Archives for category: controversy

I am deeply saddened, frustrated and outraged at the very idea that these kinds of things still happen in our day and age. I came across this story via Edward Gilbreath’s blog about a church in South Carolina where white members of the church performed in blackfacein blackface — for a Mother’s Day presentation.

Is it really necessary to explain to people why this kind of egregious conduct is so offensive? While it is vital that we educate people on the damaging effects of systemic racism, the fact remains that blatant, overt, hostile racism still exists. This story only spirals further and further downward as we begin to delve deeper into it.

This kind of behavior is unacceptable in any forum, but the fact that these people consider themselves Christians and presented this in church is absolutely dumbfounding. Seriously, what could such a horrible, offensive performance possibly have to do with Mother’s Day? Worse, the pastor of the church tried to pass it off as some kind of tribute to African American people and gospel music. Right, because our natural response to those we admire is to denigrate and dehumanize them. Worse still, the defensiveness, hostility and sarcasm of the pastor’s wife reveals the depth of their ignorance. In her own words,

“A little tiny blonde woman sang Randy Travis. So I guess Randy Travis should be offended,” Teresa Holbrooks said. “My husband pantomimed playing the piano. So I guess the piano should be offended.”

It is difficult for me even to gather a response to such overwhelming ignorance, but let’s go ahead and state what should be obvious to any human being — particularly someone who claims allegiance to Christ. I suppose if Randy Travis had been enslaved, attacked, degraded and oppressed by little blonde women for hundreds of years then, yes, he should be offended by such a performance. And pianos, if they were human beings created in the image of God, intimately known and loved, for whom Christ died then, sure, they should be offended as well.

Even worse than all of this was their “apology.” From their pastor:

Holbrooks gave a two-sentence statement: “Pilgrim Baptist Church and I meant no harm in the blackface skit. However there are those who have been offended and for that I am sorry.”

Anyone who has ever been in a relationship with another human being should realize that a conditional apology is not, in reality, a genuine apology. I don’t mean to parse out these sentences too much, but there is a serious problem with this pastor’s words — apparently, he is not sorry that they performed this routine; he is only sorry that they offended people. Or, to put it more cynically, he is only sorry they were caught red-handed.

Ed Gilbreath mentions a very troubling idea in his initial post on this topic that is well worth considering:

I can only speak anecdotally on this, but there seems to be a growing movement of white people—including Christians—who feel so victimized by political correctness (and how it’s robbing them of their rights) that they’ve hardened their hearts to any suggestion that racial injustice is a factor in our society today. And they’ve become cold to how their privileged words and actions might affect others. That defensive mindset and callousness could be the biggest obstacles to true reconciliation in our churches and nation.

It is deeply troubling that many white people seem to consider it their God-given right to use inflammatory, degrading, racist language and then become enraged when someone else calls them out on this. Certainly, there are racial prejudices and sinful attitudes among any and all racial/ethnic groups, but this attitude is uniquely troubling to me in white people. There is a kind of willful ignorance to the past, a bewildering sense of entitlement. People of other racial/ethnic backgrounds are told to “lighten up” because “it’s only a joke” and “I have some real good black friends.”

I know political correctness has almost exclusively negative connotations, and has failed in many ways. I experienced this during my first year in college during our university’s infamous “water buffalo” incident.

I am not advocating PC, but is it really such a terrible thing to have people engage one another in civil, polite discourse? Shouldn’t it be second nature, common sense, for God’s people to treat others with dignity and respect? I refuse to give into the shrill talking heads and shrieking pundits who equate “being real” with rudeness. I am fully aware that altering a person’s vocabulary does almost nothing to change their hearts — genuine transformation can only happen through the guidance and leadership of the Holy Spirit — but, again, would it really kill people that much to treat others with respect? In particular, followers of Christ who claim to believe what the Bible says cannot simply edit out the parts where God creates all people in His own image, replete with dignity, worth and honor.

