Natalie Burris

More from Rev. Wright's interview

During Bill Moyers’ interview with Rev. Wright, they discussed shame in the African American community. I learned a lot in this section from what Wright had to say. He led efforts to overcome this sense of shame, one that stems of our society overlooking African Americans and African culture. Wright remarked that it comes from the misguided notion that “Africans are ignorant; there is no African history, there is no African music, there is no African culture, anything related to Africa is negative, therefore you are not African."

Wright pointed out that other minority groups have a certain sense of ethnic identity. For example, Chinese immigrants form “Chinatowns,” Koreans have “Koreatown.” Other nonwhites can celebrate their culture, while, as Wright says:

Africans come, they're colored. They're Negro. They're anything but Africa. In fact, we don't even call them Ebbu, Ebibu, Fulani, Fanti, Ga, no, no, no -- they're all "Negro." Portuguese, "Negro" Spanish. They're all gettin' lumped into black, but we're not black, we are Negro with a capital N.

Many from the majority culture, if they see a Cuban person who is black, a Ugandan who is black, or a native Texan who is black, they lump these individuals into one category, while these three people would have very different backgrounds.

Christianity plays a part in furthering this shame. Wright shares:

The shame of being a descendant of Africa, was a shame that had been pumped into the minds and hearts of Africans from the 1600s on, even aided and abetted by the benefit of those schools started by the missionaries, who simply carried their culture with them into the South and taught their cultures being synonymous with Christianity. So that to become a Christian, you had to let go of all vestiges of Africa and become European, become New Englanders and worship like New England, worship God properly and right. Well, that shame was a part of the shame that many Africans in the '60s and the '70s were feeling.

So that is the context in which Trinity Church in Chicago proclaims they are a community that is “unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian.” (It reminds me of the ideas in Pagan Christianity, too..) It’s terrible how that statement was paraded around the media as a threatening thing.

Wright discusses the attitude after King was assassinated, when black college students decided to focus on their own tradition and sing things like gospel music instead of European-based music:

We're gonna do our people. We're gonna do our culture. We're gonna do our history. And we're gonna embrace it and not put-- to say one is superior to the other. Because we are different. And different does not mean deficient, that we just different like snowflakes. We're different. We talk about God of diversity? God has diverse culture, God has -and we're proud of who we are because that's the statement the congregation was making, not a race-based theology.

Wright also mentioned in the interview that he strived to instill in the children at his church a faith that was not Euro-centric. Trinity installed large stained-glass windows that do not include historically-unrealistic white-skinned figures. Wright shares an anecdote where he reminded some kids that a lot of what happened between Genesis and Revelation happened in Africa.

He says a lot of important things that the white church would be wise to listen to. It’s too bad he’s been demonized lately.

Real freedom

Thanks to Emergent Village, I read a great post today about pacifism. Mark Van Steenwyk, on JesusManifesto.com, shares a struggle that he used to have when sharing his nonviolent stance: Onward, Christian Soldiers. Many respond that the only way we're able to hold pacifist beliefs or have the freedom to converse about them is because our fathers and grandfathers sacrificed and fought. I'm like Mark was, and didn't really know how to answer that. Now, however, Mark has a different response. He shares:

When American Christians use the words “freedom” and “liberty” and “sacrifice” they are usually being patriotic. When asked if Jesus “sacrificed” for our “freedom” and “liberty” they would quickly agree…and wouldn’t see any conflict between the American sense of these words and the Christian sense. If pressed, I would imagine that the typical American Christian would explain that American soldiers die for our physical or political freedom. Jesus, however, died for our spiritual freedom. It is as though Jesus is Lord of the Spirit but Uncle Sam is Lord of the Flesh.

He talks about kingdom patriotism:

The only ones who sacrificed for my freedom are Jesus and the martyrs…all of those who suffer for the Faith. If by adopting pacifism I dishonor America’s soldiers, by renouncing pacifism I dishonor the blood of Christ and the martyrs.

[...]

Many brave Christians have died throughout the ages turning the other cheek–laying down their lives so that Christ could be clearly revealed to the world. This is a greater sacrifice than that soldiers makes in service of their country. It is kingdom patriotism…laying down one’s life in the cause of Christ.

Mark has decided to join the Christian Peacemaker Teams in order to put his beliefs into action. He clears up the misconception that pacifist equals passive-ist: "despite popular beliefs, there is no linguistic tie between the words 'pacifism' and 'passive.' A 'pacifist' is one who practices or makes peace. A peace maker. A peace-ist."

