whedon’s and David Greenwalt’s ANGEL (1999-2004). I am so excited, I have decided to start to do a weekly series on it.

Anyhow, this 2nd episode, “Bears Will Be Bears”, was a fantasy/drama/detective story spin off of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Rather than keep the viewer bored in a simple, modern re-telling, GRIMM’s Goldilocks had several twists, including implications for critical race theorists and anthropologists. Although the series itself takes place in predominantly white Portland, Oregon (it’s reputation), “Bear Will Be Bears” could function as a conversation starter pertaining definitions of culture, notions of identity, and how we deal with our ancestors in our day to day living. For example, Nick’s partner in the police department, Hank, who is black, was talking to a family under suspicion for murder, who just happened to have a lot of artifacts in their homes. Hank was able to correctly identify the culture where the totems came from because, as he put it, “the second wife was a cultural anthropologist.” At first, I was afraid GRIMM would go to far in making this episode just the stereotypical “the Natives worship totems, and therefore they are evil” horror story, but it turned out to be much more than that. Hank then goes on to say in the conversation, when the idea of respecting ancestors was brought up, “I had to respect mine or else I couldn’t sit down for a week.” (editted: Thanks AMM for the heads up!)

There is a wild animal in all of us, according to Eddy Munroe. Will our ethical actions ever be able to overcome our tribal loyalties? Should this even have to be a question in the first place? Interestingly enough, Munroe also found himself struggling with his identity as a Blutbad (big bad wolf) and as a friend of a Grimm (his sworn enemy). Munroe felt compelled out of obligation to kill Marie, out of concern for dinner conversations during Thanksgiving.

Lastly,the lawyer (and father) for the family under investigation tells Grimm, “You have never had your history taken away from you.” Of course, this is both referring to Native American heritage (along with their land) as well as the struggle between the Grimms and the other creatures of the night. This ought to inform us about how our knowledge of our own histories are important in shaping our identities.

Still, this episode raised the question, “Which is more sacred, human loyalties or human life?”

Adam’s insightful post this week, he went really deep about how to have a successful FFL year

This week, there were no losses. I went 5 & 0. Here is how.

ESPN

1. Joan Harris (5&3, 1st place in the division), 81, some other guy I know, 65

For some reason, my opponent put all of his cards with the Chargers. I figured once he made his moves, I was going to win. I knew before Monday night the Chiefs were an improved team. Tsk tsk tsk. Ray Rice 3 tds, Detroit Lions Defense 2 touchdowns. Game over.

2. Your Mom is a Cylon (2&6) 109, my opponent, 80

Frank Gore, Eli Manning, and the Detroit Lions defense again. Finally stopped my abysmal slide.

YAHOO

1. Whedony Warriors (4&4), 149.83, my opponent, 113.63

I have played my opponent for years in FFL, and every years, it is the same story, he just does not play individual defensive players in order to pick up more offensive players. Well, I was quite intentional in my Defensive picks this week, and Tennessee’s Team Defense came through, and along with Detroit’s defense, well, that’s all I needed. No one else had more than 18 points, not even my Quarterback Drew Brees. I am just dumbfounded I have the 2nd highest scoring team in the league, and I am in 5th place? How does that worK?

2. That other Yahoo team I have (5&3, 1st in my division), 113, other team, 66.

I picked up Tennessee’s defense as well as a TN defensive player, the guy who happened to score the Touchdown on the blocked FG (Jason McCourty)! Keeping Stephen Jackson rather than trading him also made me look smart.

3. THE SYFY EMPIRE (7&0, 1st in the League) 138.50, bad guys, 87.5.

Jimmy Graham didn’t show up this week for me, but smartly I picked up Buffalo’s defense which pitched a shut out, while my opponent chose the Redskins? Why just why? Not a good idea. Adrian Peterson and Big Ben were pretty good for me once again. Whoever released Big Ben in this league and let me pick him up, thank you. just, thank you!

In my subjective ANGEL-loving opinion, I think Grimm has far more in common with Angel (1999), and in fact, both of the creators, including David Greenwalt were heavily involved with the show. More so than BtVS.

First, Nick’s partner Hank bring street smarts and a certain urban flair (okay, he’s black, has no superpowers, and will not have a fan base), ala Charles Gunn:

In addition, Nick’s lover, soon-to-be fiancee Juliette is both attractive and has a secret that I am going to come right out and give a SPOILER: I predict– she is a Grimm Reaper, which is why Marie warned Nick about her. Anyhow, much like Darla was for Angel, they are going to be star-crossed lovers destined to be enemies (my best guess).

Thirdly, Nick’s sidekick Eddie Monroe has a dark side he tries to hide from the public and he runs from fights. Wait, I have seen this before. I am so glad they decided to bring back Doyle.

Lastly, in the ways of evil and villainry, I think that just as Wolfram & Hart was the organized embodiment of evil, so will the organization that Captain Renard and Adalind Schade remind us of Angel’s greatness.

Grimm is about a man who finds out he is not just your average joe.  He comes from a long line of Grimms, a family that fights monsters.  In every generation there is a chosen one….

