At the time, I only had one close friend who was a person of color. I don’t remember this friend ever objecting to my perspective, so I assumed that it was valid. As I built relationships with more people of color, I naturally began to have more conversations about race. Primarily assuming a listening role in the conversations, I increasingly heard criticism of colorblindness, especially from those active in the work of racial reconciliation and justice. The crux of the criticism, as I understood it, was that refusing to see race is to deny seeing a facet of a person’s identity. Furthermore, they said that “not seeing color” usually means “seeing everyone as white.”

In her book The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander said this:

A survey was conducted in 1995 asking the following question: “Would you close your eyes for a second, envision a drug user, and describe that person to me?” The startling results were published in the Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. Ninety-five percent of respondents pictured a black drug user, while only 5 percent imagined other racial groups. These results contrast sharply with the reality of drug crime in America. African Americans constituted only 15 percent of current drug users in 1995, and the constitute roughly the same percentage today. Whites constituted the vast majority of drug users then (and now), but almost no one pictured a white person when asked to imagine what a drug user looks like. The same group of respondents also perceived the typical drug trafficker as black.

She points out that white people are more likely to use, abuse and deal illegal drugs. In fact, young white males are more likely than any other demographic to violate drug laws. Statistically speaking, the face of a drug dealer is that of a young, white male. Despite this and for a myriad of other reasons, the face of a drug dealer that is ingrained in our national psyche is that of a young black male.

This is troubling in and of itself. It demonstrates that—however colorblind our conscious though processes may be—racism is still deeply ingrained in our national subconscious. However, more frightening is the way that this subconscious discrimination manifests itself—with devastating effects on the African American community. Our justice system discriminates against people of color from their point of entry through to sentencing, growing exponentially more egregious with each step.

Alexander continues:

A study sponsored by the U.S. Justice Department and several of the nation’s leading foundations, published in 2007, found that the impact of the biased treatment is magnified with each additional step into the criminal justice system. African American youth account for 16 percent of all youth, 28 percent of all juvenile arrests, 35 percent of the youth waived to adult criminal court, and 58 percent of youth admitted to state adult prison.

Colorblindness does not permit race to enter the conversation. Yet, clearly, race is still a substantial issue in the United States. As much as it would soothe all of our consciences to believe that we have moved out of slavery into Jim Crow and out of Jim Crow into a post-racial society, the facts belie these possibilities. Yet the media has so championed the cause of colorblindness, that speaking of race has become somewhat taboo.

I believe race must be reintroduced into the conversation, though it may be unpopular and uncomfortable to talk about. This introduction must be done with extreme sensitivity and with a willingness to forgive honest mistakes, for there will be many. However, we can no longer afford to pretend that it does not exist. Acknowledging race is necessary if we want to address the inequalities that are associated with it. Subconscious biases must become consciously acknowledged if they are ever to be eradicated.

King said that he did not want his children judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Today our own subconscious still discriminates according to the color of people’s skin. Does the content of our character possess the courage to reject colorblindness and bring race back into the conversation?

—

[Note: I am not suggesting that Dr. King was arguing that our nation should embrace colorblindness. I mentioned that quote because I used to interpret it as an avocation for colorblindness. I now believe that my original interpretation was incomplete. Furthermore, I believe that Dr. King would have strongly object to my interpretation---especially in today's context.]

—

It is not Jesus’ death that transforms but his life–a love-life that had the power to persist beyond death, as the stories of the resurrection mysteriously suggest. Granted, that mystery has been almost ruined by dogmatic “I believes.” But for those with ears to hear afresh–the purpose of a Christian life is not whatever sacrifices it entails. That purpose is a way, a life, and a truth. It will entail sacrifices of various kinds, and sometimes, in the face of Pontius power, terrifying ones. But they are never the purpose. They are the risk. No more than Jesus did Gandhi, King or Romero want or seek to die. Even when they could predict their imminent death, as each seems to have done, they were not choosing to die, but to persist in love. Love “risks the adventure.”

In order to avoid the misunderstanding to which “kingdom [of God]” can now give rise, I often stay with the original Greek term. The basileia is not a political programme. But neither does it leave politics alone–especially when a contemporary empire draws upon Christ for legitimation. “The best English translation,” argues John Cobb, “may be ‘commonwealth.’ This term, besides not emphasizing the controlling power of a ruler, suggests that the realm may be organized for the common good.” The “commonwealth of God” resists every human superpower. Jesus meant it “to be a world in which God’s will is done, God’s purposes are fulfilled.” He saw his work and that of his community as “foreshadowing” that world–by beginning to actualize it here and now.

