More on the Church and Race

In keeping with the theme of my last post, I found this quote from Anthony Smith, someone who has more authority to talk about racial issues in the church than I do:

For instance, many Christians are influenced by a particular form of individualism that makes it extremely difficult to see how we are complicit with the "principalities and powers" in how they continue to divide the body of Christ racially. Many Christians think that this is simply a matter of cultural taste and expressions that divide us racially in Christ’s body. Individualism along with consumerism hinder discernment in seeing how the divisions are due in part to the dis-ordering work of the Powers. When going to a black church as opposed to a white church is a matter of personal/cultural choice and taste, we are in trouble.

The whole paper can be downloaded here: Practicing Pentecost: Discovering the Kingdom of God Amidst Racial Fragmentation (pdf)

Tags: ecclesiology, race, racism, church

A White Male's Perspective on Katrina and Racism

It’s a good thing no one actually reads my blog, because I might get in trouble with this next post.

It’s not as timely as it could be, but I’ll write it nonetheless. It has to do with hurricane Katrina. I had been thinking about the racial implications of what was happening those first few days and trying to decide if there was some weight to the argument that the slow response to aid the victims was due to racism. This CNN article on September 13 made me think about it again and I have come to a conclusion. Here’s my take:

From the perspective of the majority (typically white people, of whom I am a part), the slow response we saw to hurricane Katrina was not based on racism. However, the problem with the perspective of the majority is that racism is (usually) simply discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin. And of course, we in America are not so ignorant, so uneducated, so barbaric as to deny someone proper treatment simply because that person has a certain color of skin. No, we have come far past the trespasses of our ancestors and have put this kind of racism behind us.

However, what about discriminating on some other grounds? What about denying someone proper dignity and respect based upon his or her level of education? Based upon his or her economic status? Based upon the way he or she talks? Based upon the quality of housing he or she lives in? Based upon the area in which he or she lives? Based upon the structure of his or her family? What if we are discriminating against people because they live in a culture so different from our own that we do not even have the ability to perceive our own discrimination?

I have heard so many people say, “Why did they stay?… How stupid can you be not to leave?... If they would have just gotten out of there, we wouldn’t have to go save them…. If they would have followed orders and left, they wouldn’t have had to go stay in the horrid living conditions of the Superdome…” and the list goes on. You know what I’m talking about. The problem is that the people who are saying these things are putting themselves in the situation of those stranded in New Orleans rather than putting themselves in the situation as well as the status of those in New Orleans. Of course, if I lived in New Orleans in the life I am now living, I would have left, no questions asked.

But, if I lived in New Orleans for my whole life, if I was born there, if I had no father, if I had to watch friends die growing up, if I had to literally fight for my life to survive in my neighborhood instead of worrying about petty things like homework, if I couldn’t afford to go to college, if I didn’t know anything other than waking up in the morning hoping I would find a way to make a few dollars, if I didn’t have a car, if I didn’t have a credit card, if I didn’t have a bank account, if I didn’t know anyone outside of my neighborhood, if I had only one hundred dollars to my name, if that was me, then I would stay. Left to my own, I would have no choice but to stay.

And therein lies the problem. From the perspective of the majority, we aren’t racist because we don’t discriminate on the basis of the color of someone’s skin. How dare you call us racist. We only discriminate on the basis of someone being different than we are economically, culturally, educationally, socially, but not racially. Just because most of the people who we discriminate against in these ways happen to be black (in the case of New Orleans) isn’t our fault. All we know is that we aren’t discriminating based on the color of someone’s skin.

It’s time we wake up as a nation, and especially as a church, and see that racism goes deeper than the color of a person’s skin. Racism is still alive in this country because we are unwilling to do what it takes to take the perspective of the other, unwilling to see the world from their eyes, unwilling to understand what it is like to live as a minority that is stuck in a cycle of poverty, violence, and neglect.

I’ve often heard people say “I have no problem with black people. However, I don’t like when they wear those big saggy jeans down below their butts. I don’t like it when they talk the way they do. I don’t like the music they listen to. I don’t like the way they ‘pimp out’ their cars. I don’t like the way they act. If they just wouldn’t do all those things, I’d be fine. But I’m sure not racist.” The problem is that these people don’t see the fact that in saying these things they are rejecting the entire black culture rather than just an individual. The culture that those people grow up in tells them no different. They don’t know any other way to live. By asking black people to stop doing the above things, you are asking them to stop being black. This, my friends, is a tragedy. We need to realize that there is a whole culture out there that is completely different from anything we know, yet that is all some people know. That is their world. Our definition of racism needs to be expanded from only discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin to include discrimination based upon one’s culture being different from our own.

