I have been reading Liberating Jonah by Miguel De La Torre. For people like he and I who are Christian, anti-racist, and post-colonial, we find the celebration of Columbus Day problematic. For 2/3rds of the campus at Brown University, they supported ousting old Chris Columbus for Fall Weekend.
Fall Weekend
I pray that other universities follow suit.
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Mar 31, 2009
Fifth Annual State of the Black Church Summit and Banquet
Here is an announcement from the Black Church Studies program at Brite Divinity School.
Friday, April 3rd, 2009 will be the fifth annual Summit and Banquet. Click on the brochure to the right or click here: ANNOUNCEMENT for details.
Mar 27, 2009
The Ryan Moats--Dallas Police Incident
What would you do, if your own mother-in-law was in her last breathes, and the police officer intentionally stops you from seeing her because he wanted to prove a point to you by abusing his power? A long question, but there is no simple answer, because this actually did happen, just yesterday. See Celucien's response to this tragedy.
Ryan Moat's Loss
What would be the appropriate theological response to such an offense of human dignity?
Ryan Moat's Loss
What would be the appropriate theological response to such an offense of human dignity?
Joerg Rieger on Multiculturalism and Postmodernity
"Postmodernity, to name only one example, is presenting us with new challenges. The pluralism and multiculturalism of a postmodern culture, for instance, while indeed creating some space for those who are different, paradoxically also tends to further render invisible those on the margins. The pluralist/multiculturalist assumption that society is made up of different groups which each have the liberty to pursue their own interests covers up the kinds of parasitic relationships whereby some groups exist at the expense of others. Likewise, contemporary efforts to support the less fortunate often end up using them for their own purposes and ultimately exploiting them. Even though powerful organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank now claim their own options for the poor, power hardly shifts to the poor; and control remains rooted firmly in the hands of the traditional leadership group."
Joerg Rieger. "Protestantism" in
De La Torre, Miguel A. The Hope of Liberation in World Religions. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008. p. 44
Joerg Rieger. "Protestantism" in
De La Torre, Miguel A. The Hope of Liberation in World Religions. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008. p. 44
Mar 19, 2009
My 30th Post: Trinitarian Faith and Racial Reconciliation in Galatians 1:1-9
I have achieved a milestone in posting Black Trinitarian Theology blog for the thirtieth time. In commemoration, I made a post that gives a glipse into the kind of work I want to do on this blog as well in my scholarship. Below is my translation and brief commentary on Paul's letter to the Galatians
Trinitarian Faith and Racial Reconciliation in Galatians 1:1-9
*Corrections to Translation (thank you, Rob K.):
A. Verse 4 should read "The one who gave himself up" not giving himself up. The Greek word is in the aorist participle, and aorist always means a past and finished action.
B. Verse 6 should read "changing from the one," and not "changed"; this reflects the urgency of the moment for Paul writing to the Galatians in their historical context.
C. Verse 8 should read "beside the one which was preached to you" and not "the one who"; the relative pronoun and definite articles are in the neuter form and does not refer to a person in the original Greek, but to an object (an event), the Gospel.
Trinitarian Faith and Racial Reconciliation in Galatians 1:1-9
*Corrections to Translation (thank you, Rob K.):
A. Verse 4 should read "The one who gave himself up" not giving himself up. The Greek word is in the aorist participle, and aorist always means a past and finished action.
B. Verse 6 should read "changing from the one," and not "changed"; this reflects the urgency of the moment for Paul writing to the Galatians in their historical context.
C. Verse 8 should read "beside the one which was preached to you" and not "the one who"; the relative pronoun and definite articles are in the neuter form and does not refer to a person in the original Greek, but to an object (an event), the Gospel.
Mar 10, 2009
Diversity in the Academy and the Workplace?