Within the Christian narrative, the incarnation in Jesus of that divine Logos, that world-creative Wisdom, is portrayed as a distinctive event. Indeed, it may be considered unique in this strong sense: only this person, as far as we know, has so realized the divine lure as to become “at one” with it. That intimate union or “sonship” is not a metaphysical given but an event of becoming, itself symbolized by Jesus’ baptism.  But does this make the incarnation an exclusive revalation of God in the final or competitive sense usually meant by identifying Jesus as the “only Son of God”? To the contrary: the whole point of the unique incarnation is to open up a new intimacy with the infinite. The one Gospel that features the incarnation, the “becoming flesh,” signifies this open process powerfully: “to all who received him,” writes John, “he gave power to become children of God” (John 1:13). In other words, to embrace this logos is to become a son or a daughter of God. The standard notion that only Jesus is the son of God directly defies the same Johannine text!

When we say that Jesus is the Christ, we mean that from our point of view the Jewish expectation of a Messiah was in a certain sense realized. If it was fulfilled in the person of Jesus–it is because he resolutely realized the possibilities tendered him by what he called abba. We might say that the initial aim for him moment to moment was to realize the messianic age, or the basileia, in the midst of his own limited circumstances. But this is precisely not to say that the messianic process was completed or exhausted. On the contrary: the possibility of its actualization in our own limited context was given a supportive communal shape and therefore a new imperative.

Was justice really done? Is this justice? It is some form of justice perhaps, but it is a fragmented and incomplete justice at best.

Justice such as this is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. As Gandhi so aptly observed, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Such an imperfect justice falls victim to the myth redemptive violence. Responding to an act of violence with an act of violence may satiate our anger temporarily, but catharsis only delays and numbs. It does not heal. An act of retaliatory violence does not fix the hurt or remove the pain. It only anesthetizes our compassion. We may not feel as bad, but we aren’t any closer to healing. To make matters worse, an act of retaliation will only embitter our enemies and strengthen their resolve. This imperfect justice breeds more hatred and stifles compassion.

Osama was killed yesterday, but justice was not done. True justice brings healing… on both sides of the conflict. True justice brings reconciliation. True justice is enemies laying down their swords and recognizing the humanity of the other.

Our country does not seek justice. We seek revenge. Either way, celebrating is entirely inappropriate. I was sickened by the crowd that gathered in front of the White House, celebrating, waving U.S. flags, and chanting “U-S-A! U-S-A!” Did anyone in the crowd consider what message they were sending to the world? Did they consider how their actions might be perceived by the rest of the world, or by Muslims, or extremists? Is this the message we want to send?

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Photo credit: Heather Charles, Chicago Tribune / April 4, 2011

I’ll admit, abortion is a fuzzy and conflicting ethical issue for me. I’ve written before regarding my thoughts on the matter: Pro-Life: Call It Like It Is and A Further Thought on Being Pro-Life. Abortion makes me squeamish. I’m not wild about the idea. Then again, the people who I’ve known who have had an abortion weren’t wild about the idea, either. Contrary to the way that some pro-life extremists paint it, I doubt any woman who gets an abortion does so flippantly; I doubt anyone considers abortion the ideal choice. I’m also squeamish that any legislation that is passed regarding abortion comes from a political body comprised of 83% men. In case you were wondering, men don’t have abortions.

But enough rambling; to the heart of the matter. Life Always is not pro-life. What they are is anti-abortion. There’s a distinct difference. Let’s break down the etymology of the name “pro-life.” The prefix “pro” comes from the Latin “pro,” which means “for.” The root “life” comes from the English word “life” which means “life.” Being pro-life also means you’re anti-death. Texas, the home state of Life Always, has executed more people than any other state… by 400%. Yet instead of focusing on state-sponsored murder in their own state, the group from Texas is putting up billboards in Illinois. Life Always wants people to choose life… as long as those lives are babies and not adults. Sure, plenty of the people who are executed in Texas did bad things, but can one really be “for life” and approve of killing people. Can you really call yourself “Life Always” and remain silent to the murder being committed in your own back yard? (I could go on about the vast racial inequalities of Death Row and the entire prison-industrial complex, but alas… we’ll save that for another post).

This is the real reason that the ad campaign by Life Always is ineffective. They don’t actually care about the lives of the people who see the billboards. If they actually cared, they would have engaged the community in a meaningful way. Instead, they chose to lob condemning, guilt-laden messages onto billboards 1000 miles away, where they’re safe and sound from having to actually relate to the mothers who live in these communities.