And our words do matter. Jesus Himself said it this way in Luke 6:45, “Good people bring good things out of the good stored up in their heart, and evil people bring evil things out of the evil stored up in their heart. For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.” Hateful, racist words do not pop up out of nowhere, and they certainly do not flow from a pure, genuine heart for God.

Is there hope for our nation, for the body of Christ? Talking to people who willfully dwell in such ignorance is like beating your head against a wall. And yet, somehow, we are called to be messengers of reconciliation — with God and with one another. Although it is a small step for me personally, I am raising my voice as an Asian American follower of Christ to name this racist offense against the African American community as sin. May God have mercy on us.

Today’s Christian magazine, a publication of Christianity Today, just published this interview with Soong-Chan Rah entitled, “Speaking Up for Asian Americans.” [h/t to DJ for the heads-up on this interview]

In the interview, Soong-Chan gives a brief overview of the recent Youth Specialties/Skit Guys controversy and the LifeWay Rickshaw Rally debacle. More importantly, he is able to discuss some of the larger, underlying issues regarding race, faith and the church. For example:

Why do you think this type of incident happens in Christian circles?

We’ve simplified issues of race so much in the American church that we fail to see some elements, some larger issues of race. It’s not just individual prejudice, but larger racial injustice. Sometimes, these are issues we don’t talk about in the Christian community. American society is changing; there are more non-whites. Yet in leadership, those writing and reviewing Christian books still tend to come from the white community. It limits the point of view.

We assume if we’re Christians, we are all the same, equal. That’s not the way life operates.

Though many of us are probably going through a bit of “Skit Guys” burnout, I am glad to see that the larger issues at play here are still being discussed. It would be too easy to say we’re sorry, make nice and then pretend like nothing ever happened. Sort of like those “last night of the big retreat” testimony times where one sibling tearfully apologizes to the other for using a shovel to bash in the other’s nose and then, upon returning home, immediately reengages the same lifestyle patterns. Reconciliation is slower than we’d like, most costly than we might imagine and messier than we plan, but can we pursue anything else?

Because of DJ’s glowing review, I am hoping to pick up went out and picked up Reconciliation Blues by Edward Gilbreath in the near future today. I am encouraged to see, both in his book and on his blog, that Edward has raised in voice in support of the Asian American community. So often, we treat racial reconciliation as a zero-sum proposition — if one racial ethnic group advances, it must be at the expense of another. During my seminary days, there was a series of ugly racial incidents. Most involved African American students, but one was directed at an Asian American student. During the ensuing fallout, I remember feeling that the Asian American incident was lost in the shuffle. Looking back on it, I realize that this was due to the lack of participation of Asian American voices — not the strength of other voices. I don’t know if we were too wrapped up in balancing studies and ministry, or if we gave into apathy, but in the end we abdicated responsibility for justice and reconciliation to others. This could have been a powerful witness of solidarity with our African American sisters & brothers, as well as speaking out on behalf of our own community.

That’s why I am also challenged by Edward’s post linking to the aforementioned article. While it is a significant step for us no longer to play the role of the quiet, passive Asian American and to let our voice be heard, it is also vital for us to speak in solidarity with other members of the body of Christ. While some in the majority culture might be tempted to brush us off if they perceive our indignation to be self-serving (which is not right, but it happens), it is an extremely powerful witness for us to stand up for those who might not be members of our communities.

There are certain media personalities I avoid because they are too frustrating. I know, I know… That’s their deal, their bread-and-butter — their notoriety is directly proportional to their ability to raise listeners’ blood pressure which, in turn, is directly proportional to their ratings. So they insult, mock and humiliate others with their derision, sarcasm and general stomping about. They “speak for the people” and shoot from the hip — until they are confronted with someone who will not stand for their nonsense. Then, they perform a little two-step: first, issue a public non-apology (attention shock jocks, pundits and talking heads: it’s not that difficult to learn how to apologize) and, then, a quick retreat behind the first amendment.

