by Nicole Symmonds, Urban Faith Contributing Writer | Mar 10, 2014 | Entertainment, Feature, Headline News |
Here we are, not even a week into Lent, and we are already being faced with the mysterious reality of resurrection, faith and doubt. This is what ABC led many to with the Sunday premiere of “Resurrection.” Based on the debut novel “The Returned” by Jason Mott, Resurrection is about the dead returning to life. This is no, “And on the third day he rose again,” story though. The people on Resurrection, such as 8-year-old Jacob—the first to be resurrected, have been gone for a long time. Jacob was dead for 32 years before coming back to life in a rice paddy in China and finding his way to his aging parents doorstep with the help of immigration office J. Martin Bellamy—played by Omar Epps. The locus of these resurrection stories is Arcadia, Missouri, a town that at once seems small and sleepy but is really full of secrets and sadness. We don’t know why Jacob and others are coming back to life—rest assured this is also not a zombie apocalypse story—nor do we know who is responsible for these resurrections—there is no hint that it’s a God thing, but what we discover is resurrection changes everything and creates questions.
A moment of contemplating the possibility of resurrection is shattered when loved ones are faced with the full-bodied presence of their loved ones. Existential questions may remain but empirical evidence requires their full attention. When the un-aged Jacob lands on his parent’s doorstep and asks his father Henry Langston, “What’s red and green and goes a million miles an hour?” “A frog in a blender,” his father answers without a second thought and in an instant he is hit by the realization that this could really be his son standing before him. Yet and still the question of whether this is truly possibly is thick in the air. One of the most emotional moments of the show was when Jacob’s mother reached out to touch her son for the first time. With slightly trembling hands hovering over Jacob’s head, Lucille Langston stood as one in disbelief until she touched him. She was an embodiment of Thomas the disciple who didn’t want to believe Jesus had risen unless, “I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side” (John 20:25). My comparing Jacob’s mother to doubting Thomas is probably just the occupational hazard of a former seminarian and forever theology nerd but the show offers up other moments of explicit theological and philosophical reflections.
Jacob’s story connects to several people in Arcadia including Pastor Tom Hale who was his childhood friend. As you can imagine, Jacob’s appearance sends Pastor Hale into a sort of crisis of faith and he begins to wonder how he can go from preaching the miracles of God to believing in the miracle as manifested through Jacob. Pastor Hale’s wife gives him wise counsel by telling him that his job is not to have all of the answers but to be there to comfort people who have questions. As a resurrected Jacob walks into the church, Pastor Hale invokes his wife’s words of wisdom and the spirit of Anselm’s “faith seeking understanding” by telling his congregation that faith is in asking questions not knowing answers. This is how resurrection changes everything.
During my last semester of theology school in a class on Howard Thurman, my professor polled the class and on what we believe is essential to the Christian faith. Some of the essentials we listed as a class: belief in Christ, incarnation of Christ, acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, faith, and, of course, the bodily resurrection. After this non-comprehensive list was formed my professor went back through and polled the class on each essential asking by a show of hands to respond to whether or not these were indeed essentials. Once he got to the question of the bodily resurrection, I was one of six students—in a class of 20 or so—to affirm that belief in the bodily resurrection is essential to the Christian faith. For this my professor put me in the hot seat. “Why do you think belief in the bodily resurrection is essential to the Christian faith?” My professor asked me in front of my fellow students. I was nervous and I spouted a bunch of answers of why it makes sense to me, until he asked me if it is a requirement for everyone to believe. I was asked this question about this time last year, we were also in the midst of Lent already talking about resurrection and I ended my response with a question, “Why wouldn’t you believe in the bodily resurrection if you are acknowledging this liturgical season?” I couldn’t see how most of my classmates would give up in believing in the bodily resurrection that fulfills Jesus’ own words of, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). But the basis of our entire “essentials of Christian faith” discussion was about people coming together to question what it is they believe and even to formulate answers that produce more questions. There was power in the questions and even in some of the answers.
