Fans of political drama certainly have gotten their plates full over the last few years. In addition to award-winning, critically acclaimed series like The Wire and The West Wing, viewers have been treated to healthy doses of political intrigue on the short-lived Political Animals, The Chicago Code, and most recently, Boss, the Kelsey Grammer vehicle.
Into the fray comes Kevin Spacey in the Netflix original series, House of Cards, which debuted last Friday in an experimental format. The early buzz is due to its novelty as the first original series produced for Netflix, but most of the critical acclaim is aimed squarely at Spacey himself for his bracing, arresting performance.
Spacey’s protagonist, Francis Underwood, is the kind of charismatic, calculating, conniving antihero that audiences can’t avert their gaze from, even when he’s doing something as viscerally disturbing as [minor spoiler alert] euthanizing an injured dog. As Underwood, Spacey fills the screen with an endless string of meetings and phone conversations with theWashingtonelite, solving problems, currying favor, and dispensing axioms left and right.
Which is to say, he’s a classic Kevin Spacey character. But there’s another figure that Spacey’s Underwood resembles – that of a pastor. The resemblance grows even clearer during the third of episode of House of Cards, when [again, MINOR SPOILER] Francis Underwood is forced to travel to his home district in South Carolina to address a local tragedy and ends up speaking at a church in the area.
Part of Underwood’s appeal is his habit of breaking the fourth wall by looking directly into the camera and telling the audience his thoughts, which often differ dramatically to whatever he’s just said to another character. So the scene where he does this from the church lectern, where he totally contradicts himself in the middle of an emotionally-charged quasi-sermon, is supposed to highlight Underwood’s depravity by juxtaposing his hypocrisy against the moral uprightness of the church.
Unfortunately, that scene – minus a few Hollywood theatrical touches – plays out in churches all acrossAmericaevery Sunday. Except that in real life, the churches are just as complicit in the charade.
In his blog, Dr. Paul Metzger of Multnomah Biblical Seminary recently contrasted the fervor with which evangelicals tend to oppose evolution with the tacit acceptance they tend to give free-market economics, despite their being two different sides of the same ideological coin (according to Metzger, they’re both about survival of the fittest). This kind of bias creates a cultural blind spot, which invites certain pastors to speak out in favor of intelligent design in the classroom while remaining woefully silent on loopholes in the American tax code that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
(Then again, maybe we should be grateful for the silence, since some pastors clearly don’t understand the real-world ramifications of certain economic policies. Yes, I’m talking to you, Applebee’s pastor lady.)
The truth is, sometimes pastors make decisions for less-than-Godly reasons, and the faithful in the pews sometimes have trouble discerning when and why. In this scene, Spacey’s Underwood ends up quoting Proverbs 3:5, but it’s clear that his oratory is motivated more by political reasons than by any desire to honor God or share His truth with people.
And this wasn’teven during an election year.
House of Cards gets its name not only from its original British source material, but from the idea that our political process is effective only insomuch as people allow themselves to be shielded from the details of how it works. Otherwise, the facade is pierced and the whole thing comes falling down.
The same can be said about the church. For decades, many of our churches have been places where the primary motivation for showing up is neither worship nor Word, but to ascend the various echelons of social respectability. As such, it became easier and more popular to apply social pressure to overcome secularists who resist the church’s public agenda, rather than genuinely caring about them and allowing the Holy Spirit to use us to break down their defenses through other, non-activist means.
As long as it works, everyone’s fine – but anytime there’s a shift in the prevailing sense of morality, the whole thing falls apart.
The irony is, we revert to these top-down techniques because in many ways, they work. It’s a lot easier to demonize your opponents via press release than it is to invite your political opponent over for dinner and actually listen to what they have to say. Fortunately, people like Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy and gay activist Shane Windmeyer have proven that it’s not impossible. But still, it’s the exception to the rule.
After all, Underwood’s Machiavellian machinations don’t just make for good television – they’re compelling because they’re effective. For men and women like Francis Underwood, that’s how things get done in Washington. But it doesn’t have to be this way in the church. It really doesn’t. And even if, as the more cynical among us might argue, it is this way in the church and nothing will change anytime soon, then let’s at least let’s have someone come up with a decent scripted drama about it. And no, the pastor’s-wives-reality-show The Sisterhood doesn’t count.