He ends his thoughts with this comment:  "The freedom that comes from democracy, while beneficial, is paltry compared to the abundant freedom we have in Christ." The freedoms and liberties we have gained come at a great human cost, and we spend a lot of money maintaining "security" for America. I responded to a comment to an earlier post of mine with a few statistics from Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change, and thought I would re-post some of them here:

The U.S. spends $100 million a day just maintaining our weapons in case someone attacks our soil, and just a tenth of the military budget  could provide the basic needs of the entire world's poor! One half of 1% of the military budget could also be used to decrease hunger by 50% in Africa by 2015 (162, 165-66). McLaren also describes how the U.S. makes our weapons in bulk since it's cheaper, then sells them to other countries. How will that secure real peace and freedom?

A modern-day prophet

Wow. I'm listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's interview with Bill Moyers, and highly recommend that everyone check it out. Seeing the controversy with his remarks and Obama in light of this interview makes me sad now. I suppose that's exactly how we would react to a modern-day prophet that tells us things that are difficult to hear. Granted, not all of Rev. Wright's statements have been factual, but I don't think that means we should rule out everything else he's said.

The interview is here. There are a lot things I'd like to post, but for now here's a quote from the beginning part of the interview:

Unfortunately, most churches now are "status quo." And so that, to the extent that they're not trying to feed the poor, they're not trying to hook up jobs and people, they're not concerned about the lowest, the least, the left out. They're not concerned about the youth, they're concerned about "Let me come here on a Sunday, hear something that tells me I'm ok, and I'm going to back to where I've been going. Don't rock the boat.”

[...}

[Martin Marty] put a challenge to us in 1970, late '69, early '70, I'll never forget. He said, "You know, you come into the average church on a Sunday morning and you think you've stepped from the real world into a fantasy world. And what do I mean by that?" He said pick up the church bulletin. You leave a world, Vietnam, or today you leave a world, Iraq, over 4,000 dead, American boys and girls, 100,000, 200,000 depending on which count, Iraqi dead. Afghanistan, Darfur, rapes in the Congo, Katrina, Lower Ninth Ward, that's the world you leave. And you come in; you pick up your church bulletin. It says, there is a ladies tea on second Sunday. The children's choir will be doing. He said, "How come our bulletins, how come the faith preached in our churches does not relate to the world in which our church members leave at the benediction?" Well, it hit me. And it hit me several different ways. Number one, I know there's a church publication, the bulletin, the weekly bulletin. But what about the ministry? And what about the prophetic voice of the church that's not heard? We're talking about things that our members are wrestling with a whole bunch of other things. And the sermons and the ministries of the church don't touch those things.

Streak shares his thoughts on the interview, as well, here: "I think I would take Jeremiah Wright any day."

Unarmed truth...or trick Jesus?

Taking a break from Pagan Christianity, I have been trying to finish up Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change. There are a ton of good things to chew on in his book, so I wanted to share a few that relate to violence, since I've been thinking about non-violence/Christianity lately:

"...[I]f we believe that God will ultimately enforce his will by forceful domination, and will eternally torture all who resist that domination, then torture and domination become not only permissible but in some way godly. The implications for, say, military policy (not to mention church politics) are not hard to imagine." (144)

McLaren discusses eschatology, namely the type that teaches that Jesus' "Second Coming" will be a brilliant show of might and bloodshed:

"If we believe that Jesus came in peace the first time, but that wasn't his 'real' and decisive coming--it was just a kind of warm-up for the real thing--then we leave the door open to envisioning a second coming that will be characterized by violence, killing, domination, and eternal torture. This vision reflects a deconversion, a return to trust in the power of Pilate, not the unarmed truth that stood before Pilate, refusing to fight. This eschatological understanding of a violent second coming leads us to believe (as we've said before) that in the end, even God finds it impossible to fix the world apart from violence and coercion; no one should be surprised when those shaped by this theology behave accordingly." (144)

When we view Jesus' words and actions through the lens of this type of violence-and-domination-conquer-all eschatology, the nonviolence in the Gospels may end up being viewed as a "strategic fake-out." Mclaren continues: "The gentle Jesus of the first coming becomes a kind of trick Jesus, a fake-me-out Messiah, to be replaced by the true jihadist Jesus of a violent second coming" (144).

If the two seemingly most important things in our narrative as Christians (the crucifixion and the "Second Coming") hinge on violence, what type of theology emerges? Most Christians believe in the existence of hell, to add a third violent element. I would venture the theology that results is not a very peaceful one, on so many levels. Thank goodness there are many Christians who are willing to articulate a counter-narrative to so much violence...that's why I can't wait to get started on Denny Weaver's The Nonviolent Atonement!