Most of us, if we are willing to admit it, live in a space somewhere between faith and doubt but we shrug doubt off. We’ve been taught that to doubt is to border on unbelief. But to doubt, from time to time, is a part of faith. Theologian Paul Tillich said, “If doubt appears, it should not be considered as the negation of faith, but as an element which was always and will always be present in the act of faith. Existential doubt and faith are poles of the same reality, the state of ultimate concern.” To put it plainly, and in the context of the show Resurrection, to doubt while holding on to your belief in the God of miracles or in the miracle itself is not to withdraw from faith but to exercise faith all the more. It takes a measure of faith to move through doubt. Resurrection, while not a show explicitly about faith, has something to show people of faith about living in the tension of faith and doubt. The characters who are witnessing their loved ones come back to life own the doubt they are experiencing, but they also have enough faith to make the miracle of a resurrection seem more probable than possible.
by UrbanFaith Staff | Jan 30, 2014 | Entertainment |
“I been thinking…I been thinking…”
It seems everybody’s talking about Beyonce…everybody but the church. Or should I say, “Most of the church ain’t talking out loud about her.” Ever since her self-titled album dropped last winter, no Twitter or news feed has been the same. I, for one, recognize the “BEASTNESS” of her team–they all got a team folks–in the stellar release of her non-promoted album. As a woman entrepreneur, there is so much to learn about marketing but her presence was more than a Business 101 course. Like many who watched the opening of the Grammy Awards, I had 50 million thoughts when I saw Beyonce’s backside to the audience, sitting in squat position, in a leotard-ish, thongish, very sexy ensemble–if I had a husband, I’d get two. I cheered when I heard the beat. I cheered at everyone staring at a black women–although we have been accustom to screaming for her for quite some time now. I cheered because in a few short moments, she was going to be joined by her big-lipped, Brooklyn-bred mogul of a husband and, in many ways, Jay-Z and Beyonce have become the current pop-culture model of black love and matrimony. BLACKNESS, in the Nina Simone sense of the word, was about to grace the stage. But, I was also thinking, “I hope the kids of the world are asleep,” and I was wondering “If I had a husband, would I want to be sitting next to him right now? Or would he be banned from watching?. And you ministers, are Y’ALL watching this? Can I be a fly in the corners of your brain right now? She bad…Don’t deny it.”
And without skipping a beat, the industry of Beyonce-journalism ensued. Praises of her boldness, her dress, her wet hair–actually, there were mixed reviews on the hair, her fingers adorned with $10 million worth of diamonds…no inch of her body or life was untouched in the fray of critiques. Even the usual background noise of MSNBC in my studio/office was buzzing about her opening act. But again, I realized “No one is really addressing what’s in my head. Like why aren’t we–the bold, the fabulous, the saved–also chiming in with our thoughts?” I shrugged, thinking maybe it’s just me. Maybe I am the only one who both adores the person of Beyonce and at times, even in the midst of adoration, am convicted of entertaining certain things that my spirit tells me are flat out not of God. At other times, I unapologetically declare “Nah, she’s playing with fire.”
Now, in all fairness, all the pews ain’t been silent. The article “Church Girls Love Beyonce” comes to mind, as the author explored the void Beyonce fills in the lack of open discussion about Black sensuality and sexuality from a woman’s perspective. And Washington Post writer and Founder of faith and social platform, UrbanCusp.com, Rahiel Tesfamariam–while not directly from a church perspective–did provide some thought provoking commentary about “feminism” after the release of Beyonce’s “Bow Down/I Been On.” But even among all the articles about how much she liberates women–or doesn’t; on how she embraces the full desires of many women–to be successful, have a child, and a husband–who does not mind other husbands wishing she was their wife; and how she slaps all those uncomfortable with seeing the bare curves of black women, in a society that has done a great job of over-sexualizing black women since our arrival to this country–we, as a collective, as the church, are silent in the public eye. And I, for one, am confused about why that is so?
Is it because we don’t know how to critically discuss her without bashing her? Or are we afraid of the backlash from others that assume that’s what our intent is?
Is she untouchable because she is married? Is marriage the new invisible cloak, like in Harry Potter?
Or is it because we don’t know which angle to discuss her?
Or is it because her team is–at least perceptually–so powerful that even the conversation requires you to do 20 pushups, run 15 laps, and go through several games of Sodoku to mentally prepare for the marathon back and forth with “Stans”?
Or are we afraid of what the next church member is gonna think about us, or say to us, when we admit that some songs are flat out “too much” but at the right time, help us out on the treadmill?
Or are we just being “polite,” because the church should not be “judging” anyone and their actions any way (Ify note: We got this whole judging thing CONFUSED! Judging is not a sin; in fact, those who are spiritual must judge character–through a spiritual lens, not a personal one–in order to make right decisions. And, yes, we too must be prepared to be judged…as expected. Check out a couple references and we can talk about it later Malachi 3:18; Psalm 37:30; Amos 5:14-15; Isaiah 59:8…I can go on and on; “judge” is only used 700 times in the Bible. Back to the rant-programming.)