I would venture to say that the slow response to hurricane Katrina was in fact a problem of racism. It was racist because no one anticipated that that many people would still be left and have no where to go and no way to get themselves the help they need. It was racist because we thought that people were economically able to follow the orders they were given. It was racist because it was only the poor who were left.

So, it is our duty as Americans, and especially our duty for those of us who call ourselves Christians to first of all help these people who are completely and utterly different than us. Secondly, we are called to implement strategies to break the cycle of poverty, violence, and oppression, and truly give our minority brother and sisters an equal opportunity at this life. Hurricane Katrina was a sad reminder of how far we have to go, but hopefully it will be a catalyst for future positive change.

***Note: For anyone who does happen to stumble across this post, I am a white male trying to understand what it is I need to do to help my brothers and sisters across this world, regardless of culture or skin color. I may have made some inaccurate generalizations about those who were left in New Orleans as a result of hurricane Katrina, but I am using it to make a point. I do not want to lump all black people into one easily definable group. I know you are a much richer, more complex people than that. I am using specific, extreme examples in order to make a point that will hopefully result in a positive outcome for all minorities. I hope no offense is taken in my above post; if there is any, I apologize. Feel free to leave feedback if you disagree with me and can help me form a more accurate perspective of those who are discriminated against.***

Tags: Katrina, racism, classism, equality, New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina

Responding to My Pragmatism Post....

I've been thinking about my pragmatism post lately. In it, I said that maybe the event wasn't as successful as I thought, even though it had good "results." I had read a post on pragmatism saying that we shouldn't be happy with results and should instead focus on obedience, which I agreed.

The problem I have been wrestling with however, is that, as heretical as this may sound, "obedience" is exceedingly difficult to define. Can any church service, any event, any ministry be 100% obedient? If it isn't completely obedient, how obedient does it have to be? What aspects have to be obedient? The preaching? The worship style? The worship lyrics? The worshippers? How "disobedient" do things have to get before you can say that an event wasn't faithful to God?

Tim Challies' post seemed to say that it will be obvious when an event is obedient or not. I don't think that simple, clear delineations like that exist though. Instead, it seems to me that obedience, especially in terms of ministies or events can be judged on a sliding scale. So the question is, how obedient do we have to be, or is there some other criteria that we should be using?

Tags: church, ministry, pragmatism, obedience

Modern Mission of the Church

Steve Bush over at Generous Orthodoxy thinks "Resisting consumerism is surely one of the primary ecclesial tasks in the 21st century world." Although his primary concern in the article isn't with consumerism, but with the mis-labeling of all liturgical creativity as consumer-driven, this sentence nevertheless struck me. And I wholeheartedly agree. Way to go Steve.

If I had more time, I'd think up some of the other "primary ecclesial tasks," but I don't.

Tags: Generous Orthodoxy, Church, Consumerism, Mission

God working in Spite of Me... Or was He?

This past Saturday, an event took place at our church (where I am the youth pastor). It was an event that I really wasn't excited about and didn't want to be a part of. But, being the youth pastor, I was sort of forced into it. Let me explain.

A few months ago, a lady in the church came up to me telling me that she really wanted to get Jami Smith to come to our church and do an event for the youth. Jami leads a worship band that goes around the country leading worship at youth camps, retreats, conferences, etc. She's quite talented and I love her songs and have no problem with her and the career that she has. My problem aat first was twofold: 1.) I had been at the church for about a month and didn't know if this was a good idea because I didn't know the students yet, and 2.) I am highly against putting on an event just because someone plays the guitar well, sings great, and writes good songs. I have some theological misgivings about building an event around a person, no matter who they are. So, I told the lady that I'd think about it, but there's no way we could do it in the very near future. I didn't hear from her for a while and thought she had forgotten about it.

Then a few months later, she came and talked to the pastor about it and told him how much it would cost. He said there was no way that the church would be able to cover close to the cost of the event. If it was going to happen, she was going to need to find individual donors to cover the cost. I didn't think anything of it. But apparently this lady took that as a green light to go out and get donations and book the event.

I found out around the very end of July that this lady had booked Jami Smith, paid the deposit, and that she was going to be here on August 27th. Less than a month away. And we had no reason for any event to take place and other than this lady liked Jami Smith. We got together and had a meeting and I was expected to do pretty much the rest of the planning for the actual event. I was not happy about this. If an event like this was going to take place, I would have wanted at least a few months notice so that I could try and get other youth groups on board and make this a multi-church, interdenominational event. But with less than a month to go from absolutely no idea this event was going to happen to Jami Smith being here on the 27th, I was skeptical. So, I called up a speaker to come and speak at the event, came up with a theme, etc. The event was only going to be 2 hours long, which I also didn't like because I feel like you can't do much with only 2 hours with a group of total strangers.