Life Always cares about life? What do they know about the life of a child in Woodlawn, Englewood or Washington Park? Nothing, clearly. The women of my community comprise the backbone; without their leadership our community would crumble. Yet Life Always chose to target them with their messages of condemnation. Has anyone from Life Always made the choice to raise a kid in a neighborhood like Woodlawn? Doubtful. Otherwise, they’d understand–for example–that a mother of four might be hesitant to bring another boy into the world when, in her community, 80% of the men have a criminal record, kids join gangs and get shot, and men are more likely to go to prison than college.

It’s abundantly clear that Life Always is completely oblivious to the real message that they’re sending. That message is this: We don’t care about you or your situation.

If Life Always actually cares about babies on the South Side of Chicago, perhaps a better way to demonstrate that is to help our community instead putting up condemning billboards. Find a pregnant, single mom who is thinking about an abortion and adopt her kid. Or take her shopping and buy groceries for her every once in a while. Or volunteer to play child support. Or mentor a kid. Or start a scholarship fund. Hell, I don’t care what they do. Just do something helpful and productive, something that lets us know they actually value our life.

Go ahead, Life Always. Put up as many billboards as you like. Nobody is listening.

One of the topics that received decent play in several of the debates was the possibility of group hallucinations. Group hallucinations were one of the possible explanation for some of the miracles recorded in the Gospel accounts. Ehrman and whoever he is debating go back and forth over whether divine intervention or a group hallucination is the more probable explanation. Accounts of group hallucination are rare and poorly documented in the academic practice of psychology. Even NT Wright (an individual whose academic reputation far outshines those with whom Ehrman is debating) in his and Marcus Borg’s book The Meaning of Jesus, argues that it is unlikely that the idea of Jesus could have transformed from the Historical Jesus to Jesus Christ (God incarnate) in such a short period of time in the minds of the Believers in Jesus.

I’m no psychologist, nor have I researched group hallucinations. However, I do believe that there is compelling evidence that coercive forces of group dynamics make a compelling explanation. Take the following video as evidence. It’s another example of the work of shaman/pastor Rob de Luca. Whether or not this qualifies as group hallucination, I’m not qualified to say. However, I think it demonstrates how compelling the pressure to fit in can be. I mean, from all indications these people actually believe that de Luca is tossing glory bombs. They actually feel themselves getting hit by something. Also, take note how quickly the newcomer conforms to group norms.

A spontaneous group hallucination is highly improbable. I, for one, would be skeptical of such an occurrence. However, if sufficient pressure to conform to a group exists, I believe it’s entirely possible for a group of people to legitimately believe the are experiencing a non-real experience. The brain’s ability to override perception combined with sufficient social pressure may lead to something not too unlike a group hallucination. I would suspect that the participants in this video would be able to provide a fairly cohesive, unified explanation of their experiences. Save for the ridiculousness of the actual circumstances, their accounts–even from the newcomer–would probably be similar enough to be credible. It doesn’t quite amount to group hallucination, but I think this video provides strong evidence that social pressure can create a similar environment.

Here is a clear, concise example of a church which has completely lost touch with the spirit of Jesus’ message (not to mention reality). Yes, Jesus’ message and the entire Bible are chocked full of radical teachings about poverty and excessive wealth. Economic justice is one of the major prophetic threads that weaves throughout the stories in the Bible. However, let’s reexamine the context in which this pastor is operating. Young, white people seem to make up the largest demographic in the church. Everyone on the video–regardless or age or race–is dressed in somewhat trendy clothing. My superficial evaluation is few of the church members are struggling under the intense economic injustice that I see on a regular basis in my neighborhood. Yet his ignorance is forgivable to me. The apparent hypocrisy is a little harder for me to stomach. I would estimate that there is easily $25-30,ooo worth of equipment for music, sound and lighting behind him. The church doesn’t–thank God–appear to have a massive congregation either, certainly not enough that such an expensive sound-light-music rig could be easily purchased. If you’re going to preach a radical message of economic justice, don’t do it through a sound system that’s worth more than the annual salary of someone living at the poverty line.

However, I want to move beyond mere appearances and the hypocrisy of the church and examine the sewage of theology that’s being spewed here. Gesturing forcefully towards the sheeple of his congregation the pastor chants, “Prosper! Prosper! Become a millionaire! Prosper!” He claims to be casting out demons of poverty.

Even if the Demon of Poverty is exorcised, it will undoubtedly return soon, as the demon who sent it–Greed–is still abundantly present in our society. The real problem I have with this theology is that it absolves any who subscribe to it from any and all responsibility in seeking economic justice. “There is no need for me to change how I live. Their poverty is caused by a demon.” Jesus brought a radical message that got him killed by the political and economic juggernauts of the day. The drivel offered by this power is not only complicit with the regime of empire, it actually furthers their cause.