So you don’t talk about Bey? Oh…well I do. I talk about Beyonce’s songs, moves, outfits. I raise my hand high and admit that I am conflicted by the various levels of power her lyrics embrace–some empowering, and some, self-indulging. And unlike many, who like to chalk things up to “well, that’s just music…ain’t nothing behind it,” I have always treated musicians as serious professionals and have written about it previously–because I, too, am an artist and I’m sensitive about my work. I do not think things “just happen” or are “just done.” I don’t think Bey (and her team) want people to think that either, even though I think much of her brand (which the world has bought) is that she is a grown woman and she can do WHATEVER she wants.
I talk about Beyonce because she is worth discussing. I have no desire to bash her as a person, but I am open to hearing about her public portrayal, its influence, and its impact. And because everyone else has no problem analyzing her (but God-forbid, we say something and the church become a house full of haters, right? Sigh.). As part of my ministry revolves around youth and young adults, I think it is very important for me to be in the world, as we are called to be, and GET IN IT! God could have easily called us to move to a separate island and refuse to co-exist with these “heathens” until the day of Jesus’ return. We could have been called to keep our mouths shut and live our simple potpourri lives of salvation, without ruffling any feathers, but we weren’t. We are here, and we are supposed to be seen.
With that being said, don’t hate Bey…thank Bey!
Thank her that she gave y’all sermons for DAYS! Thank her because she challenges us to think about our theology around sexuality, marriage, and success. Thank her because she lyrically throws out references that–while fun for a grown married woman–have very different consequences for a 14-yr old teen (i.e. surfboard). Thank her because we must NOW talk about the complexities of feminism, and whether the church thinks it is worth reinventing how we discuss the empowerment of women–not just in the boardroom but in the bedroom. Thank her for giving you that “Bow Down” sermon (because my Lord IS the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the 1st Commandment ain’t nothing to mess with!). Thank her for that “Flawless” sermon (because truth be told, we are all like earthly, easily broken vessels, enter II Corinthians 4:7). And please thank her for that Matthew 5:28 lesson…you know…the one that says “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (And the urban amplified version would add: REGARDLESS OF IF YOUR HUSBAND IS COOL WITH IT.) And if you think it is not influencing the way people think: look at all the reality shows that now have no problems showing married men meeting their other married men-pals…at the strip club. Bey is NOT a stripper, but she is coveted—I am sure—by SEVERAL married men, which has resulted in many women adopting the mentality that it is ok for their men to “look but don’t touch.” And it actually has many believing that a marriage remains “healthy” that way. That is out of order, and it’s only 2014. What are our youth going to accept when they get married in 15-20 years? Are we just cool with that? (There’s your other sermon). Take note that I am not critiquing what Beyonce believes–just what she wants us to believe, and I think it’s time to thank her for giving us so much to talk about.
Don’t be “scurred” of the BeyHive. All discussions are not from a stance of hate, but from a desire to seek truth. And we all should learn how to talk, respect dissent, and evolve. I don’t have all the answers but I do know this: Her platform is to be respected. So give it its respect and let the church say whatever it needs to say! There are too many opportunities to explore, and possibly too much at stake, to remain on the sidelines. Write that sermon!
Ify Ike is a former Capitol Hill advisor and counsel, with experience on a variety of social justice issues. She is an original blogger of the faith-blog “The Bold and Fabulous,” founder of the policy and communications firm, Ike Professionals, LLC, and has assisted numerous ministries in program creation, youth outreach efforts, community service, and natural disaster relief. At least once a day, you can find her in a debate about politics or religion.
by Jacqueline J. Holness | Jan 16, 2014 | Entertainment, Feature, Headline News |
No doubt about it. In the R&B and Pop music world, 2013 was the year of Beyoncé. From singing/lip-synching the national anthem at the 2013 inauguration of President Obama and delivering a Super Bowl performance so fierce that all the lights went out in the stadium, to releasing her HBO documentary “Life Is But a Dream,” to a record-breaking viewership, dazzling fans worldwide with her “Mrs. Carter Show World Tour” and dropping her visual album “Beyoncé” online in the middle of the night to the delight of her fans in December, Beyonce did that. In fact, her influence has grown so much that the superstar is sparking conversations/controversies in other worlds.