Last week, Don Imus (to whom I will not link) went on the air and called the women’s basketball team from Rutgers University “nappy headed hos.” Initially, he tried to brush this off as a poorly conceived attempt at humor but started backpedaling once he realized his job might be on the line. Instead, he received a two-week suspension from his employers. Eventually, after losing corporate sponsorship and high-profile guests, he was fired from his job. Here a couple of interesting responses to this controversy I have seen over the last couple of days:

Certainly, issues of race have been on my heart and mind over the last several weeks. But this recent controversy brings to the forefront of my thoughts another idea with which I have been wrestling for quite some time as well — that is, the idea of church-sanctioned misogyny.

The church is often guilty of following the culture’s lead. Sometimes, the results are almost surreal (sigh. double-sigh.). But it is genuinely troubling when the church begins to imitate the values of the culture around us. I’m not talking about pushing hot-button topics like abortion or homosexuality. It is clear that the religious right has used these topics to manipulate Christians into voting in their larger agenda. What has been on my mind is more subtle than these issues, and I see it coming up again and again in discussions of the church — what it is to be a man.

Over the last couple of years there have been numerous television ads that have attempted to define what manhood is all about. Beer ad after beer ad tells us that a real man is a hard-drinkin’, woman-objectifyin’, lovable dolt (who never experiences the negative consequences of this lifestyle). This burger ad declares “I am man” — hungry and incorrigible. A soap company urges the male of species to take back the shower (Because it smelled nice? Was it too clean?). This would just be an interesting anomaly, perhaps a response from those who felt left behind by the metrosexual movement of a couple years back, were it not for the apparent eagerness of many churches to sign up for this same agenda.

Here is how the thinking seems to go these days:

  • Identify the problem: There are not enough men in the church today
  • Identify the reasons behind the problem: Church is wimpy. The church has been neutered. Church is for girls. There is not enough bare-knuckled ultimate fighting. Most men could probably beat up the pastor in the pulpit (This is an actual reason stated by a church leader. With a straight face.), so they cannot be a part of such a group. Church takes too long.
  • Address the problem: Proclaim that Jesus is basically a tattooed street fighter who wants to throw down with all the namby-pampy wimps out there (Again, an actual description of our Lord. Apparently, also with a straight face). Start a “Church for Men” (Being a marketing major in college, I would have advised them to choose a name that wouldn’t immediately register “Hairclub for Men” in most people’s minds. But that’s just me).

While I agree that it is important to bring more men into the church, I strongly disagree with this movement within the church. On a personal level, none of these chest-pounding scenarios is particularly attractive to me. So, while I think it is really funny that the Church for Men times the pastor’s sermon on a scoreboard, I do not believe that only men find long sermons boring. I’m pretty sure no one, man or woman, likes a long-winded sermon. Sure, I love SportsCenter (much to the confusion of my beleaguered wife, I will watch the same SC twice in a row — guys, you know what I’m talking about) and I can finish most of the Rock’s singalong catchphrases (although I’m not sure I should be so proud about that one), most of my reading is limited to Page Two over at ESPN.com and I cannot walk through a museum without saying “I don’t get it” at least seven or eight times — but I refuse to believe that this is what defines me as a man.

It is the worst-case example of cultural eisegesis for churches to project the white, American definition of manhood onto Scripture (or our Savior, for that matter). Many proponents of this view say we got into this whole mess in the first place by catering to the felt needs of women (as if there were something wrong with upholding and valuing the intrinsic dignity and worth God has placed upon women), which drove men out of the church — bored and in tears (well, not really crying, because there’s no crying in church). Their approach does exactly what they claim caused this massive failure, except this time it works in their favor (as if this were a zero-sum proposition). They are catering to the felt needs of men in order to bring them into the church. The essential message is, “Hey, manly men! Jesus doesn’t want to transform your heart or redeem your perspective. No, He loves your belligerent pride — and your cage fighting! Spouting off hateful rhetoric? Great! Degrading and insulting others – yeah! Intimidation and slander – now you’re getting it! Jesus wants you to be a decider!”