Jamye Wooten, founder of KineticsLive and director of the faith-based Breaking the Silence campaign (Photo courtesy of Kineticslive.com)
UrbanFaith: Thanks for talking with UrbanFaith. What is the Breaking the Silence campaign?
Jamye Wooten: It’s our partnership with our faith leaders and Friends of the Congo to Break the Silence on the deadliest conflict in the world today. In 2012, I traveled to the East Congo with a delegation from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference.
We were hosted by an ecumenical group that visited the United Nations during the summer. While we were there we stayed with the Kimbanguish Church – the largest African-led Congolese church. In 1921, Simon Kimbangu, the founder of the Kimbanguish Church, prophesied that there would be a black President and African-Americans would begin to return to the Congo. Most of the participants [on the delegation] had no idea about the prophecy. We were greeted by thousands in the streets and it was all over the national news. During our visit the delegation met with the president of the general assembly and Congolese women that have been victims of rape.
When I returned home, I began to organize faith leaders for our PSA campaign. I reached out to Rev. Otis Moss, III at Trinity United Church of Christ, who had already been involved with the ongoing crisis in the Congo. KineticsLive.com has been in partnership with Trinity United Church of Christ since we launched in November 2011. We are asking communites of faith to host a screening of the film, Crisis of the Congo– a 27-minute documentary – and participate in Congo Week, October 20th – 26th, 2013. There will also be a letter writing campaign, starting in elementary school and going to high school. There is also a petition to implement the Obama law and to get Secretary of State to withhold funds from Rwanda, which is implicated in supporting the M23 [the rebels] who took over the city of Goma.
UF: Can you tell us a little bit more about the public service announcement aspect of Breaking the Silence?
JW: Sure. We are reaching out to faith leaders nationally and internationally to assist us in creating short videos stating that they are breaking the silence and shining light on the conflict in the Congo. It’s a two-minute presentation meant to be shown within a worship [and disseminated online]. Currently they are available on our website and are being uploaded to YouTube. We welcome more faith leaders to join us.
UF: How would you describe the goal of the campaign?
JW: First, we want to look at the history. Let’s start with the Berlin conference in 1884. King Leopold rules for 23 years, killing an estimated 10 million people while extracting rubber, ivory, and other minerals for trade. Belgium then rules until 1960. The first elected leader, Prime Minister Patrice Emery Lumumba, is assassinated. Then, the United States installs and backs a dictator – Mobutu Sese Seko – for over three decades. I could say more, but the point is that history contextualizes what’s going on in the Congo now.
The West has a history of exploiting the enormous natural and human resources in the Congo, which has an estimated mineral wealth of $24 trillion. Congo has enough agricultural resources to feed the world until 2050. And the Congo River has enough hydro-electric capacity to illuminate the entire continent and parts of Europe. The Congo is located in the heart of Africa. I believe if you save the Congo, you save Africa. Our goal is to bring awareness to the worst human rights conflict in the world and mobilize people of good will to demand justice for the Congolese people.
Another goal [of Breaking the Silence] focuses on the resource Coltan, which goes into laptops and cell phones. Every Wednesday, participants turn their phones off to break silence around the devastation in the Congo. Again, much of this is a mineral resource war. Major mineral companies are extracting resources – gold, diamonds, and so on – from the Congo. Congo has enough agricultural resources to feed the world until 2050. Enough water and power to energize the whole continent [Africa] and parts of Europe. It’s in the center of Africa, surrounded by nine countries. It’s strategically located – if you save the Congo, you save Africa.
UF: Thanks for providing that historical context. Can you tell us more about what’s happening in the Congo?
UF: Oftentimes, social justice is invoked on behalf of domestic issues – living wage, affordable housing, public health, etc. What would you say to those who want to globalize their understanding of what social justice entails?