Anyways, to make a long story short, the event went off pretty well, there were 190 people here, and it seemed like there were some "decisions" made. So, I got the feeling that maybe God used this event in spite of my skepticism and lack of enthusiasm for this event.

And then I read Tim Challies post on pragmatism this morning. Now, I don't agree with Tim on a lot of things, but pragmatism is one area where I feel like Christians are missing the point (However, I am a little stumped about the whole "bearing fruit" thing that scripture talks about. Sounds at times like pragmatism to me). Just to do things because they "work" has in my opinion taken then church to the sorry state that it finds itself in today. We cannot be happy just because things were a "success."

And I realized that I did become happy with the event Saturday night because it seemed "sucessful." Even though I didn't like the reason behind the event. Even though I had some theological problems with what I knew was going to happen and how people were going to be asked to make a decision.

So now I am rethinking about how I feel about Saturday night's event. Maybe it wasn't as successful as I thought. Maybe it doesn't matter. Or maybe God did use it in spite of me. I don't know.

The problem is, if I'm not pragmatic, I'll probably lose my job. So what do I do?

On Being Post-________

The next book I hope to read for my own personal pleasure and edification (read: not for class) is Stan Grenz' Primer on Postmodernism. I was flipping through the pages today and noticed that in chapter 7, "The Gospel and the Postmodern Context,"Grenz has subtitles describing post-individualism, post-rationalism, post-dualism, and post-noeticentricism (is that a word?) as they pertain to the gospel.

As I read through many emergent-type blogs I see the phrase post-_____ (fill in the black) quite often. Post-liberal, post-conservative, post-evangelical, etc. Seldom do I see the four "posts-" that Grenz has listed in his book, which I find mildly surprising considering Grenz was always considered one of the theological friends of the emerging church.

I don't know why I am writing this. I guess I am wondering if Grenz started the "post-" trend or if it can be found elsewhere. And why are we no longer claiming to be "post-" as Grenz lays out in his book? Was he wrong? Are we going somewhere else with ourselves? Is postmodernism different that Grenz understood it?

When I read the book I'll find out more.

Tags: postmodern, postmodernism, emergent, emerging church

Oh Miroslav

So, it seems like I’ve been reading a lot about people’s praise for Miroslav Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace, so I decided to check it out for myself. I’m only about 65 pages into it, but so far it is, as Tony Jones calls it, “mind-bendingly good theology.” A few quotes that struck me:

His explanation of Paul’s reconciliation of the universality of God's being with the cultural particularity of his revelation (to specifically the Jewish people):

Paul’s solution to the tension between universality and particularity is ingenious. Its logic is simple: the oneness of God requires God’s universality; God’s universality entails human equality; human equality implies equal access by all to the blessings of the one God; equal access is incompatible with ascription of religious significance to genealogy; Christ, the seed of Abraham, is both the fulfillment of the genealogical promise of Abraham and the end of genealogy as a privileged locus of access to God; faith in Christ replaces birth into a people.(Exclusion and Embrace, 45)

Volf’s addition to the Barmen Declaration:

“You were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer males and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

All the churches of Jesus Christ, scattered in diverse cultures, have been redeemed for God by the blood of the Lamb to form one multicultural community of faith. The “blood” that binds them as brothers and sisters is more precious than the “blood,” the language, the customs, political allegiances, or economic interests that may separate them.

We reject the false doctrine, as though a church should place allegiance to the culture it inhabits and the nation to which it belongs above the commitment to brothers and sisters from other cultures and nations, servants of the one Jesus Christ, their common Lord, and members of God’s new community. (Exclusion and Embrace, 54)

It seems that Volf's book has vast implications for missions, American Christians (or any Christian for that matter), and hopefully will offer some practical insights into how to deal with the "ethnic cleansing" going on around the world that he speaks about so often in the book. I'm looking forward to the rest.


Tags: Exclusion and Embrace, Miroslav Volf, Barmen Declaration

Blue Like Jazz

I just finished reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. It was a refreshing read. I didn't know what to expect and read it on a recommendation from Rusty, who said it was a good, and easy, read. He was right about it being an easy read. It's one of those books where you read it and you look down and say, "wow, I've read 30 pages already" when you think it's been like 10. I guess that's a good thing.

