The Institute for Cultural Engagement, an official program of Multnomah University and Biblical Seminary
New Wine spills its soul…
This week, we bring you a series of episodes from our recent Healthcare conference at Multnomah University on October 19, 2013.
Today’s episode is a live recording of the first panel discussion, including panelists Michael Dembrow, Doug Perednia, and Paul Gorman. Samuel Metz moderates. The panelists interact over proposals for healthcare reform, made especially timely as the US government had been embroiled in a shut down just days earlier on this very subject.
I have come across a few answers as to why people call the day after Thanksgiving “Black Friday.” One answer is that “Black Friday” was coined by the Philadelphia Police Department based on the overwhelming and chaotic influx of traffic and pedestrian activity associated with Christmas shopping on the Friday immediately following Thanksgiving. “Black Friday” is also associated with the economic upturn involving the shopping cycle leading to Christmas where retailers turn from being in the red to going in the black and making profits.
I must confess that when I came across the first explanation, my mind went back to the “Malcolm X” movie where Detroid Red (later Malcolm X) is told in prison that “black” is always associated with negative factors and forces in the English language and white is associated with positive factors and forces. I am not claiming that the Philadelphia Police Department had such connotations in mind, but only that the term “black” has often been used for negative depictions. Given the negative connotations associated with the term, it is important to problematize the terms “white and black” and other colors in the economy, in Sunday School literature (where “black” is often associated with sin and evil and “white” with holiness and righteousness), and in our treatments of Christmas. As much as I like the movie “White Christmas” with Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, a remake of the movie would be best in living color—in other words, not so white and positively inclusive of black. Moreover, it would be a whole lot more positive and wholesome than the 1974 movie “Black Christmas,” which was about the terrorizing of a sorority house during Christmas break (the same goes for the 2006 version).
At least the term “black” is often construed positively in economic terms: “black” is associated with profit. Of course, such positive economic connotations are not universally so, as illustrated in “Black Market.” Moreover, while I want to problematize the terminology, I also want to problematize the subtle or not so subtle reality that often lurks behind economic “Black Friday” itself–inordinate consumption. A friend once jokingly said to me: “Save the world; spend money.” Not everyone is joking, though. So many if not all of us today put more stock in the stock market than the biblical narrative’s kingdom calculus: “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33, ESV) And is there not more than humor behind the post-9/11 New Yorker cartoon caption that said, “I figure if I don’t have that third martini, then the terrorists win”? As funny as it is, the prevailing worldview that makes it sound so funny is not funny at all.
What is not so black and white about consumerism pertains to how we have become increasingly dependent on it as a society, and perhaps as far-reaching as the majority of the globe. While consumption is a part of our daily lives, inordinate consumption is the real problem, as illustrated in the Christmas movie “What Would Jesus Buy?” As a culture, we are addicted to consumption, as many have argued. However, if we stop excessive shopping, what would happen to our economy? And if the economy takes another downturn, what will happen to the poor, who appear to be impacted most severely each time the economy takes a nose dive? I have written on this subject elsewhere: “Consumerism, the Third Martini and the Terrorists.” To me, the answer is not in trickle-down economics, but trickle-up economics, as a blog post that will appear in mid-December will highlight. Even so, things aren’t so black and white. Even white and black aren’t so black and white.
This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and at The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.
Thanksgiving is upon us. This year, I find myself reflecting upon God’s generosity in Christ for which I am most thankful. I wish to take this opportunity to reflect upon how God’s generosity in Christ shapes the Christian life.
A theology of God’s gracious love fosters an ethic of gratitude. I preached on Philemon this past Sunday and believe this passage in Scripture reveals this orientation. Now some may see in Paul’s letter to Philemon a subtle form of manipulation whereby Philemon is forced to free his slave Onesimus. I beg to differ. I believe Paul truly appeals to him in love as a result of God’s grace at work in Paul’s, Philemon’s and Onesimus’s lives in relation to one another and the whole church (koinonia).
Ever the master of rhetoric, Paul appeals to Philemon: he is thankful for Philemon refreshing the hearts of the saints (vs. 7) and is expectant that Philemon will refresh Paul’s heart by freeing his runaway slave Onesimus (vs. 20), who has not only become Paul’s son by saving faith while in prison in Rome (vs. 10) but has also become Paul’s heart (vs. 12; the same root word for “heart” is used in each instance: splachna—vss. 7, 12, 20). As Robert Jewitt has written, “Philemon…has Paul’s heart in his hands.” (Paul the Apostle to America: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship {Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994}, p. 66).