JW: All issues are global issues. The wages that Americans are paid are directly connected to the global economy. The exploitation of labor in poor countries has resulted in many industries collapsing in America. Issues of underdevelopment are present in the two-thirds world and in urban America. I think it is impossible to be successful advocating on domestic issues without a global context. Black bodies have little value globally. We must do a better job of connecting our efforts for justice globally.
UF: Tell us a bit about yourself. What drives your commitment to the Congo? How did you get involved in this work?
JW: I grew up in Baltimore where I attended the Mason Memorial and Good Shepherd Church of God in Christ. The influence of the church and the example of my mom led me to live a life of service and ministry. Later I was introduced to the work of Randal Robinson, Founder of TransAfrica Forum, and he ignited my passion for global justice. While in college I studied Interdisciplinary Studies focusing on International Affairs, Financial Economic and Africana Studies (Pan-African Development) . Later I would worked as the program director for the Collective Banking group (CBG), a faith-based community economic corporation, representing over 200,000 congregants to develop and enhance economic empowerment strategies for African-Americans.
While at the CBG I attended Harvard University’s Summer Leadership Institute. During this program I developed my idea for Kinetics, an information ministry that using dialogue as a catalyst for social change. With theory of change ‘if we knew better, we would do better” Kinetics works to strengthen social movements within the African-American community by bridging the gap between the church, community-based organizations and the academy. My first client with Kinetics was TransAfrica Forum.
Six years ago, I was asked to join a coalition of faith leaders along with the Institute of Policy Studies,TransAfrica forum, Africa Action, Friends of the Congo, and the Africa Faith and Justice Network to identify common areas of partnership between our respective organizations. We started off trying to decide what issue in Africa could we mobilize around- Congo was the country of choice. Since the forming of the coalition, I have developed a stronger relationship with Friends of the Congo, and have been working to help them launch a Religious Council. So I’ve been passionate about the Congo for a while. But actually stepping on the soil – touching the people, holding babies…it’s something that I’ll never forget. I believe in the power of the church. I’m critical, but I believe with our flaws and all, the black church will save the community and be an instrument of healing.
UF: So the premise is that “if we know better we would do better”.
JW: Exactly. Let’s think about our context. Who is telling the story of the Congolese? You can’t just watch CNN and MSNBC and think you’re engaged. We have to tell our own story.When it comes to media ownership, we’re not part of the game. We’re not controlling local radio or national syndication – even with the Grio, the Root, and Huffington Post Black Voices.
Let’s take, for example, the Baltimore campaign against Governor [Martin O’ Malley] proposed construction of a youth prison. No one was telling that story [emphasis added]. Rev. Heber Brown, pastor of Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, called and said that the Governor wants to build a $100 million youth jail when they are closing recreation centers and haven’t built a new school in 30 years”. I had hosted “Justice Sundays” on poverty and mass incarceration in the past. We decided to host Youth Justice Sunday on October 31st and had 25 churches and organizations endorse it, along with Rev. Frank Reid. It was a two-hour program and march to the proposed youth jail site.
We used our website and social media to bring awareness to the issue. Our allies created YouTube videos and Facebook pages. Many of our churches were unaware that the Governor was preparing to build a youth jail. [And our organizing and publicizing] gave us enough coverage to leverage the story and then other media outlets began to pick it up. That’s why we did Youth Justice Sunday and that’s the importance of an information ministry and telling your own story.
UF: How would you define information ministry?
JW: The Bible says my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. An information is about Informing, equipping and empowering the church to do the work God has called us to do. Once we are informed we must put our faith into action.
UF: Any closing words of wisdom?
JW: I just want folks to get involved and to understand power of the church when we work together. In traveling I discovered that the many of the oppress peoples of the world draw on the civil rights movement and the legacy of the black church in America. It’s important to know that we have the power to transform the Congo, transform cities like Chicago and Baltimore, and transform the world.
Hezekiah Walker & The Love Fellowship Crusade Choir
“Christ Did It All”
Live From Atlanta At Morehouse College, Verity (1994)
So here’s a fun little experiment. Go to any black-owned barbershop, predominantly black church, or inner-city parachurch organization. Head into the office, conference room, or other common gathering place. Then play this song. And count how many people stop whatever they’re doing, and say, “THIS IS MY JAM!!”