It was essentially a spiritual autobiography that was surprisingly orthodox. After seeing it was highly endorsed by Brian McLaren, I thought it might be a little more "cutting-edge" or Emergent theologically, but it didn't seem to be. It was very orthodox when it came to theology, just unorthodox in his mode of presentation, which is what made it a fun and refreshing read. I seemed to identify a lot with Miller as I read it as well, which made it all the more enjoyable. I guess you could call it a sort of modern-day Confessions. Just a lot lighter.

Anyhow, I took some things away form it and liked a lot of his insight into the human condition and the fact that when it comes down to it, we're all just flat-out selfish. I also enjoyed his epiphanies about things like thinking we are better than close-minded fundamentalists because we are willing to think liberally and intellectually, when actually we are no better off than the fundamentalist by thinking ourselves better than them (wow, does that make sense?). He wrote with a very high degree of humility and authenticity. I recommend it.

Up next: Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf

Tags: emergent, Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller

It's a good day...

I get to see Noah today. I'm in Siloam on "business" and so we're meeting up for a bit. Should be exciting.

Honeymoon Pics are up

Honeymoon pictures and other week-of-wedding pictures are here.

Bad Blogging

So, I've been a little busy lately and haven't blogged much as a result. I got married, went on the honeymoon, then came back to work with VBS only a few days away. So, blogging has been put on the back burner. I was doing good there for a while. Oh well.

Brian McLaren Reflects

Brian Mclaren has a good post at the Emergent-US blog. Check it out.

Tag: emergent

"The Devil Took Jesus"

I was reading through Matthew 4 as part of my daily Bible reading this evening and I got hung up on a phrase that I have read over and over. In verses 5 and 8, the phrase "the devil to him (Jesus) to [5-the holy city; 8-a very high mountain]." The devil took Jesus? Can the devil lead us in a way that is not sinful? Is obedience to Satan always sin? It's been a while since I've looked closely at Bible passages concerning the power and effects of Satan or researched popular theological teaching about Satan. Maybe I should.

It always seemed to me like Satan was oftentimes portrayed as one who essentially causes someone to sin or perhaps one whose influence was always detrimental to our well-being. But, Jesus apparently had no qualms about letting Satan lead him, to a point. This is a little bit troubling to me at first glance.

Hopefully there is more to come.

Tags: theology, bible, temptation, Satan

"Ctrl + S"

Apparently the good folks at Blogger thought it would be a good idea to make a quick and easy way to publish your post without having to go into that huge hassle of having to actually click on the "publish post" button and thought, "Oh, we'll just make it so you can publish by pushing Ctrl + S" (wow, long sentence). Not a bad idea.

Unless you are a college student with Microsoft Word. Those of us who are used to writing papers and who have ever experienced the searing loss of data in the wee hours of the morning know that Ctrl + S is the savior to everything typed. It's a quick and easy way to save your work in Word. And since I am so proud of my work and don't want to lose any precious thought that I have penned for an assignment, I have gotten into the habit of pressing the Ctrl + S keys after literally every sentence I type. It's to the point that I don't even think about it. It's just second nature. It's served me well, because I can't tell you the last time I lost any of my work for school because of a power failure or computer freeze. I'm a saving madman.

However, this habit gets me in trouble when I am blogging, because I am constantly pressing Ctrl + S as I blog out of habit, which publishes a post on blogger. As I have attempted to write this post, I have pressed Ctrl + S inadvertently at least twice. Maybe thrice. I'm not even joking. It's a lil' frustrating sometimes. Many times I'll compose my blog post in Word to avoid this problem, but other times I don't feel like messing with it. Like now.

What this just accomplished, I don't know. Maybe others out there share my frustration.

Tag: blogger

I took the "Which theologian are you?" Quiz

Not surprisingly, I scored as Karl Barth. When we were studying Karl Barth in Church History last semester, I had to write the reading summary on him for the class (Which meant that was the only chapter in the book I read all semester. Unless Dr. Johnson is reading this blog. In which case, I meant to say, "I loved Olson. I read it cover to cover."). It worked out really well because as I read about him, I was like, "Hey, this is me!" Well, mostly. I liked Barth a lot. I didn't know I was neo-orthodox until I had to write that reading summary on him.

It's a little disconcerting knowing that I am more of a Schleiermacher than an Augustine. I liked Augustine a lot. Thankfully, Finney was on the bottom of my list. But heck, what do those quizzes know?

Here's the results from my quiz:

You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology. Karl Barth 87% Anselm 73% John Calvin 73% Friedrich Schleiermacher 67% Paul Tillich 60% J?Moltmann 53% Jonathan Edwards 47% Augustine 47% Martin Luther 40% Charles Finney 20% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

So, for some reason the picture isn't showing up any more. But it was earlier. Drats to Blogger. I'm gonna leave it in its totally depraved state in hope that it will one day be redeemed. Until then, it can only hope for perfection.