Most recently, Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian advocacy group, took notice of Beyoncé. The AFA chastised her for posting an Instagram photo in which she positions herself in front of Jesus in Andy Warhol’s “Last Supper” mural–pictured above. In a statement to The Christian Post, Wildmon said, “Is nothing sacred anymore? This is clearly an act of disrespect towards Jesus Christ, whom Beyoncé covers up with her pose. This had to be done intentionally.”
Instagram users had various reactions. According to a Washington Times article, one user said, “Looks like the Last Supper, instead of Jesus its Beyoncé. Ummm epic fail boo. Jesus Christ is my savior, not you. Besides that, I love Beyoncé, but you will never be God.” Still other users said, “Praise Beyoncé” and donned her “Beysus.”
This controversy is on the heels of an apology Mrs. Carter issued to the families of the seven astronauts who perished in the space shuttle Challenger explosion on Jan. 28, 1986. In a song entitled “XO” a single off her new album, Beyonce used audio heard just before the explosion. At the beginning of the song, the words, “Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation. Obviously a major malfunction,” spoken by then NASA public affairs officer Steve Nesbitt. Shuttle commander Dick Scobee’s widow June Scobee Rodgers was reportedly “disappointed” with the audio’s use in the song. NASA is also displeased. Billboard reported NASA’s statement to The Hollywood Reporter, “The Challenger accident is an important part of our history, a tragic reminder that space exploration is risky and should never be trivialized.”
In a statement reported by ABC News, Beyoncé said, “My heart goes out to the families of those lost in the Challenger disaster. The song ‘XO’ was recorded with the sincerest intention to help heal those who have lost loved ones and to remind us that unexpected things happen, so love and appreciate every minute that you have with those who mean the most to you.” She was right to apologize to the families lost in the shuttle explosion, as the audio seems melodramatic juxtaposed to the whimsy expressed in the song and the video—the song being about the euphoric feeling of love and the video showing Beyonce and a large entourage traipsing around Brooklyn’s historic amusement park Coney Island. While her heart went out and apologies were issued to those affected by the Challenger disaster, Beyonce issued no apologies to those affected by her actions in Christian community–a community that she claims to be a part of. She referenced Jesus in her HBO documentary “Life Is But a Dream” and thanks Jesus for her blessings, but then she covers Him in a photo and posts it for all her followers to see with no remorse? I’m not judging, but I’m just sayin’.
Feminists have also been in an uproar about Beyoncé’s latest album. Some say she’s the face of modern feminism or the premier feminist for millennials. In her TIME magazine article “Flawless: 5 Lessons in Modern Feminism From Beyoncé,” Eliana Docketerman wrote, “Beyoncé has managed to become the biggest female pop star in the world while cultivating her marriage, her role as a mother, and her sexuality. And in doing so, she’s ushering in a new wave of feminism.”
But Beyoncé’s brand of feminism also has its detractors. Julia Sonenshein, contributing editor at theGloss.com who wrote the article Why White Feminists Are Mad At Beyoncé, told theGrio.com that, “White feminists tend to critique Beyoncé first and foremost for the way she uses her sexuality as a tool. White feminists also tend to criticize her attitude towards wealth and materialism, along with her bravado and confidence. While there is certainly room for criticism, and major figures like Beyoncé should be criticized, these particular conversations tend to approach any analysis from a very white point of view, and don’t consider how the themes of sexuality, wealth, and confidence differ across communities.” Although, getting nearly naked at every opportunity is so Josephine Baker...
And top it all off, Mrs. Carter, who is also known as King B, seems to be a good friend of Mrs. Obama, who has provoked the ire of feminists all by herself. In the Politico Magazine article, “Leaning Out: How Michelle Obama Became a Feminist Nightmare,” Michelle Cottle criticized our First Lady for neglecting to address more pressing issues in order to champion gardening, soothe wounded soldiers and read to children.
With Michelle’s Obama 50th party around the corner, Washington Post writer Krissah Thompson speculates that Beyoncé will be in the house. In her article, “Michelle Obama and Beyoncé: Friends and feminists?” Thompson said, “The public statements and choices made by Michelle Obama and Beyoncé represent a specific feminist strain of thinking on women, work and family, students of feminism say, that could rightly be called Beyoncéism.” Some may criticize the First Lady’s admiration of Beyoncé, and I get that. But in a strange way, I think it’s kind of cool that a First Lady would be friends with a (sometimes) controversial superstar. I can’t see former First Lady Laura Bush getting down with Lady Gaga.