Having “derived much joy and comfort” from how Philemon has refreshed the hearts of the saints, Paul could demand that Philemon provide more of the same. However, Paul resists this urge. Paul writes in Philemon 8-10: “Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment.” Here we see that Paul does not compel Philemon, but rather appeals to him in the Lord.
Given Paul’s and Philemon’s partnership, Paul requests that Philemon receive Onesimus as he would receive Paul (vs. 17). To receive him as an equal would entail receiving him as a free man. The idea that tends to float about in Evangelical circles that internal transformation does not involve a transformation of social status is seriously mistaken (it is as mistaken as the idea that the transformation in our spirits that leads to a transformation of social status arises from our own capacities and proclivities*). Paul appeals to Philemon to welcome Onesimus back on equal terms in the Lord and in the flesh. Onesimus is to be welcomed back like he would Paul, his partner in the faith (vs. 17). This follows from what Paul wrote one verse earlier: “no longer as a bondservantbut more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (vs. 16).
No doubt, it will cost Philemon something to free his slave. He is not alone. Paul is willing to bear with him the debt incurred by Onesimus’s situation (vss. 17-19a). Paul offers to pay because he has derived great benefit from Onesimus’s presence, since he has freely cared for Paul while he is in prison (vss. 11-16), even as Paul has cared for Onesimus (vs. 10) and Philemon (vs. 19b). In this relational context, Paul is confident that Philemon will obey from the heart and will do even more than Paul requests (vs. 21). They are all in one another’s debt in the Lord who is at work in and through them.
This reminds of a statement Dr. John M. Perkins once made. He said, “I have a debt of gratitude to pay to the Lord” based on God’s loving grace at work in his life. I, too, have a debt of gratitude to pay in view of God’s loving grace at work in my own life, just as Paul and Philemon and Onesimus did. This same Onesimus who had been useless, once saved, becomes useful; no doubt, like Paul the “Apostle of the heart set free,”** he too is freed from the heart and now serves willingly, freely out of a spirit of gratitude. Just as Onesimus serves Paul freely, Paul asks Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom. The give and take of mutual benefit that is communion (koinonia) stems from gratitude which flows from God’s loving grace at work in their lives in relation to one another.
When God’s gracious love takes over, gratitude kicks in and gets one going. An ethics of gratitude that flows from God’s gracious love is not cheap, but very costly. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes, “Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship, {Touchstone, 1995}, p. 44).
Cheap grace is also grace without one another. Such isolated grace fails to account for koinonia, which was mentioned at the outset of this post. Koinonia is present in Philemon. In verses 6 and 17, we find references to this theme of koinonia. Koinonia entails communion, sharing, partnership, and partner. Koinonia flies in the face of cheap grace, which does not involve others. It is all about “God and me” in isolation, which does not even include God, but simply isolated individuals who project God’s grace—which “we bestow on ourselves” (Cost of Discipleship, p. 44). Costly grace, on the other hand, involves us caring for one another from the heart and in the flesh. Manumission (liberation from slavery) flows from our Christ-centered mission to bring forth equality: spiritual transformation involves social transformation, which requires and leads to greater forms of solidarity of mutual benefit and sharing, that is, costly communion (koinonia).
How can it be otherwise since such koinonia—such costly communion—flows from God’s communal life of Father, Son and Spirit in eternal fellowship? God’s costly grace flows forth from the throne of holy love as the Father sends his Son into the world through the Spirit to bring freedom through his embrace of the world on the cross. This gracious triune love alone fosters an ethic of gratitude.
This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and at The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.
_________
*Here I wish to affirm and embrace Donald Bloesch’s depiction of what is referred to as “Evangelical Contextualism”: “Evangelicals in this tradition speak more of graces than of virtues. Virtues indicate the unfolding of human potentialities, whereas graces are manifestations of the work of the Holy Spirit within us. It is not the fulfillment of human powers but the transformation of the human heart that is the emphasis in an authentically evangelical ethics.” Donald G. Bloesch, Freedom for Obedience: Evangelical Ethics in Contemporary Times (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), p. 191.
**F. F. Bruce refers to Paul as such in the title of his book on Paul’s life (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Eerdmans, 2000).
In a recent blog post discussion, I spoke of the need to humanize religion. On Facebook on 11/20, I wrote: “If we don’t humanize religion, we may very well end up demonizing adherents of other paths. We need to put faces to the various faith traditions.”