Tags: theology, theologian, quizfarm.com, quiz

New Blog Name

I decided that I needed to change my blog's name to something that was shorter and more broad. Before, the title was like a hundred letters long. And it didn't even roll off of your tounge nicely. "Oh, you want the url to my blog? Well, do you have a few sheets of paper to write it down?... Oh, ok. Sorry about that. Maybe some other time."

Also, it was fairly narrow in scope. It centered around youth ministry, theology, and emerging church type stuff, because that tends to be what I write about. Then I realized that if my interests change or if I want to go a different direction with my blog, I needed something that would fit regardless of content.

When I was thinking about it, noticed that a lot of the things I write about on here are pretty much how I want the world to be in an idealized state. I tend to write in terms of ideals and forget about the practicality of things at times. So, this blog is basically by own little utopia. Matt's utopia. Put the two together and... BAM! Mattopia.

Tags: blog, blogger, blogging

Emergent Gathering in New Mexico

I’ve pretty much decided that I am going to attend the Emergent Gathering this October in New Mexico. My ex-roommate Rusty is doing his youth ministry internship in Roswell, NM and told me that he could probably get us some free lodging for the event, which would be baller. I’m really looking forward to it and I hope that this deal doesn’t fall through. Ever since I heard of emergent, I have resonated with their mission. When I came into John Brown University as a freshman, my faith was shattered and challenged quite a bit and I began rethinking first of all about how to “do church.” Later, I realized that my desire to “do church” differently was a result of a shift in my theological focus and understanding. However, this shift in my theology, especially my ecclesiology, was quite frustrating. I felt like there was nothing that I could do to make the widespread changes that I thought obviously needed to be made to conventional methods of church.

Fortunately, I found out about emergent. I don’t even remember how. I read The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball my freshman year, but I don’t think that I really knew about the whole emergent “conversation” until some time later. I think it was through the web somehow. Maybe a blog? I guess it doesn’t matter. And now that I seem to be a little more acquainted with emergent, Kimball’s book was a decent intro, but it focused a lot on the practical ways of doing church (if I remember right; it’s been too long since I’ve read it), and emergent is much bigger than that. While different worship styles are part of emergent, I am more interested in the focus on theology, social justice, and diversity/unity. Needless to say, I took to the emergent conversation quite quickly. I keep up to date mostly through blogs and websites, but I feel like I’ve got a decent handle on many of the influential people behind it and what they stand for. I’m still undoubtedly a neophyte and wish to eventually become a significant contributor to the conversation, but for the past year or two now I have simply been lurking behind the scenes, trying to educate myself and make sure I don’t look like too much of an amateur once I attempt to get involved.

So, I guess it’s time to come from out of the woodwork and really see what this emergent thing is all about at the Emergent Gathering. Before I go, I’m trying to read a few of the books they suggest to read to get a handle on the sorts of people that have been influential in emergent’s thinking. I’m reading Practicing Passion by Kenda Dean right now and hope to read some Leonard Sweet and Brian McLaren before the actual event. I figure that although I’ve been keeping up with blogs lately, it’d be a good idea to read some of the more “polished” texts (aka books) associated with emergent thinking.

Whatever happens, I’m sure it will be a good experience and Rusty and I will probably have some interesting conversations about who knows what.

One thing I haven’t figured out in all this is when to capitalize emergent. Maybe that should be my goal when I go to NM.

Tag: emergent

Pictures anyone?

So blogger will now allow you to add a picture. But, my dial-up connection is so slow that it is taking an hour. Nuts.

Tag: blogger

No blogging for who knows how long

For some reason, my dial-up internet connection doesn't seem to want to publish new blog posts. So, I guess I won't for a while.

Books as Community

In light of my last post about my amazon.com wishlist, it might be good to explain a little bit about my apparent obession with books. First of all, people who write books are a heck-of-a-lot smarter and wiser than I am. So, as someone with a future in the ministry, getting some sound theological exposure is always a good things. But, and maybe more more importantly, I see books as a way to have conversations with people you wouldn't otherwise get to talk to. You are able to hear a person out on certain topics. You get to wrestle with their opposing viewpoint. As you read, you are shaped by the words that are on the page. So, I consider books a way to interact with great minds. I see the names of the people sitting on my shelf as my mentors, professors, teachers, encouragers, and on and on. One day I might get to talk to some of the people who write what I read. But until then, I'll keep my friendship with them active by reading their books.