As a pop culture enthusiast, there is no doubt that Beyoncé should be lauded for her unstoppable work ethic. I think she offers good if not controversial music.. I even admire her unique brand of feminism. Her life provides a positive image of a successful career, a marriage and motherhood to counteract the increasing acceptance of the baby mama/baby daddy culture. Her example may even have some value for women in the black church who still struggle for equality in leadership.
But as the Instagram user noted, Beyoncé nor King B is my savior and should not be made an idol, and sometimes I believe her fan base falls prey to that temptation. (I’m readying myself for the Beyhive as I type.) Her Instagram photo makes me question her motives, but maybe her motives are as simple as keeping her name in the media. As someone once said, “all publicity is good publicity.” However, I hope Beyoncé, if she truly professes a belief in Jesus Christ, does not make such publicity, which is ill-advised at best and sacrilegious at worst, a habit.
by Nicole Symmonds, Urban Faith Contributing Writer | Dec 12, 2013 | Entertainment, Feature, Headline News |
For a longtime I didn’t wear figure-flattering clothing to church. I figured this type of clothing wasn’t appropriate for the space and, of course, I had learned that my clothing could lead a man into temptation. So I tried my best to keep my skirts knee-length and A-line and my dresses flowing. Not until I reached my mid-20s did I begin to dabble in wearing figure-flattering clothing to church because I became comfortable with my body for my sake. I remember on one particular day of wearing a form-fitting outfit a close female friend looked at me and said, “Wow, why don’t you dress like that more often?” She asked. “You are bodied-down,” she said. I thanked her for her compliment, but in the same moment felt a slight pang inside. My bodied-down self and the bodied-down selves of many women in the church have long been concealed and subdued because of the effect it might have on men. Women have had to pay the price for the possibility of a man’s temptation instead of men learning how to temper their desires and divert their eyes. Women are told to be careful about the way they dress lest the man stumble. One wonders how many of these oh-so-vulnerable men are ever asked to stumble into a therapist’s office. It is as if anytime a woman puts on something that shows her figure, she must be dressing for a man and not for the sheer pleasure of enjoying her own womanhood. The problem is as old as time and yesterday it reared its head again when Erica Campbell, half of the gospel duo Mary Mary, released pictures from the photo shoot for her debut solo album. Dressed in a form-fitting, knee-length turtleneck dress, social media tongues were wagging and a pastor commented on it on Facebook saying,
“THIS IS NOT OKAY. Yes, you are a beautiful, curvy woman…but NO MA’AM YOU ARE SINGING THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. Saints…smh COME ON.”
Though many assumed this comment came from a man, it was actually from a female pastor, Apostle Stacey Wood, who issued a long response explaining her comment. That the comment came from a woman and not a man indicates the pervasive nature of the church tradition that thrives on concealing women’s bodies. This tradition reaches further back than many of us are aware of. There has been a struggle between body and soul dating back to Plato, the Greek philosopher from the 4th Century, BCE. In his “Phaedo,” Plato wrote, “the soul is most like the divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself, whereas the body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble and never consistently the same.” For Plato, the body is subordinate to the soul, the former being only the temporal prison of the latter. His sharp distinction between body and soul was instrumental to the ways in which he categorized lower and higher pleasures–for him sexual pleasure would be considered a lower pleasure because it diminished the power of eros for higher things. Augustine, the most prominent theologian in the history of Western Christianity, was influenced by the work of Plato and many interpreters have read him according to this same duality, suggesting that they impact sexual desire—the body puts us in danger of putting sexual desire ahead of the higher goods. These teachings have all become a part of the Christian tradition and have weaved their way into the fabric of our churches, making it nearly impossible for people not to look at the body as anything other than a vessel for temptation and sin, with sex often being the sharpest example of both. The problem with this conception of the body, however, is that it is deeply in conflict with two of the most significant doctrines of the Christian tradition: Incarnation and Resurrection.