In the second episode of the first season of the Office, entitled “Diversity Day,” Dunder Mifflin (Scranton branch) manager Michael Scott and his employees are obligated by corporate headquarters to undergo racial tolerance training session by a company called Diversity Today. Embarrassed by the fact that the seminar was actually held because of his individual racially insensitive behavior; Mr. Scott decides to create his very own colloquium “Diversity Tomorrow.” In the “Diversity Tomorrow” video that Michael Scott makes, Mr. Scott says, and I quote, “Abraham Lincoln said, that if you’re a racist, I will attack you from the North.” By the end of the episode, Mr. Scott forces the employees to wear post-it notes on their foreheads which label them according to a particular cultural group that each will represent (Asian, African-American, Jewish, etc.); Michael, as a newly self-proclaimed progressive on race issues, plays the role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and performs the function of mediator in ensuing the conversations about racial stereotypes that occur between his employees.
Although this episode does not tell us about actual events, there are some general truths about American culture that can be gathered. First, movements to promote diversity typically start from the top-down; corporate executives, university administrators, and the top church officials play the role of “Abraham Lincoln” by using a top-down approach to addressing issues of racism, sexism, and classism within their institutions. Diversity is the institutional practice that attempts to recognize plurality in the human experience by marketing an image that promotes white liberal democratic and capitalist norms in order to deny the history of white supremacy in the United States of America. We, as citizens of the world’s lone superpower, have had a tendency to forget the history of North American racial injustice by ignoring the heroic narratives of moral exemplars from marginalized communities in order to maintain Euro-American homogeneity within colleges, universities, businesses, and churches. The second lesson we can learn from Michael Scott is the utmost importance of heroic story in moral formation. For the “Diversity Tomorrow” seminar, Mr. Scott depends on a North American liberal meta-narrative of racial progress where the two complex stories of President Abraham Lincoln and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are simplified into a unified fiction where American racism has been ended while our heroes such as Dr. King and Honest Abe transcend the bounds of their historical contexts. [an excerpt from an introduction to a paper I presented last May]
The fact is that we still live in a racist society, one created, defined, and to a large extent, by the human construct in which we refer to a race. No one can escape racism; no one can claim to be color-blind. Sunday at 11:00am is still the most segregated hour of the week. To some degree, everyone has to capacity to be racist or be affected by racism. Academic institutions and corporations remain closed systems to the experiences of the racialized Other. We can pay tribute to Dr. King or plan events for twenty-eight days in commemoration of African American history, but there is still no honest and open dialogue. The conversation is hardly mutual; we are all fed the same mainstream media propaganda as they show us what it means to be Black like CNN’s Black in America. We learn that government intervention is the solution to our problems, and are told to give applause to such breakthrough policy efforts such as the Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and affirmative action are the ways to save America from its racist past. Trust the government; we can save the United States from racial prejudice and white privilege. The truth be told, mainstream America’s delusion reflects an imperialist mode of being. In other words, by ignoring the complex power dynamics between the actions of the state and the individual, most Americans passively accept “the myth of the savior state” in order to avoid the hard work of racial reconciliation. We try to convince ourselves that the government can somehow impose its will upon our free will and our free conscience in order to make the world a safer place for multicultural. This is nothing more than a bold-faced lie rooted deep in the heart of neo-colonial logic.