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”

Millions and millions of people were taught that primary message, center of the Gospel of Jesus is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. So what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that, that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how can that ever be ‘good news’?

His words have created quite a stir and led some to prominent evangelicals to denounce Bell as a heretic. In response to Bell’s video, pastor Kevin DeYoung created a list of eight reasons that Christians need to believe in a wrathful God. Another blogger at C. Orthodoxy provided a succinct, effective rebuttal of DeYoung’s reasons that illustrate how most of his points aren’t grounded in history or logic. Furthermore, DeYoung paints himself as the archetype of those Christians whom Bell raises such strong questions against. This isn’t a problem per se, except that DeYoung does such a poor job at answering the questions that Bell raises.

For me the most perplexing thing is that people feel the need to defend a wrathful God. What about a wrathful God is worth following? If humanity’s finite mind is able to conceive of a being greater than its creator God, what does that say about the nature of that God? Furthermore, what does it say about humanity? What is it about such a God that is so appealing that millions around the world give their unquestioning devotion to such a God?

I know many Christians who subscribe to the view that hell is a state of eternal, conscious torment. Despite the fact the Bible’s descriptions of hell only fits such an interpretation if one accepts the views of non-canonical texts while selectively ignoring the historical context of most of the canonical texts that address the subject, many, like DeYoung, defend this view of hell as a necessity. DeYoung said, “We need the doctrine of eternal punishment.” Do we really? Is such a view really a necessity, and if so why did Jesus never mention it? Sure, Jesus talked about Gehenna (translated “Hell” in most English Bibles), which was a valley outside Jerusalem where trash was dumped and burned. Perhaps Jesus just forgot to mention the eternal, conscious torment bit.

What frightens me most is that people defend the necessity of believing in the eternal, conscious punishment for all but a small percentage of the 105 billion people who have lived and died on this planet. Just as with the genocidal God, I see no reason to defend such a God. Perhaps the most baffling thing to me is that people will argue that God is both loving and a genocidal, mass murderer who condemns billions to eternal, conscious punishment. I just don’t understand how that makes sense.

The hang up for many of us was the phrase, “unapologetically Christ-centered.” We reached a general consensus that we all grew and developed in our understandings of faith and Christianity while at Anderson University. This growth was an integral part of our experience, and as such one could say that our experiences at AU were “Christ-centered.” The problem was the word, “unapologetically.” The term was troublesome to many of us because of the connotations and cultural/historical baggage it carries with it. It is often associated with right-wing, religious fundamentalism (three of the top ten results on Google for “unapologetically” fall into this category). However, when one compares AU to other small, Christian, liberal arts universities, the environment at AU is not one of religious, right-wing fundamentalism–or at least it wasn’t when I attended. Many of us felt the commercial misrepresented our experience.

(I’m not sure why this topic–which was put to rest 3 months ago–was running laps in my head 6 minutes after I woke up this morning. I was barely conscious enough to remember that you shave with a razor, not a toothbrush. Maybe I just watched Inception too recently. Anyways.)

I want to take issue once again with the phrase “unapologetically Christ-centered.” The phrase seems to imply that people out there are apologizing for being Christian. Otherwise, there would be no reason to distinguish oneself as unapologetic. Now, I can understand apologizing for Christianity. A quick review of history demonstrates that Christians have committed plenty of horrible deeds. However, that’s not the issue at hand. It doesn’t say “unapologetic, Christ-centered.”

My question is this: Who are all these people who are going around apologizing for being Christian?

I mean, imagine if someone walked into Starbucks and said, “Yeah, I’d like a venti caramel macchiato. Can you put my caramel in the shape of a cross? You know, like God. Sorry, I know it’s an inconvenience, but I’m a Christian.” (Unfortunately, the only part of this story that is fictional is that the person apologized for being a Christian). Nobody does that! I mean, I’ve known a lot of people over the course of my life. Furthermore, I’ve known a disproportionately high number of Christians over the course of my life. I can’t recall a single instance where someone apologized for being a Christian. If enough people are going around apologizing for being Christians that a school needs to differentiate itself as unapologetic, you’d think I would’ve witnessed that apology at least once.

Furthermore, if anyone is apologizing for being Christian, that to me indicates that they have a low self-image. People who are secure in their identity don’t to apologize for who they are. If that’s the case, I don’t think you’ll boost their confidence much by bragging about how unapologetic your are. Way to stomp the little guy while he’s down.

I’m being satirical and ridiculous about this subject, which is not my typical modus operandi. However, I am sincerely trying to imagine someone being apologetically Christ-centered. Somehow every believable scenario comes out ridiculous.