Good dualists that we are, we too often forget that the incarnation of God happened through a human body–the Virgin Mary’s body as the birthing vessel and the body of Jesus that she brought forth. “And the Word become FLESH and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth (John 1:14, NRSV).” God used a fleshly body to do saving work on this earth and though many denied the efficacy of this body’s power to do saving work, it did. This is not to separate Jesus’ humanity from his divinity, but it is to make a particular point that Jesus came in flesh to do God’s will, empowered by and imbued with God in himself. It is to say that the infinite God is united to a finite human in fleshly form. We also forget that the resurrection of Jesus that had to take place for fulfillment of his prophecy and our redemption is a bodily one, so much so that the narrators of his resurrection appearances felt it significant to talk about him walking around, eating and drinking. Incarnation, then, the union of the Creator with creation, is the affirmation of bodies—not just one body but all of them—and resurrection is their redemption and fulfillment, along with all created things. The new life we live in Jesus is through these bodies which we do necessarily give up as the temple of the living God. We don’t abuse these bodies by presuming they are full of temptation and sin precisely because we know of the original sacrifice that was made through Jesus’ body and blood. Our bodies are bodies built by the gospel of Jesus Christ and because of this our first task is not to judge them as one thing or another but to receive them just as we imagine Jesus would have received them, with grace and mercy.
I want to suggest that Erica Campbell’s dress and body are not the problem. Too often, rather, the Church has been the problem, allowing itself to be captive to a sort of Folk-Platonic dualism that disproportionately conceals women’s bodies—especially black women’s bodies (when they’re not being offered as spectacle). This has the result that the invisibility of the body has become a prerequisite for holiness, preventing us from recognizing that the bodies are holy as such, in virtue of the one through whom and for whom all things were created. Moreover, in this context the gifts women offer to God are too often not recognized as the good gifts that they are, but are rather undermined and tossed aside. Instead we need to bring ourselves into the light of Jesus, who does not conceal bodies but makes bodies visible in his life, death and resurrection, and who didn’t and doesn’t judge humanity by appearance, except to reaffirm the words of the Creator that humans, bodies and all, are very, very good.
It’s a funny thing when more of the focus can be on what Campbell is wearing than the fact that she is continuing to proclaim the gospel in her life’s work. She is still in the business of proclaiming the gospel through song and I would wager that this instance is not the first in which we have seen her wear something figure flattering, nor will it be the last. Therefore, we can choose to debate and obsess over what she is wearing, implying that her figure-flattering clothes are going to cause the saints to stumble which in turn perpetuates the damaging body and soul duality brought to us by Plato and his promoters. Or we can choose to believe that a dress is just a dress and she is going to continue to do good work for the kingdom, drawing women and men to Christ by way of her gift in singing. Long story short, it’s time to get out of Plato’s closet. That means getting out from under the philosophical and theological assumptions that lead us to stymie the good work of bodies, and that allows us to define a Christian woman’s commitment to the gospel according to the dresses she wears.
by Christine A. Scheller | Nov 29, 2013 | Entertainment, Headline News |
“There’s fire in the east, there’s fire in the west, there’s fire among the Methodists.
Satan’s mad and I’m so glad he missed the soul he thought he had. This is the year of jubilee,
the Lord hath come to set us free.”
–Langston Hughes, Black Nativity
Black Nativity, the new film adaptation of Langston Hughes’ 1961 play, is not a literal take on the play’s straightforward gospel narrative. Instead it is a modern retelling that Bishop T.D. Jakes (one of the film’s producers) told UrbanFaith is as much about “hope for struggling families” as it is about bringing the Hughes’ classic to the big screen. “It grapples with the fact that families are hard to hold together and you don’t always do it right,” said Jakes. Even so, when asked why he chose to produce a Langston Hughes project, Jakes said his late mother would “get out of the grave and get him” if he didn’t, because in her hometown of Tuskegee, Alabama, Hughes was afforded the kind of reverence others give to William Shakespeare.
“Rereading the play, I realized that I had to build a story for it to exist in,” said writer/director Kasi Lemmons. She wanted to create a timeless, yet modern film about the “small miracle of forgiveness” — how “when you open your heart, the planets align and it allows God to come through,” she said.
Hughes struggled with issues of faith and had a “complicated” relationship with the church, said Lemmons. “He was very interested, anthropologically and historically, in what the church is for—speaking as African Americans—for our community and what it’s done historically.”
Likewise, faith is a complicated issue for her. “Complicated things were going on in my life, and so it’s infused with a lot of wondering — how do I know what I believe? It was more than a straight-ahead look at it,” she said.
That, along with the vibrant Raphael Saadiq score and the actors’ stellar performances, is what makes Black Nativity compelling. One of the film’s great successes is its full, nuanced portrait of humanity. There are no clear villains or protagonists, just family members struggling to make their way, living with the consequences of their choices, and trying to make things right with themselves, with God, and with each other.