Government is not the answer to the problem of the color line. God, the one rightful Governor of the universe, who alone able to transform hearts and minds, and who has already reconciled creation and humanity to Godself through Jesus the Messiah (Colossians 1:20-22). The appropriate response to God’s peace-making mission in the world is for people of all races and ethnic backgrounds to love each for their differences, and make intentional efforts to fellowship together for the glory of the empire of the One True God. Anti-racism movements must no longer be the burden of racial minority groups nor do we have to wait upon politicians in Washington, D.C. to enjoy racial harmony. We all must commit ourselves to intercultural communion and interracial communities of worship, just as John the Revelator envisioned as we will cry out in a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Revelation 7:10)
Although this episode does not tell us about actual events, there are some general truths about American culture that can be gathered. First, movements to promote diversity typically start from the top-down; corporate executives, university administrators, and the top church officials play the role of “Abraham Lincoln” by using a top-down approach to addressing issues of racism, sexism, and classism within their institutions. Diversity is the institutional practice that attempts to recognize plurality in the human experience by marketing an image that promotes white liberal democratic and capitalist norms in order to deny the history of white supremacy in the United States of America. We, as citizens of the world’s lone superpower, have had a tendency to forget the history of North American racial injustice by ignoring the heroic narratives of moral exemplars from marginalized communities in order to maintain Euro-American homogeneity within colleges, universities, businesses, and churches. The second lesson we can learn from Michael Scott is the utmost importance of heroic story in moral formation. For the “Diversity Tomorrow” seminar, Mr. Scott depends on a North American liberal meta-narrative of racial progress where the two complex stories of President Abraham Lincoln and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are simplified into a unified fiction where American racism has been ended while our heroes such as Dr. King and Honest Abe transcend the bounds of their historical contexts. [an excerpt from an introduction to a paper I presented last May]
The fact is that we still live in a racist society, one created, defined, and to a large extent, by the human construct in which we refer to a race. No one can escape racism; no one can claim to be color-blind. Sunday at 11:00am is still the most segregated hour of the week. To some degree, everyone has to capacity to be racist or be affected by racism. Academic institutions and corporations remain closed systems to the experiences of the racialized Other. We can pay tribute to Dr. King or plan events for twenty-eight days in commemoration of African American history, but there is still no honest and open dialogue. The conversation is hardly mutual; we are all fed the same mainstream media propaganda as they show us what it means to be Black like CNN’s Black in America. We learn that government intervention is the solution to our problems, and are told to give applause to such breakthrough policy efforts such as the Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and affirmative action are the ways to save America from its racist past. Trust the government; we can save the United States from racial prejudice and white privilege. The truth be told, mainstream America’s delusion reflects an imperialist mode of being. In other words, by ignoring the complex power dynamics between the actions of the state and the individual, most Americans passively accept “the myth of the savior state” in order to avoid the hard work of racial reconciliation. We try to convince ourselves that the government can somehow impose its will upon our free will and our free conscience in order to make the world a safer place for multicultural. This is nothing more than a bold-faced lie rooted deep in the heart of neo-colonial logic.
Government is not the answer to the problem of the color line. God, the one rightful Governor of the universe, who alone able to transform hearts and minds, and who has already reconciled creation and humanity to Godself through Jesus the Messiah (Colossians 1:20-22). The appropriate response to God’s peace-making mission in the world is for people of all races and ethnic backgrounds to love each for their differences, and make intentional efforts to fellowship together for the glory of the empire of the One True God. Anti-racism movements must no longer be the burden of racial minority groups nor do we have to wait upon politicians in Washington, D.C. to enjoy racial harmony. We all must commit ourselves to intercultural communion and interracial communities of worship, just as John the Revelator envisioned as we will cry out in a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Revelation 7:10)
Mar 1, 2009
Some thoughts at the conclusion Black History Month and CNN’s Black In America
Answer: Yes, I do believe that it is important to recognize the uniqueness of the African-American or Black American experience here in the United States of America. Yes, enslavement and legal segregation were death dealing institutions which America has yet to repent from.
However, as I was glancing on CNN the other night, I came across Soledad O’Brien’s documentary series on being “Black in America.” It was frustrating for me, as an African American, to watch this so called documentary because although I realize that racial oppression is still very real, and that institutional racism continues to raise its ugly head, many of the people’s problems in “Black in America” was due in large part to bad INDIVIDUAL choices. For instance, there was one particular dead beat dad who had fathered a child of an ex-girlfriend; all of the blame was places on the father but the documentarian did not even question his ex-girlfriend about the fathers of her other children. I am not trying to get on my moral high horse here but I feel that this poor guy was being scape-goated, as well as other members of society blamed for the lack of well being of the girlfriend without even a small examination of this woman’s moral agency.