My particular emphasis on humanization does not discount orthodox Christian faith with its claim that Christ is fully God as well as fully human. To the contrary, it is because God is personal and has three “faces” as the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit that I can speak of the need to put faces to various faith traditions through engagement of human persons with faces. According to historic Christian faith, humans are created in the image of God who is triune. If the Trinity were only a metaphor or social construct, or if the “faces” as persons were only modes or masks that deity wears at various times, I could not take seriously my own claim that we need to put faces to the various faith traditions.
The people I engage from diverse religious traditions are not metaphors or social constructs or masks that generic humanity wears. Rather, the individuals I engage are indelibly who they are as the persons with names and faces and personalities that make them universally unique. Of course, they and I may at times wear masks to cover what we really think and feel and cloak who we really are. But such masks do not exhaust us, while our personal identities go to the core of what makes us who and what we are as human.
My friends from other religious traditions have their own reasons for why they can affirm the need to put human faces to various faith traditions; what I wrote above is truly and accurately mine. To return to the point at the beginning of this piece, emphasis on humanity does not discount consideration of divinity since Christ is fully God and fully human. Moreover, to commandeer a statement from Karl Barth, God’s deity rightly understood includes his humanity.[1] To put a Barthian face to the discussion, to think apart from Christ is to think “demonically.”
This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and at The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.
[1]Karl Barth, “The Humanity of God,” in The Humanity of God (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1960), p. 46.
LifeWay’s recent apology issued at the Mosaix 2013 conference is a sign of hope that the Evangelical church I love is moving forward toward greater multi-ethnic inclusivity. Having spoken at the conference, I was present to hear the recorded LifeWay apology for the decade-old offense for caricaturing Asian people and culture in its Rickshaw Rally VBS curriculum. Fellow Mosaix 2013 conference presenter and dear friend Soong-Chan Rah had this to say about the apology:
I’m really moved that LifeWay would go to these lengths to do this. It’s not something they had to do since many people will see it as something that happened so long ago. There’s prophetic wisdom and courage in apologizing. Once confession, repentance and forgiveness occurs, we’re able to have a conversation on a deeper level.
I agree with Soong-Chan. We’re now able to have a conversation about race and multi-ethnic identity as the church on a deeper level. Taking the conversation to a deeper level must include consideration of how people have reacted to Asian American Christian leaders like Soong-Chan for addressing the Rickshaw Rally problem and those like it over the years. He has been called an angry Asian man. Interesting. I don’t often hear white men who are passionate like me called angry white men—just passionate, but I have heard that description used of African American and Asian American leaders like Soong-Chan. Maybe we mistake his passion for anger. But why?
Jonathan Merritt wrote an article this week titled “Are Christian Conferences Racially Exclusive?” I doubt many people call Jonathan an angry white man, perhaps just passionate. Soong-Chan has been talking about this same issue for many years. What’s different? Is it his hairstyle? His goatee? Something else—something inside me as a white guy who takes issue with Soong-Chan for speaking out?
I know a thing or two about stereotypes. My wife who is Japanese and my Japanese-American children are subjects of stereotypes from time to time. No doubt, we all get stereotyped. We need to break through stereotypes to get to know people—whoever they are, including Asian Americans.
When one does not know a community, it is easy to boil it down to stereotypical extremes. For example, it is easy to boil down Asian Americans to those who model assimilation and passivity. Thus, when one breaks out of this mold, including comical Rickshaw Rally stereotypes, one comes across as naturally offensive. What is most offensive to me is when people spin the challenge made by Soong-Chan and others in a way to judge their motives rather than get to know them and see their hearts and listen to their personal stories.
The idea I have heard that Soong-Chan has tried to make a platform for himself through his challenges over the years is absurd to me. I’ve never sensed it. If anything, his challenges have taken away the opportunity for a platform to speak in certain white dominant cultural circles. I have never found Soong-Chan to pursue platforms. Rather, I believe his burden comes from his desire to honor Christ’s kingdom and elevate the church’s reputation to move it beyond hegemonic dominant cultural structures so that all God’s people of diverse ethnicity can truly be one, thereby bearing witness to Christ. Knowing his story, I believe his burden is to help others listen to the voices of minorities like the praying single mother who raised him and whose Korean words would otherwise not be heard and to cultivate a future where his kids and mine don’t have to live inside the walls of the stereotypes other sub-cultures create for them. Instead of a platform, he longs for the church to gather at an open table where everyone can share as part of an extended talking circle.
In a church growth culture that knows far more about how to make a profit than how to make a prophet, I am thankful that LifeWay has moved the conversation forward so that we can move forward together to realize the church’s multi-ethnic unity in Christ. Together with LifeWay, Soong-Chan, you and me, we are now better able to have a conversation about race and multi-ethnic identity as the church on a deeper level.
This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and at The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.