Black Nativity stars Forest Whitaker and Jacob Latimore (Photo Credit: Fox Searchlight)
The Reverend Cornell Cobbs, for example, played by Academy Award winner Forest Whitaker, exhibits deep reverence for black history and culture, but is paying the price for his misguided attempt to keep his daughter from throwing her life away on the wrong guy.
“He’s great in the pulpit, but it doesn’t make him a great dad,” said Jakes. “I see that every day. The notion that because you’re good at one thing means your good at everything is erroneous. He’s growing as a person and as a father.”
Asked whether he had anything to do with this pastoral portrayal, Jakes said Lemmons wrote a realistic depiction of preachers and the church, one without the “toxicity” or disrespect often found in film. “Much of what I see out here now has some venom in it for the church. It’s in the underbelly of the writing … and you can’t wash it out of the script. As we began to send in notes about the script, we weren’t trying to sanitize a pig,” said Jakes.
As the teenage boy who draws the family back together, Jacob Latimore’s character Langston is sent to stay with his grandparents over the Christmas holiday while his mother tries to figure out a solution to their financial problems. He doesn’t understand their estrangement from his struggling mother and challenges his grandfather, the pastor, about their beautiful Harlem home. “You got this tight crib… What kind of parents are you?” he says. “We’re the broken-hearted kind,” the pastor answers, with all the brilliant pathos one would expect to be infused into words spoken by an actor of Whitaker’s caliber.
The film’s stars were drawn to the project for many of the same reasons its producer and writer/director were.
Whitaker comes from a family of Southern Baptist preachers, but said the universal themes of love and forgiveness resonated with him. In his work, he strives for connection – connection with his characters and their connections with others. “That’s the driving force of all of my work. Now, I may not be able to accomplish it as completely in my life as I would like. I try. But, certainly in my work, the quest, the amount of dedication that I move towards, is in a spiritual realm. It is guided completely by my understanding of connection and my understanding of the divine,” said Whitaker.
“Forgiveness is everything, because people make mistakes. In the movie, the family made a mistake and the child needed to have his family,” said Mary J. Blige, who plays Langston’s platinum-haired guardian angel. Asked about her own journey with forgiveness, Blige said becoming a Christian was transformative. “Understanding what it is, reading the word, and understanding how important forgiveness is for you—not for someone else and not for God—for you, it changed my life,” she said.
Jennifer Hudson, who plays the reverend’s daughter Naima, grew up in church and is raising her son there too, she said. She was drawn to the film by its spiritual and family themes. “I’m a holiday fanatic, a family fanatic, and I grew up in church. All of those things are what drew me to the role. I feel as though we’re missing those things today. Where are those family films that you can sit on the couch together or go to the movies and see together?” said Hudson.
Several of the stars, including Blige and Hudson, knew little of Langston Hughes before signing on to the project. Angela Bassett, on the other hand, said reading his work as a teenager is what made her want to be an actor.
At the press junket UrbanFaith attended in Los Angeles, there was much talk about whether black films are a trend this year and what it means if they are. “It’s such a weird little conversation. There are more films with people that look like you,” said Angela Bassett, who plays the pastor’s wife, Aretha Cobbs. “When we’re playing characters, we’re just playing human beings. So, to be boxed or limited … it’s just odd. It’s good work, the films that are out, it’s good work and varied work and that’s good. If it’s a trend, may it continue until it’s not a trend and it just is.”
“The black community has fought for human rights and personal rights. It translates itself to other communities and it continues to move forward,” said Whitaker. “So it’s an indicator that a broader spectrum, as Angela said, is about to open… It’s a progression of healing that has to occur and it’s actively happening. We’re all seeing it.”
Yes, we’re all seeing it and, like this film, it’s good.
A Washington D.C. audience heartily and vocally embraced the film last week. A group of middle-aged women told UrbanFaith afterwards that they loved it, but a young journalist said he had trouble figuring out what was going on with a dream sequence and adjusting to characters breaking into song amidst the dialogue. He also said he sometimes felt like he was in church. Back in LA, Hudson said the film set felt like church to her at times too.
If people associate their experience of this film with church – where they’re challenged and/or bored, uplifted and/or embarrassed, so be it. “Talking about religion may kill your faith,” Hughes wrote in his play. “People who really believe don’t worry about it—because the Lord is going to make a way.”
by Nicole Symmonds, Urban Faith Contributing Writer | Nov 19, 2013 | Entertainment, Headline News |
This past weekend I, like many other black people, rushed out to theatres to see “The Best Man Holiday.” We all waited 14 years since the release of the “Best Man” to see our favorite group of friends reunite and when it finally happened it was as if a decade and a half never passed. Morris Chestnut, Monica Calhoun, Nia Long, Taye Diggs, Sanaa Lathan, Harold Perineau, Regina Hall, Melissa DeSouza and Terrance Howard lit up the screen like human Christmas lights strewn together who never lost their shine with their “Good black don’t crack” beauty. Their “good black” didn’t crack and neither did the issues they had in the first movie but little did they know that the movie would present another issue.
