International flights always provide the opportunity to gaze through an airplane’s window, lost in thought.
Given Dennis Rodman’s widely publicized trip to North Korea, I am hoping that as he wings his way home he will take considerable time to think.
For Mr. Rodman, the necessary apologies have been made, and for the duration of his flight he is away from scrutiny. However, he returns home facing a new patina of tarnish on his reputation; once he lands, he must confront the ramifications of playing a modern-day “Marilyn Monroe” to Kim Jong Un’s “John F. Kennedy”.
If I were Rodman gazing out of that window, I would no doubt marvel at my ability to travel to distant lands, and stand among the leaders of nations; as African Americans, this was not always so easy for us to do.
I.
If I were Mr. Rodman, these words penned by Frederick Douglas would drown out the airplane’s hum:
I suffered bodily as well as mentally. I had neither sufficient time in which to eat, or to sleep, except on Sundays. The overwork, and the brutal chastisements of which I was the victim, combined with that ever-gnawing and soul-devouring thought – “I am a slave – and a slave for life – a slave with no rational ground to hope for freedom” – rendered me a living embodiment of mental and physical wretchedness.[i]
What better and more ironic descriptive for the plight of North Koreans, as we understand it to be?
If I were Rodman, I would consider the irony that the route to escape from North Korea is called the “Underground Railroad.” I could not ignore its similarities to my own people’s underground to freedom, with its conductors who operated at times out of compassion and at other times in the interest of financial gain, but always at great risk to life and property. Our people’s stories of peril and flight to freedom all-too-closely parallel the accounts documented extensively by those who survived escape from the “Democratic Republic” of North Korea.
If I were in his shoes, I would begin to see the connection between notions such as “goin’ North”, and the similar freedom that lies for North Koreans just south of the 38th parallel, and in similar places of refuge. For the one who is captive, “freedom” is something never before experienced; it is only known conceptually. It holds meaning only in antithesis to what is already painfully familiar.
To the captive, this thing called “freedom” that lay “up North” or anywhere else, though unknown, had to be better than the status quo; enough to risk life and recapture to grasp at it, the way one who is suffocating gasps for air.
My thoughts would wander to the underground Church in North Korea. Like my own people hundreds of years before, to worship they must “Steal Away” … sometimes to church, sometimes to Jesus, sometimes to the aforementioned freedom “up North.” I would imagine the open-air churches where plantation slaves found respite and, by the grace of God, could hear the true Gospel that corrected the abused, redacted one that supported their captivity. I would then be forced to consider that for the twelfth year in a row, the international Christian community has declared North Korea the greatest persecutor of Christians.
I could not help but see the political “repatriation” of escaped North Koreans as an act of “re-enslavement,” and see the interchangeability of the roles of secret police and slave-catcher.
I would have to consider that North Korea’s economy is dependent on forced labor, as the economy of the Southern United States once was.
If I were Rodman flying effortlessly through the air, I would take note that I am free to come and go as I choose – and more importantly, free to choose where I go.
I would begin to understand why the caged bird sings:
… The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn bright lawn
and he names the sky his own;
But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing… [ii]
II.
Rodman’s escapades hold a cautionary tale for all who understand suffering and value freedom. Those of us who have insight into suffering should carry special concern for those who likewise suffer in recognizable ways. This is true empathy – to share in the suffering of another. Empathy is perhaps most comforting when it says, “I have been where you are, I am with you now; let me show you hope, let us hope together.”
Further, how much more so for those who bear the name of Jesus Christ, who believe in a sovereign God capable of redemption? Our Savior’s suffering on our behalf was both identificational and total; we are called to model him in all things. And though it is mystery to us, somehow in God’s economy, as we identify with others in their suffering, we find our own oppression redeemed.
Mysterious dynamics, indeed.
The Christian is able to see that there are recognizable patterns among the world’s systems of oppression, particularly as they violate the image of God. This should not surprise us; God is unlimited in his creativity, and He has limited Satan in his. Though the political, economic, and social landscapes that birthed these two systems of oppression may be vastly different, the methods of subjugation remain startlingly the same.