This selectivity in hiding some points of the truth without highlighting other is part of the problem with being an historian. For example, I have always noticed that whenever certain scholars claim to be uncovering the historical Jesus, Jesus always seems to be reconstructed into someone who looks and acts just like us. All one has to do a concrete example of the worst kind is the German liberal Protestant New Testament scholarship in the early twentieth century where Jesus (in the gospel of John apparently) was really Aryan and more like a German citizen. Last year, Marcus Borg lectured at Brite Divinity School for Minister’s Week. He claimed that the real Jesus was a Palestinian Jewish peasant who lived in Galilee, and who lived in opposition to the Roman Empire and legalistic religious authorities. Borg, when asked if the Bible had something to say about racial conflict, answered that the Bible has nothing to say about race, and that he was surprised Christians could ever maintain a racist ideology (of course, pointing to the segregationist Christians in the South). Maybe Borg meant to say that our idea of race and race relations is not found in Scripture. Whatever he meant, he was wrong. The curse of Ham was utilized as one of the many passages in the Bible to justify African enslavement here in America. Basically, Borg ignored a concrete historical fact such as this, to hold onto a convenient white liberal opinion that people do not have to see race to recognize another person as a human being (color blindness). Faulty logic used by both liberals and conservatives.
Biased understandings of history are not limited to liberals such as Borg or aspiring documentarians such as Soledad O’Brien. I have noticed that many African Americans have an interpretation of Black History month that is limited to a select few political activists of the liberal and/or socialist persuasion. I have yet to hear (from anyone other than me) Lemuel Haynes named alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or for historians to examine the conservatism of Malcolm X. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as an objective examination of history and if anyone tells you anything to the contrary, let them in the words of the apostle Paul, be an anathema! We all come to texts, films, artwork, and classrooms with our own biases, and therefore there are boundaries on what we as human beings can know. Black History Month is beneficial when the truth is considered and then reconsidered once more; once BHM becomes nothing more than 28 days of regurgitating myths constantly perpetuated by Black Americans on the far left of society, it has lost its original purpose. We must celebrate the achievements of all Black Americans, and not just those few who fit into the metanarrative of so-called progressive socialist politics. Let us always remember, as the great apostle of freedom once said, that “now we see in the mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will only know the entire truth when the greatest of all, Love, includes children of God from every nation, tribe, and every walk of life.
However, as I was glancing on CNN the other night, I came across Soledad O’Brien’s documentary series on being “Black in America.” It was frustrating for me, as an African American, to watch this so called documentary because although I realize that racial oppression is still very real, and that institutional racism continues to raise its ugly head, many of the people’s problems in “Black in America” was due in large part to bad INDIVIDUAL choices. For instance, there was one particular dead beat dad who had fathered a child of an ex-girlfriend; all of the blame was places on the father but the documentarian did not even question his ex-girlfriend about the fathers of her other children. I am not trying to get on my moral high horse here but I feel that this poor guy was being scape-goated, as well as other members of society blamed for the lack of well being of the girlfriend without even a small examination of this woman’s moral agency.
This selectivity in hiding some points of the truth without highlighting other is part of the problem with being an historian. For example, I have always noticed that whenever certain scholars claim to be uncovering the historical Jesus, Jesus always seems to be reconstructed into someone who looks and acts just like us. All one has to do a concrete example of the worst kind is the German liberal Protestant New Testament scholarship in the early twentieth century where Jesus (in the gospel of John apparently) was really Aryan and more like a German citizen. Last year, Marcus Borg lectured at Brite Divinity School for Minister’s Week. He claimed that the real Jesus was a Palestinian Jewish peasant who lived in Galilee, and who lived in opposition to the Roman Empire and legalistic religious authorities. Borg, when asked if the Bible had something to say about racial conflict, answered that the Bible has nothing to say about race, and that he was surprised Christians could ever maintain a racist ideology (of course, pointing to the segregationist Christians in the South). Maybe Borg meant to say that our idea of race and race relations is not found in Scripture. Whatever he meant, he was wrong. The curse of Ham was utilized as one of the many passages in the Bible to justify African enslavement here in America. Basically, Borg ignored a concrete historical fact such as this, to hold onto a convenient white liberal opinion that people do not have to see race to recognize another person as a human being (color blindness). Faulty logic used by both liberals and conservatives.