I am not speaking about people like John Eldredge, whose “wild at heart” movement has spoken to scores of men (including me). However, I take significant issue with those who equate biblical masculinity with our Western culture’s view of masculinity. It makes me sad to think that there are pastors and leaders who are basically telling the men of their churches that God wants them to be hard drinking tough guys, or that it is the fault of women that they don’t want to come to church.

There is no one in human history mightier than Jesus. We remembered that this Easter Sunday, that even the cords of death could not contain our risen Lord. But Scripture tells us that Jesus did not use His immeasurable power to subjugate or harass others. Jesus laid down His life. The truest measure of strength is our ability to give it away. Those who become resentful when asked to submit themselves to God or to others are not genuinely powerful. Any jerk can get upset and stomp around. It takes a truly powerful person to lay down personal rights, agendas and pride for the sake of Christ — it takes a real man, if you will.

My family attended the Saddleback Easter service after our own church services were done (which was a pretty incredible answer to prayer, as we were able to bring several family members who are not Christians) and, interestingly, Rick Warren touched on some of these ideas during his sermon (which certainly would not have cut it at the man’s church because it was really, really long!). He pointed out that the early Christians were not fighting champions, but martyrs. They gave their lives away, down to their final breath, for the Gospel. Warren identified a similar problem within the church (sometimes men are not good at/don’t want to sit around and talk about their “feelings”) but went much deeper in addressing these issues. His definition of being a man (roughly paraphrased): Finding, and answering, a challenge that forces me to become something greater than myself. This journey will take integrity, courage and a willingness to risk.

One of my favorite quotes from him that night (about which one of my non-Christian family members smiled and said, “Wow, he just says it like it is, doesn’t he?” after the service) was, “It’s easy to live for yourself. Any fool can do that. But it takes real courage to live for something greater than yourself.”

These are issues with which I wrestle not only as a pastor, but as a follower of Jesus everyday. Last week, a pretty ugly encounter in the parking lot of a local shopping plaza made that abundantly clear. I will spare you the details, but what started off as a relatively small disagreement quickly boiled over into a direct confrontation. I stood there in the parking lot facing some guy who was clearly in the wrong, had purposely provoked a response from me and then walked away — quite an unholy trinity ;) Needless to say, I was extremely upset. And, to make matters worse, this guy’s demeanor basically said to me, “What are you going to do about it, Asian guy?”

I was tempted to subscribe, momentarily, to the myth of redemptive violence so that I could work this guy over (thanks, Jack Bauer!). In the end, gladly, I did not resort to physical violence. But I did perpetuate the problem by confronting this person with hostility. Although I never threatened this person, it was readily apparent that I was extraordinarily upset. No sooner did I confront this person than did he begin backpedaling, revealing that his tough guy front to be little more than a mask to cover his inner fear and insecurity. I experienced no satisfaction from letting this person know that he could not push me around. Instead, I felt a sort of creeping rot within me. Appropriately, I spent quite a bit of time in repentance before God this past Good Friday.

I don’t want to be part of a church that encourages these ugly, sinful tendencies within me. I refuse to believe that the story is that small. I long for God to transform the deepest parts of my heart, soul and body. I refuse to let culture or my own misguided heart tell me what it means to be a man. I want to be defined by God, and to build communities defined by Him.

i just picked up sex god by rob bell today. quite a title, no? i have to admit, the fundie in me gasped a little bit when i saw it. and there are plenty of others, burning torches in hand, who are doing more than just gasping. it’s funny how rob bell incites such strong reactions from people: people either really love him or really hate him. while i can’t say i agree with everything he writes, i do believe his voice is a refreshing – and necessary – one.

i’m sure there is some shock-value intent in that title, but i’m very interested to see where this all leads. the subtitle is, “exploring the endless connections between sexuality and spirituality.” i might try to trek out to ucla for his q+a session — hopefully, there will be some fruitful conversation there.