As we look at the repeating patterns of oppression throughout global history, Satan’s effectiveness at violating the image of God in persons lies not in creativity, but rather in re-packaging the same degrading patterns, peddled with skillful “marketing techniques.”
Believers in Christ are able to empathize and hope as no one else can. Our concern for our own immediate issues needn’t be shelved to make room for our brothers and sisters suffering globally. Simultaneously holding our own day-to-day struggles, along with those of the global church, need not be ‘either/or’; rather they must become a ‘both/and’ proposition.
It has been nearly four years since Florida A&M University’s last full-term president but today the university trustees announced, after a 10-2 vote, that they selected Elmira Mangum to be president of the 126-year old institution. This is welcome news because the university has gone through hard times over the last four years. From the death of drum major Robert Champion and the resignation of then president James Ammons to the drop in enrollment and financial troubles, Mangum’s leadership could help right the ship. Mangum is also the first woman to be installed as president at the institution. She comes to FAMU fresh off a vice president for planning and budget position at Cornell University where she helped the university out of a structural deficit during the economic downturn. She has over 28 years of experience at several institutions of higher learning which, many hope, will serve her well as she steps into her position leading the school situated on the highest of seven hills in Tallahassee, Florida.
I stand with many FAMU alumni in hoping and praying that her installation will lead to our institution shining brighter than it ever has. Here’s to a new and fruitful season for one of the nation’s top historically black universities and here’s to its new president, Elmira Mangum, PhD. Please keep Dr. Mangum and the school in your prayers and good thoughts and they transition forward.
Three of the nine couples who participated in the mass wedding. (Photo Credit: News 4 Jacksonville)
Pastor Charles of Shiloh Metropolitan Baptist Church told his members that “Anyone who wanted to actually take the commitment of marriage seriously, we would do whatever we could to help them by sponsoring this mass wedding.” After six weeks of group counseling 14 couples tied the knot.
Bishop McKissick of Bethel Institutional Baptist Church told his flock, “You’re saying we love the Lord too much to keep living out of His will as a couple. I want you to come to the altar right now.” After weeks of counseling and with the help of volunteers such as, makeup stylists and florists, nine couples said, “I do.”
Recent talks about marriage have focused on debating the rights of same-sex couples. But these sermons are more impactful because the preachers, instead harping on what people should not do, passionately and graciously emphasized to their members, what they SHOULD do according to the Bible. The preachers then left it to the couples to decide for themselves whether to do the right thing. They also delivered resources to help make the weddings happen. But is tying the knot instead of cohabitating truly necessary for Christians these days?
Culturally, it certainly seems that cohabitation is here to stay. U.S. Census data shows that in the 1960s some 450,000 unmarried couples (Christian and non-Christian) lived together, compared to more than 7.5 million now. Why do people choose shackin’ over jumpin’ the broom? The sexual revolution and improved birth control are typical explanations, but also finances. In previous generations, particularly for women whose career options were limited primarily to working in the home, marriage was a financial safety net. Many now see cohabitating as a money issue. If two people are dating and find themselves spending most of their time together at each other’s homes, the idea of cutting two rents and cable bills down to one seems logical. Cohabitating is like being roommates with extra benefits. Couples don’t necessarily plan to shack, they slide into it.
Another reason is that couples say they’re giving their relationship a trial run. By living together you supposedly get to see what the other person is truly like, and whether you want to deal with them “until death do us part.” However, studies indicate that women tend to see shackin’ as a stepping stone to marriage, while men often see it as a way of enjoying the benefits without the commitment. Meanwhile, many who have shacked first and gotten married know first-hand that people STILL change once the rings are exchanged. Unrealistic expectations can still rise among husbands and wives. And unfortunately for many, divorce still happens even after shackin’.
Yes there are many couples who cohabitate successfully. The label of marriage CAN also increase pressure that can boil an otherwise peaceful home. These couples say that if the partnership ain’t broke don’t fix it with two rings and a certificate because that’s what friends, family and the church say to do. Since God is omnipresent, God knows whether our hearts are committed, they say.