Nick has a friend who helps him solves cases, and will no doubt know of his secret identity…

Nick is mentored by his aunt, a librarian with a whole bunch of weird weapons and musty old books that tell of the monsters to be fought…

Nick is also helped by a guy who is technically a bad guy. But instead of being a baddie, this guy helps Nick to understand his destiny, and helps him to save the day…

A powerful person in Nick’s real world is actually a bad guy plotting horrible things, and he does so with the help of a beautiful, yet deadly woman…

All this show is missing is the witty dialogue!

The first requirement of a Nazarite is that “they shall abstain from wine and strong drink: they shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall they drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.”

The second requirement is “All the days of their vow of Naziriteship there shall no razor come upon their head; until the days be fulfilled, in which they consecrate themselves unto the LORD, they shall be holy, they shall let the locks of the hair of their head grow long.”

The third requirement is “All the days that he consecrateth himself unto the LORD he shall not come near to a dead body.”

This, you may recall, is the vow that Samson took, and thus as a Nazarite his entire life, his hair would have been quite long. Also, the story of Samson shows just how bad of a Nazarite Samson was, but that is a different blog.

The end of the vow is the most tricky. It involves shaving their head in public and offering both the hair and a few spotless animals on the alter of the temple (or tent of meeting).

So as I reflected on how to combine two interesting things into one, I questioned whether or not I would be able to fulfill the vow of the Nazarite during all of November, concurrent with Movember. I believe I can, with some caveats and clarifications.

My Nazarite vow: LORD God, I vow to consecrate myself to you this November. This will be a holy month to do right and focus on you.

1) I will not drink any wine or beer, nor any other alcoholic beverage. I won’t use vinegar on anything I eat, nor anything with vinegar on it or in it. I won’t have any soft-drinks, nor any sort of drink that is sugary or clearly mood altering. I can assume this means I will drink only water and un-sweet tea. I will also not eat any grapes, dried or fresh, nor will I eat anything that is too sweet, such as candies or sweet pastries, cakes, and the like. This means that I am abstaining from the Lord’s supper in November, thus increasing my separation. I plan to eat reasonably and healthily in November.

2) I will not allow a razor to touch my head. This includes the hair on top of my head, as well as the hair on my face. I will be unshaven from my face to the top of my head.

3) I will also not go into the vicinity of a dead body. This means I will not attend any funerals in November, nor will I go near cemeteries. I will not be near anything that is dead and has not been properly prepared and cooked. This means I cannot grill food, nor help with preparations of meals. It also means that I cannot go into our annex building at church because the columbarium is there, and there are many people whose ashes are kept there.

4) Unfortunately, ending the vow properly is impossible, as the temple (and its altar) no longer exist, nor do Jews or Christians offer sacrifices in this way. Therefore, I will, on December 1, devote my entire day to fasting, prayer, worship, study, and solitude, at the end of which, I will get a haircut and shave my face. It is possible, however unlikely, that I will collect the hair that was shorn and burn it completely, as they did in ancient times.

This should be difficult, yet uplifting and enjoyable. Wish me luck.

“Reformation Day – It was on this day, 2000 years ago, that Paul Revere nailed his 95 commandments on the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria.”

- Optimistic Chad

[Adam's forthcoming post]

My Losses this week:

Yahoo
1. My team, 77, the other guy, 98.

Funny thing is, my friend and I were playing each other in another league, a crucial game, and the opposite result happened. Mike Wallace came through for me as usual, and picking up Titans TE Jared Cook was somewhat of a bold calculation for me, and it worked! I owe a Tweep for that pick. Whew! I had not gotten anything out of my Tight Ends.

ESPN

2. Your Mom is a Cylon, 77, other people’s 104.

Ugh. Another loss, at 6 in a row, it’s making me sick. DeMarco Murray had 31 points for me. No one else showed up. Philip Rivers may be on his way off my team. Geesh!

3. Joan Harris, 41, bad guys, 61

I was basically upset by the worst team in the league, which was previously 0-6. Geesh! I needed Ray Rice and Joe Flacco to score me their average to make me win, and they failed. Don’t wanna talk about this one.

My Wins

1. Whedony Warriors, 128.13, my opponent, 71.20

Whedony Warriors finally ended their slide. Thank you very much Drew Brees and Yeremiah Bell (safety for the Dolphins). Highest scoring individuals. Lollers. I only picked up Bell ‘cuz I knew Broncos would be running alot. There were a few players that got 8 or above pts, but Bell as a Defensive player needed to be recognized, plus a few of my offensive players had costly fumbles.

2. Syfy Empire, 147, other guy, 101.00

I was really dreading this match up literally all week. My opponent had previously been with me at the top of the rankings, I have a bullseye on my back now since SyFy Empire is undefeated, and we have the highest amount of points scored by almost 100 points to the next competitor. Jimmy Graham is a beast in this league, every week. Adrian Peterson, Big Ben, Mike Wallace, and my K Mason Crosby were also above average. I should have started the Chiefs defense that I decided to pick up at the last second. I would have at least neared close to 200 points. Gotta learn to go with my instincts.