So, why identify oneself as unapologetically Christ-centered, if no one else is apologizing for it?

As an afterthought, does anyone else think the proximity of “unapologetically” and “Christ” is a little ironic? I mean, isn’t seeking forgiveness and reconciliation sort of the central teaching of Jesus Christ? Or is that just me? Yeah? The Bible doesn’t talk about that anywhere? Huh. Coulda sworn it was in there somewhere.

Yet for the earliest believers-in-Jesus, this formal theological statement didn’t exist. It wasn’t fleshed out in specific philosophical terms. Early believers-in-Jesus hadn’t yet developed the theological language to express ideas about the trinity. As such, understanding of the trinity necessarily derived from spiritual experience. As language developed to define the Triune God (as though God could be defined), the necessity of the spiritual experience was supplanted by philosophical understanding.

This loss has had profound implications for how Christians relate to one another and to the earth. We have not understood the triune God as a symbol of mutuality, of radical equality, and of community in diversity. Rather we have imaged God as a divine monarch whose sovereign rule certain people on earth emulate through structures of domination, whether of the one group of people over another or humans over the planet The nontrinitarian God, moreover, tends to take on the characteristics of the “quintessential macho man, unmoved and unfeeling in the face of human suffering.” Having lost sight of the Trinity–a communion of persons–as the model par excellence, the church has instead structured hierarchies that privilege one class of persons over another.

This doctrine of the Trinity resonates with me: the Triune God is the perfect model of mutuality, equality and community in diversity. These should be the ideals that we pursue as seek holiness. For the earliest believers-in-Jesus who were without formal trinitarian doctrine, these ideals flowed from personal spiritual life-experiences rather than a hereditary intellectual dogma. As such–as a personal, spiritual experience, the Trinity is radical, not because it exceedingly logical (for indeed it is not) nor because it is original or unique to Christianity (for even this is dubious), but because its ideals are a powerful formula for challenging the status-quo of our culture.

Divorcing the Trinity from personal experience, as Boys points out, is not only antithetical to the Christian movement, it’s potentially harmful. Creating power structures of domination over others diminishes our connection with them and makes it more difficult to experience the image of God in them. We lose our ability to empathize with others. We lose site of the very things that make us beautiful.

The Trinity, therefore, is a powerful theological concept only when it is embodied in personal experience. Divorced from personal experience, the Trinity becomes a meaningless dogma. Coupled with personal experience, the Trinity has the potential to be a powerful, revolutionary force.

Buffalo Bills wide out Stevie Johnson dropped a perfect, wide-open, game-winning, pass in the end zone in overtime. Watch him drop it. Johnson’s blunder isn’t all that interesting to me. Professional sports players screw up all the time. What’s interesting to me is his response to the blunder. He said this on his Twitter feed:

I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO…

Not long afterward he clarify that he doesn’t blame God. It seems to me just an attempt to save spiritual face. I’m not sure how else to interpret his words, unless there is someone else besides God who he praises 24/7 (which would be kinda creepy).

What’s interesting about this situation is that he blamed God for dropping the pass. I have to say, it’s about time someone did. It seems to be well accepted that God frequently intervenes in the sporting world. Players thank God all the time when they score, make incredible plays, win key games, receive prestigious awards (see Tim Tebow’s Heisman acceptance speech). If God takes such a keen interest in the sporting world, it seems reasonable that God also causes all these blunders. God causes teams to loose, athletes to screw up critical plays, bad calls by the refs, and perhaps even causes poorly-timed injuries.

Of course another option is that Satan and his demons are causing the disruptions. God causes good things to happen; Satan screws things up. Perhaps we Americans find professional sports so enthralling because they’re really spiritual warfare incarnate. What’s more thrilling than a visceral spiritual battle? One that’s only a manifestation of a spiritual battle. Though, I’d be interested in hearing how God chooses which team God’s going to support and which team God will let Satan support. Perhaps it’s according to which fans pray the most, or which team has the most Christians on it. Or perhaps God chooses both teams, but then games would be decided by who Satan can screw up the most, and I doubt God would allow Satan that much control.

*Gasp!* But what if God didn’t cause Stevie to drop the pass? What if God doesn’t hinder or help anyone in sports? That would mean God doesn’t intervene at all in athletics. That means all the players who thank God after making an incredible play or securing a decisive victory are all acting meaninglessly. Die-hard fans offering prayers while their teams are hanging by a thread are wasting their breath.

Alright, so a lot of this has been rather tongue and cheek, but I’m sincerely interested in hearing what you think. If it make sense for players to thank God after making spectacular plays, does it make sense to blame God when they screw plays up? Did God drop the ball here?