Constantine and the church

photo © 2011 sixpee2013 | more info (via: Wylio)

 

My friend Art went on a "Reformation Trip" to Europe a few years ago, and wrote a paper on "Constantine's Legacy" for the trip. He was kind enough to share his paper with me, since it relates to Pagan Christianity. Both Pagan Christianity and Art's paper reference Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity, Vol I. I told Art that he could have written a controversial book about church practices back in 2004, before Viola and Barna!

Here a few excerpts that I'd like to share (with Art's permission):

Constantine bestowed the empire's favor on the church. He made church lands tax-free. He provided labor and materials for the construction of churches. He built world-class church-buildings all throughout the empire, the likes of which Christians at that time had never seen before. Prior to Constantine, Christians met in the homes and they also met in simple church buildings they owned. He gave gifts of food to members of the church. He gave allowances to the nuns and employees of the church. These allowances were funded by the state. Before the 4th century, the church was known for its social cohesiveness. Christians took care of each other. According to historian Michael Grant, Christians possessed retirement and funeral insurance companies which extended benefits to the humblest social classes. In effect, Constantine made the church materially-dependent on the state instead of God.

[...]

 

Constantine also introduced changes to Christian worship. Gonzalez wrote these about the changes:

"Incense, which was used as a respect for the emperor, began appearing in Christian churches. Officiating ministers , who until then had worn everyday clothes, began dressing in more luxurious garments. Likewise, a number of gestures indicating respect, which were normally reserved for the emperor, now became part of Christian worship. The custom was also introduced of beginning services with a processional. Choirs were developed, partly in order to give body to the procession. Eventually, the congregation came to have a less active role in worship." 

These were some of the changes Constantine brought to the church. His influence extended to church polity, worship and the church's social welfare system, which was rooted in the body coming to each other's needs. The peace that Constantine gave the church came at a great price.

"But you must speak Java!"

Hilarious take on day laborers, found via ImmigrationProf Blog:

"The church is not a footnote"

More tidbits I wanted to share from Pagan Christianity. Viola and Barna address the seeker-sensitive style of church, and their opinion is that it is the same way of doing church since the Reformation, but in a more entertaining way. The basic Protestant order of service hasn’t changed over the past five hundred years, and seeker-sensitive churches realize some stagnancy may occur:

In response, they have incorporated a vast array of media and theatrical modernizations into the liturgy. This is done to market worship to the unchurched. Employing the latest electronic technology, seeker-sensitive churches have been successful at swelling their ranks. (77) 

They go on: “But despite the added entertainment it affords, the market-driven seeker-sensitive service is still held captive by the pastor, the three fold ‘hymn-sandwich’ remains intact, and the congregants continue to be muted spectators (only they are more entertained in their spectating)” (77).

photo © 2006 Aleksandar Cocek | more info (via: Wylio)

Viola and Barna give a history of the American revivalist movement, a phenomenon that gave birth to a more individualized, evangelism-only faith, and that eventually led to our current version of American evangelicalism. It was like a mini Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Converting souls was/is the main priority of revivalism, at the expense of building the ekklesia. But in the early church, the idea of being “saved” meant being added to the church community rather than spared from hell.

Viola and Barna include a quote from Gilbert Bilezikian: “Christ did not die just to save us from sins, but to bring us together into community. After coming to Christ, our next step is to be involved in community. A church that does not experience community is a parody, a sham” (81). 

Many churches today have “made the profound error of divorcing soteriology (salvation) from ecclesiology (church practice). The message conveyed is that soteriology is a required course, while ecclesiology is an elective” (82). In other words, “The church is not a footnote in the gospel. It stands at the center of God’s beating heart” (82). Viola and Barna are careful to point out that focusing more on ecclesiology does not imply abandoning evangelism, because the church’s living out the gospel in community should draw others in.

GI Joe

I’m finding it harder and harder to continue my attempts to affiliate myself with the evangelical church. I don’t know why it would be a big deal, anyway, except I was really trying not to abandon a group that I didn’t necessarily agree with wholeheartedly…This morning a good friend and I went to yet another new church, and the sermon illustration was a real live American soldier and his battle gear. The speaker even said, “Wow I really like this…having a real GI Joe up here.” A little boy sitting behind me was so excited, he kept whispering "Cool!" The sermon was of course about the armor of God.

photo © 2006 Creativity103 | more info (via: Wylio)

It really messed with my head the whole time, since I’m a pacifist. I tried to focus on the message, but I kept thinking about the Sermon on the Mount…loving enemies, turning the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers. Any time the soldier mentioned the enemy (he really did use that word, enemy), I kept thinking about Iraqis. I thought about how American Christians would react to an “insurgent” being used in a Christian or Muslim gathering in Iraq.

It would be difficult to speak out against the war in Iraq in that church. Then I realized—while I was busy not paying attention to the sermon—that it was hard for me to think of any evangelical church that would speak out against the war in Iraq. The marriage between the American evangelical church and the American military is going pretty well, as well as the inseparable bond between the church and our nation in general (such as patriotism).