Biased understandings of history are not limited to liberals such as Borg or aspiring documentarians such as Soledad O’Brien. I have noticed that many African Americans have an interpretation of Black History month that is limited to a select few political activists of the liberal and/or socialist persuasion. I have yet to hear (from anyone other than me) Lemuel Haynes named alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or for historians to examine the conservatism of Malcolm X. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as an objective examination of history and if anyone tells you anything to the contrary, let them in the words of the apostle Paul, be an anathema! We all come to texts, films, artwork, and classrooms with our own biases, and therefore there are boundaries on what we as human beings can know. Black History Month is beneficial when the truth is considered and then reconsidered once more; once BHM becomes nothing more than 28 days of regurgitating myths constantly perpetuated by Black Americans on the far left of society, it has lost its original purpose. We must celebrate the achievements of all Black Americans, and not just those few who fit into the metanarrative of so-called progressive socialist politics. Let us always remember, as the great apostle of freedom once said, that “now we see in the mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will only know the entire truth when the greatest of all, Love, includes children of God from every nation, tribe, and every walk of life.
Feb 23, 2009
Paper Proposal accepted by the NABPR
“The Temple He Had Spoken Of Was His Body: Christian Sexual Ethics, Race, Gender Roles and the Biblical Narrative from Womanist, Liberationist, and Evangelical Perspectives”
The 2008 presidential campaigns of President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season as well as the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as the first female Republican candidate for Vice President dominated the headlines of the mainstream media. This historic election also proved that discussions on race relations as well as sexual morals are off limits within the American Christendom. The protests after the passing of Proposition Eight in California demonstrated that American Christians are not equipped to discuss racial and gender issues. We, as the people of God located in the Unites States of America, have had a tendency to circumvent social problems such as racism and sexism in order to be accepted by the mainstream culture rather than remain faithful to the Kingdom of God. While many conservative evangelical churches refuse to have conversations on these important issues because they remain afraid of discussing cultural taboos, liberal mainline congregations are incapable of talking about any norms for racial and sexual ethics because of their interpretation of the doctrine of Original Sin.
This paper proposes a comparative study on some of the most current responses that Christian theologians and ethicist have offered pertaining to American Christian approaches to race and sexuality. The works of Kelly Brown Douglas (Black Womanist ethicist), Stanley Grenz (late Evangelical theologian), and Miguel De La Torre (Liberation theologian) will be all be examined. In particular, a comparison and contrast of each theologian’s view of theological anthropology, the Imago Dei, as well as their definition of human sinfulness will be made. By the conclusion of this paper, I hope to construct a theological proposal based on the Old Testament Trinitarian paradigm of Word, Breathe, and Body (assembly and individuals) to empower churches to establish dialogues pertaining to racial differences and human sexuality.
The 2008 presidential campaigns of President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season as well as the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as the first female Republican candidate for Vice President dominated the headlines of the mainstream media. This historic election also proved that discussions on race relations as well as sexual morals are off limits within the American Christendom. The protests after the passing of Proposition Eight in California demonstrated that American Christians are not equipped to discuss racial and gender issues. We, as the people of God located in the Unites States of America, have had a tendency to circumvent social problems such as racism and sexism in order to be accepted by the mainstream culture rather than remain faithful to the Kingdom of God. While many conservative evangelical churches refuse to have conversations on these important issues because they remain afraid of discussing cultural taboos, liberal mainline congregations are incapable of talking about any norms for racial and sexual ethics because of their interpretation of the doctrine of Original Sin.
This paper proposes a comparative study on some of the most current responses that Christian theologians and ethicist have offered pertaining to American Christian approaches to race and sexuality. The works of Kelly Brown Douglas (Black Womanist ethicist), Stanley Grenz (late Evangelical theologian), and Miguel De La Torre (Liberation theologian) will be all be examined. In particular, a comparison and contrast of each theologian’s view of theological anthropology, the Imago Dei, as well as their definition of human sinfulness will be made. By the conclusion of this paper, I hope to construct a theological proposal based on the Old Testament Trinitarian paradigm of Word, Breathe, and Body (assembly and individuals) to empower churches to establish dialogues pertaining to racial differences and human sexuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)