(I’m guessing the over/under here is five.)
Now, for as long as there have been black people filling churches and singing in choirs, there have always been uptempo songs that make people move, jump, and clap. But this one always comes to mind for me when I think about about classic choir jams, and I think some of the following attributes combine to make this song and recording excellent.
First, there are two complementary, essential pieces – the choir enunciates its consonants well, and the mics are properly placed to pick them up. It might seem like a little thing, but without proper enunciation and mic placement, “Christ did it all” sounds a lot more like “rice did it all” (which I suppose could be a great parody version for the US Rice Growers Association, although, if I were them, I would go with the brilliant standard in misheard lyrics, “We Bring the Sacks of Rice On Trays”)
Also, the excellent blowing of Kim Waters on alto saxophone. This might’ve been the first contemporary choir recording where the saxophone was so front-and-center, featured prominently in the B-section of the chorus. (It’s a shame that this was excluded from the video, but it’s there in the commercially recorded audio.)
But mostly what makes this song such a jam is the infectious energy of the choir. In a lot of today’s contemporary gospel, the choir is simply there in support of a lead singer (or in some cases, a worship leader shouting exhortation).
But here, the choir itself is the star – which is great, because such a group of people singing in such spirited praise with so repetitive a chorus creates a sense of critical mass, not unlike the gravitational pull of a singularity, which then creates a reverse-supernova effect, where everyone in immediate range gets sucked in and starts singing along. Even Christopher Hitchens, if he were in the building, would’ve gotten swept up and singing along, even if only ironically. This galvanizing effect is one of the reasons why so many unchurched liberal white people love seeing African-American choirs sing gospel music (after all, such a singularity is also known as a black hole… okay, this analogy has officially gone too far).
“Christ Did It All” is proof that songs need not be wordy or full of lofty language in order to be theologically significant. Just like “Snakes On A Plane,” the whole point and concept of the song is embedded in the title. This is probably why so many black churches were able to have church services for so long without having printed hymnals or projected lyrics. You just stand up, watch, listen, and sing along. (Try doing that with “Lord When We Praise You with Glorious Music”… never gonna happen my friend.)
So while singing this song every service for a year might get old, and you might not want all of your songs at church to have this quality, it’s still true that songs like “Christ Did It All” can be an essential part of a churchgoer’s musical diet, because the lyrics are immediate, simple, and personal:
Christ did it all, all, all / Christ did it all, now I am free / Christ did it all, I’ve got the victory / And most of all, I have eternal life / Christ did it, He did it all
The vamp is driving, the band is kicking, it doesn’t change keys 47 times, and it’s only four minutes and twenty seconds. This makes “Christ Did It All,” a classic gospel throwback in my book. Just make sure, if you pull this one out at church, that you explain what “it” is.
Mary J. Blige and Angela Bassett star as “Betty & Coretta” in Lifetime’s original movie (Photo credit: Richard McLaren/Lifetime.com)
The old saying goes, “Behind every great man, there is a woman.” I have observed, however, that “beside every great man, there is a woman.” Such is the case with Civil Rights advocates, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. While many are familiar with their stories, few know the stories of their devoted wives Coretta Scott King and Dr. Betty Shabazz. More surprisingly the friendship that formed between these two women after the assassinations of their husbands is an untold story.
That is until Lifetime boldly presented this bond of sister and womanhood in the television world premiere of “Betty and Coretta” last weekend. A corporate executive at A&E Network did confirm that the Shabazz and King families were not consulted for the film, noting the temptation for family members to protect their legacies. Given the documented inward fighting between siblings in both families, viewers can understand (at least partially) the network’s decision. Some of the heirs are not happy with the flick.
Ilyasah Shabazz, third daughter of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz and author of Growing Up X, called the film “inaccurate.” There are a few grievances raised: Contrary to Ilyasah’s statement, there are several pictures available online portraying Dr. Shabazz’s head covered with a scarf. Whether or not Dr. Shabazz spoke on her death bed is somewhat irrelevant. The point is Mrs. King did come to be at her friend, Betty’s side in the days leading up to her death. According to the children, moreover, there was a house visit portrayed in the movie which never really took place. Whenever a person’s life is brought to a film there is a certain level of embellishment that goes with the territory because producers are attempting to share a big story in a finite amount of time; smooth transitions are needed to move the story line forward and still capture the big picture. With the aforementioned reasons in mind, one can hardly call Lifetime’s portrayal a work of fiction.