First, two quick stories from my days being indoctrinated educated in undergrad and grad school. In undergrad, my Christian Ministry professor often quoted Karl Barth from Time Magazine, that Christian preachers should keep the Bible in one hand, and a copy of the New York Times [enter other said newspapers] in the other. As a seminarian, one of the worst sermons I ever heard came from a professor who was preached a sermon from a newspaper, trying to show us an example of what a political sermon should look like. Not only did I walk away from class in complete disagreement with the professor, I was disillusioned with the folksy Barthian approach to preaching. Be relevant, use the Bible, and just try not to lose your nice ministry job in the process. It’s enough to make me want to vomit the more I think about it.

I had never considered anything wrong with Barth’s suggestion until I considered what “holding the Bible along with the 24 hour news cycle would feel like.” We get too much information too fast in this day and age, and false rumors ruin lives at alarming rates. One douchey journalist can take a silly talking point and just ruin 30 years of good community service for one woman or man. It happens. Especially in Christianity today, we feel that if there is a preacher who is wrong out there, we take our case to the interwebz and just let them have it! All churchly bloggers, magazines, and newspapers have fallen short of the glory of God.

Then, I came to Zilpha Elaw’s introduction of herself in her own Memoirs. And guess what sin she denounced? It wasn’t slavery or drunkenness or sexual immorality (even though she talks some about 2 of those), but she give a back hand to men who gossip. Really, I do think that U.S. American men have an unrepentant love of gossip, it just comes in the form of sports and politics. Elaw instructs us, “Deal not in tale-bearing; neither be busy bodies in other men’s matters.” She continues, “above all, shun an infidel, obscene, or disloyal newspaper press, which is the scavenger for slander, and the harlequin of character [...] Do not defile your eyes with the sight of its columns, nor your hearts with its proximity. Remember, you were called to be saints, not politicians or newsmongers.” (page 52, Sisters of the Spirit).

While Elaw goes on to say that we should look to the title-deeds of the Christian covenant (the Gospel/the Bible) first, it’s not like she does not have anything relevant to say pertaining to the context of her day, with slavery and race, and economics, and drunkenness and what not. She is just saying, put down the newspaper, cut of the television for a few hours, and read the Bible, spending time with the Holy Trinity. Can I get an Amen?

It’s just so interesting that in my argument with others over dominionism, that it is this quote that sums up my side of the argument so well, that we as Christians are called to be saints first, and everything else second. It’s about holiness, not domination. Which leads me back to American men and gossip in the 24 hour news cycle. I think there is something to this, that needs to be explored, but for the most part, is not gossip a play for power in the first place, that it exposes what voices have the power in our society, community, what have you?

Just something to think about.

It’s a shame that some of the best “defenders” of orthopraxis/orthodoxy and of evangelical orientation are ignored because they are either northerners, people of color, or women. In this case, Zilpha was all three (she was born in Philly in about 1790). As I was reading and re-reading through Zilpha Elaw’s Memoirs last week, I found some interesting and even new theological possibilities with her views. Although she claims at one point in the book that it was just the Lord and her doing it all alone; it is far from the truth, in fact, the very same page she makes such a claim, she goes on to tell the story of how she was discipled by the Methodist tradition. In fact, the noun Methodist appears every hundred words in her autobiography (that’ called an overexaggeration and a joke, people). Honestly, I found her allegorical interpretation Scripture re-freshing (she was living during the early 19th century). Concerning the Bible, she says,

“it is the high privilege of those who are begotten by the Word of truth [re:Christ] to read the Scriptures, not as the word of man, but as they are indeed, the Word of God, a sacred volume, the production of the infinite God [...]“

(page 133)

Granted, given her stances of being pro-abolition of slavery and pro-women’s ordination (both issues I will deal with in later posts), for her to hold a definition of the Bible as the Word of God, with Jesus being the Word would be considered quite peculiar, especially in the Slave states of the U.S. where inerrantist Christians were both staunchly pro-African enslavement and anti-women’s ordination.

What to make of all of this? First, I would say that Zilpha Elaw has a superior definition of Scripture’s function compared to today’s run of the mill conservative evangelical in the United States. The key to the Bible for Zilpha Elaw was not human rationality (re: male/phallocentric reason) but the Holy Spirit who allows us to partake in the Intelligence of the Triune God. For Elaw, Scripture was not about lording our particular doctrines and traditions over each other (I am saving that for another post too), but for the purpose of becoming “increasingly assimilated to the same image, from one degree of glory to another, as by the Spirit of the Lord” (Ibid). Her doctrine of assimilation rings so much of Clement of Alexandria for me (I could not help it!). I think an appropriate, tentative phrasing of a definition of Zilpha Elaw’s view of the Scriptures, similar to John Calvin< and Zwingli/a> as trustworthy would be this, “That the Bible does not err in that it leads us to all things necessary for sanctification.” Close to Calvin, just replacing salvation with sanctification, since that was a big part of Elaw’s Holiness theology.