I waited in suspense to see how the “peace” part of the passage would be addressed: “and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15). I kid you not, it was skipped over, and we heard a short definition of the word “gospel” instead.

On a more positive note, my friend and I were excited to sign up to volunteer for Feed My Starving Children. Many churches have been raising money for hundreds of thousands of packaged meals, and volunteers pack them to send off to countries like Haiti. Each meal costs 15 cents. It seems like a very creative way to address the existence of both wealthy Christians and hungry children. So I guess I haven’t cut myself off completely from evangelicals!

I'm off to reread Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount about judging others...but it might be kind of hard with this plank getting in the way!

Pew potatoes

“Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” – Jesus, Matthew 15:3

Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola and George Barna, was recently released. Evidently, it’s controversial, because it describes the beginnings of doing “church” and how most everything we do now has no scriptural basis. In fact, our church practices may be hindering our ability to be the church. I don’t necessarily agree with everything so far, but Viola and Barna include great, challenging ideas that I wanted to share.

The book details the way Greco-Roman culture and its pagan ways affected the church, with Constantine turning the church into a public institution during the fourth century. While the early Christians had no need for a church building, Constantine ushered in an era of massive church-building construction, since the pagan religion of his day considered temples a necessity. He applied the same logic to the Christian faith, and Christians’ worshipping in buildings legitimized the religion.

Viola and Barna argue that relegating “church” to an event inside a church building a few times a week causes us to compartmentalize our faith. When we meet in homes, as the early Christians did, there is no separation between our faith and other parts of life. The phrase “to go to church” would have been a difficult concept to grasp for first-century Christians, since “You cannot go to something you are!” (12).

photo © 2008 ripplestone garden | more info (via: Wylio)

In the New Testament, the Greek word “ekklesia” never meant a place or building; instead, it is a gathering of people—the people of God. Only until the King James Version of the Bible was “ekklesia” translated to mean “church” rather than a congregation or body of believers. 

Another interesting fact is that many other things were taken straight from Greco-Roman culture and brought into Christianity: “Fourth-century Christianity was being profoundly shaped by Greek paganism and Roman imperialism” (25). The result: “a loss of intimacy and open participation. The professional clergy performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators” (25).

The discussion of architecture is pretty eye-opening as well. Viola and Barna remark that the “pew is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of face-to-face fellowship. It is a symbol of lethargy and passivity in the contemporary church and has made corporate worship a spectator sport” (34). They continue: “It immobilizes the congregation of the saints and renders them mute spectators” (34-5). Other things, like the focal point of the pulpit on what is usually a raised stage and a steeple reaching for the sky, are also telling. 

Viola and Barna state that the set-up of the church meeting profoundly affects us: “Every building we encounter elicits a response from us. By its interior and exterior, it explicitly shows us what the church is and isn’t” (37). A congregation’s grasp of God’s intentions for his church can be revealed through the location and design of a church’s meeting place: “A church’s location teaches us how to meet. It teaches us what is important and what is not. And it teaches us what is acceptable to say to each other and what is not” (38). The fact the American church owns $230 billion in real estate speaks volumes in a world of extreme hunger and poverty…

I may have issues with a few things, but Pagan Christianity has so far been a thought-provoking —possibly paradigm-shifting— work. Viola and Barna think that the church as a building “is an architectural denial of the priesthood of all believers. […] The church building impedes our understanding and experience that the church is Christ’s functioning body that lives and breathes under His direct headship” (42-3). 

I just started Chapter Three and can't wait to read the rest of this book. I'm hoping that they give credit to the way many non-white European Christians do church in a non-pew-potatoe-y way, such as the black church's practice of call and response...

(btw, the phrase "pew pototoes" is from the book, but I can't seem to find the page #!)

Non-violent atonement

Just wanted to share an article from Leaving Munster that details an alternative to penal substitutionary atonement. I like that it includes a history of the formation of "penal substitution" as a way of describing what Jesus did. I like that the article emphasizes Jesus' death and life and it makes sure nonviolence isn't viewed as a passive way of life. Check it out here: The Day God Turned His Cheek: or, Can there be a non-violent atonement?

Looks like I need to check out Denny Weaver's The Non-violent Atonement and re-read Yoder's The Politics of Jesus. I've had a lot of thoughts since watching Bowling for Columbine and reading The Reluctant Fundamentalist. I wonder if there is a connection between American Christianity's embrace of Jesus' death on the cross as redemptive violence and the protectiveness of our country's gun laws? I wonder if the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, well, American Christianity's close relationship with the American military are also connected with our view of the atonement?