Both Pastor Charles and Bishop McKissick stressed the importance of counseling, which is the key. Their couples underwent weeks of sessions to help them truly understand what they were getting themselves into; that marriage is not an adult version of playing house; that marriage is not merely a financial arrangement, though money is often a major issue. For the Christian, marriage should be a spiritual journey, a covenant that enlightens us to the divine nature and unity of God, Jesus, The Holy spirit and the church.
Sadly, many of us Christians lack successful marriages in this holy image because we too often did not receive quality pre-marital counseling. We fail to grasp this deeper understanding of what we’re truly engaged in. We often jump in and swim based on the models we saw from our parents (if we had two in the home) that were likely flawed. We go into marriage thinking of what we observed from other families or on TV. We get hitched for the children born out of wedlock, not realizing that we’re unequally yoked. The cliché “If you keep the Lord in the middle, everything will be alright” becomes our guide. But how do you accomplish this? Quality pre-marital counseling can help light the way.
There are several Bible verses that illustrate God’s stance on marriage and particularly Hebrews 13:4 touches on cohabitation too: “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all sexually immoral.”
So why were these couples shackin’ despite knowing what the Word says? The answer is in our own homes. We are ALL flawed. We have ALL sinned and fallen short of God’s standards. We are ALL human wrestling with the “law of sin” as articulated by Paul in Romans 7 – doing what we know we shouldn’t do. Many of the couples in the mass weddings said that they where planning to get married, but lacked money for the big ceremony that our culture says a wedding should be. For the Christian, though, the primary concern for marriage should be spiritual not carnal.
Adrian Thatcher, a religion professor at the University of Exeter, UK, urges the Christian church to return to the theological and doctrinal roots of marriage, in order to defend it as “indispensable for the regulation of sexual expression, the raising of children and the pleasing of God…”
Shout out to Pastor Charles, Bishop McKissick and the many other leaders out there who are preaching just that.
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.
President Barack Obama only met Nelson Mandela once but his words came across as one who has known the prolific leader all his life. His speech was “Ubuntu,” the South African word that means “I am because you are,” at work. President Obama is because Mandela was. We are, bound together, because of Mandela and leaders like him. Rest in peace and power Madiba.
(RNS) Nelson Mandela, the former South African president who died Thursday (Dec. 5), had a deep connection with religious institutions.
Mandela was educated, first at Clarkebury and then at Healdtown, Methodist boarding schools that provided a Christian liberal arts education.
“Both were important influences on his life,” said Presiding Bishop Zipho Siwa of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa. “Indeed, after his time at Clarkebury, the young Mandela said his horizons had been broadened.”
In Cape Town, retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu said Mandela was mourned by South Africans, Africans and the international community as a colossus of unimpeachable moral character and integrity.
“He preached a gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation,” Tutu wrote in a tribute on Allafrica.com.
“He showed in his own character, and inspired in others, many of God’s attributes: goodness, compassion, a desire for justice, peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. He was not only an amazing gift to humankind, he made South Africans and Africans feel good about being who we are. He made us walk tall. God be praised.”
Mandela acknowledged his connection to religious institutions and faith groups at various religious meetings across the world.
“It was religious institutions whether Christian, Moslem, Hindu or Jewish in the context of our country, they are the people who bought land, who built schools, who equipped them, who employed teachers, and paid them,” Mandela told the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1999. “Without the church, without religious institutions, I would never have been here today.”
Mandela told the gathering it was religious institutions that gave his fellow prisoners and him hope during the apartheid era that one day they would prevail.
“Religion was one of the motivating factors in everything we did,” he said.
Soon after his release, Mandela visited the World Council of Churches headquarters in Geneva. The Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit, the World Council of Churches general secretary described the leader’s relationship with the council as a special one.
“This is when he expressed his gratitude for the churches’ support to the anti-apartheid struggle,” Tveit said in a tribute in which he celebrated Mandela as “a liberator who by force of his remarkable personality raised the dignity of Africans after centuries of colonialism, oppression and discrimination.”
Added Siwa in a tribute Friday: “Although we are sad and mourn the passing of a father, an icon and world leader we cannot help but celebrate his life as well.”
Copyright 2013 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