As the movie’s stars lit up screens across the country, box office dollars rolled in and by Sunday the movie landed in the number two box office spot behind “Thor.” The film did better than expected, raking in $30.5 million—Hollywood insiders expected the “urban big chill/urban comedy of manners” to make approximately $20 million in the opening weekend. And there’s the rub. The implicit question behind predictions and expectations of the film’s success rests in the idea that a film featuring an all-black cast with the exception of Eddie Ciprian—who often felt like an afterthought rather than a character being built into the franchise–won’t do well. The predominance of one race—specifically African-Americans—in the film apparently makes it hard to sell to “mainstream” audiences. The same predominance of one race made it hard for USA Today writer Scott Bowles to categorize it as anything other than a race-themed movie–until he changed it moments after publishing the headline. Many discussions around Bowles’s gaffe have occurred thus I won’t seek to add to it, but what I do want to discuss is the real race-themed issue that surrounds the “The Best Man Holiday” and other black romantic comedies. “The Best Man Holiday” and similar films featuring a predominantly black cast are not race-themed movies but their existence presents a race-themed issue in terms of viewership. There is a disparity that exists between moviegoers who see those films—predominantly black audiences—and films of a similar nature with all-white casts—predominantly white but with a greater integration of non-white audience members. I want to discuss the possible reasons for the disparity and the possibility that we have segregated love in cinema making “black love” and “white love” a thing over making love a universal aspect of life.
Sitting in the theatre for the Friday night showing of “The Best Man Holiday” I was in a sea of blackness. Some may argue that my geographical location of Atlanta, Georgia had something to do with the demographics, but according to Universal Pictures, 87% of the film’s audience this past weekend, nationally, was African American. I didn’t see a drop of white in the theatre and this was nothing new. I saw “Baggage Claim” on opening weekend at a theatre in Orlando, Florida and I was in the same sea of blackness. As a matter of fact, for as long as I’ve supported black romantic comedies/dramas, I’ve been in a sea of blackness. Within the sea of blackness, 10% or less of the audience are non-black. This is different from your average white romantic comedy in which I’ve observed an integration of audiences. Films such as “Sex & the City”—both installments—come to mind as well as any of the romantic comedies starring Sandra Bullock, Kate Hudson, or Katherine Heigl just to name a few. While many might claim to love a good love story, research shows that some people don’t like love stories featuring an all black cast.
In a May 2011 study entitled, “The Role of Actors’ Race in White Audiences’ Selective Exposure to Movies,” Indiana University telecommunications professor Andrew Weaver conducted two experiments to see how the racial makeup of a cast could influence white audience’s selection of a film. The experiments found that “minority cast members” do lead white audiences to be less interested in certain films, particularly romantic comedies. It was found that race even played a role in white audience’s desire to see on-screen kisses. According to Weaver’s research, “The higher the percentage of black actors in the movie, the less interested white participants were in seeing the movie.” This was particularly the case for romantic comedies, while in the case of non-romantic comedies race doesn’t play a role in white audiences selective exposure to movies. (So it is ok to watch Denzel Washington play a bad cop in “Training Day” or a heroine kingpin in “American Gangster” or for Tyrese Gibson drive fast cars in “Fast & Furious” volumes 1-100?) Granted this research was done with white undergraduates at Indiana University but it is telling. It says something about the ethos of some white consumers and white Hollywood executives toward black people as they are portrayed in the media. Why is it preferable to watch black actors in non-romantic films? Is it easier to watch black people in period pieces re-enacting their lives as enslaved people and domestics a la “12 Years a Slave” and “The Butler” than it is to watch them in a movie primarily about the journey to love such as “Baggage Claim” or “The Best Man Holiday?” Is it difficult to watch a love story between two black people or an interracial couple because of black people’s embattled history? What does it mean to prefer watching the historical lived experience of black people and never want to journey with us to our current lived experience? Our current lived experience which redeems the stereotypical images and misconceptions about black people that pervade mainstream media and makes real the universal search for love and meaning in life.