Lifetime took great care adding credibility to the film by featuring actress, Ruby Dee, as narrator of the movie and dear friend of the Shabazz family. The movie picks up right before the assassinations of Malcolm (February 21, 1965) and Martin (April 4, 1968), and opened with Ruby Dee (who recently turned 90 years old) setting the stage for the times of racism, war, and poverty in America. Throughout the film she continues sharing facts about the deaths of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, the Black National Political Convention (of 10,000 attendees where Coretta and Betty first met), the lobbying and six million signatures Mrs. King gathered to make Martin Luther King, Jr. a National Holiday, and she narrates all the way to the deaths of both phenomenal women.
The movie is not about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Malik Yoba), Malcolm X (Lindsay Owen Pierre), or their legacies per se. The movie is also not about the King and Shabazz children. The movie focuses on two women who were powerful, strong, faithful, and devoted leaders in their own rights. The film spans three decades and weaves the lives of these two civil rights activists and shares how they stood for justice.
The Women
A pregnant, Betty Shabazz (Mary J. Blige) and her four daughters watched her husband being gunned down as he took the stage to deliver what became his last message. After Malcolm X’s assassination, Betty delivered twin girls, which made her a single mother with six small children. With the help of friends and those in her community, Betty cared for her family and earned a doctorate degree in high-education administration from the University of Massachusetts. She became an associate professor of health sciences at New York’s Medgar Evers College. She spent the rest of her life working as an university administrator and fundraiser, before she died on June 23, 1997 as a result of injuries sustained by a fire her 10-year-old grandson, Malcolm set in her home.
As a widow, Coretta Scott King (Angela Bassett) raised four children while remaining a leading participant in the Civil Rights Movement. She went from being her husband’s motivator and partner in the movement to being a justice advocate to the world. In addition to lobbying for the national King Holiday (first celebrated in January 1986), she became president, chair, and Chief Executive Officer of The King Center in Atlanta, GA. At the end of the movie, Ruby Dee notes that Mrs. King died in 2006, nine years after Dr. Shabazz, from ovarian cancer.
The movie goes beyond their advocacy works and humanizes these valiant women. It is difficult to know for sure the intimate conversations that took place between the two. There is one living legend, however, who is knowledgeable of at least some of those conversations, and that woman is Myrlie Evers-Williams, wife and widow of the first NAACP field officer, Medgar Evers. As widows of the Civil Rights Movement, Myrlie Evers-Williams shared a special bond with King and Shabazz. In the book, Betty Shabazz: A Sisterfriends Tribute in Words and Pictures, she wrote about a healing spa retreat the three of them took together. During the retreat, they committed not to talk about the assassinations of their husbands or the movement; they simply bonded as sisters and friends. She also wrote that “the three stayed in contact and tried to get together whenever they could.”
Lifetime briefly mentioned the retreat at the end of the movie (hence the purpose of the Betty Shabazz hospital bed scene). However, Myrlie Evers-Williams’ character only makes a brief appearance in the film when Dr. Shabazz took the position to teach at Medgar Evers College. Maybe one day, Myrlie Evers-Williams will tell her side of this story.
What Their Stories Mean for Us
All things considered, I believe we have a reason to rejoice with the production of this film. Mrs. King and Dr. Shabazz came together to shepherd the legacies of their husbands, but that is only part of their stories. The bigger story is these women stood together and turned their tragedies into triumphs. Even more important, both women used their faith, family, and friendships to advocate justice on behalf of women, children, the poor, and oppressed. They stood together and changed the world.
A twitter reflection by @lativida sums it up well: Take note all you dumb reality shows! This is how REAL BLACK WIVES act! These women knew real pain and persevered! #BettyandCoretta.
Betty and Coretta were strong in their own rights. They were single mothers who became grandmothers and they took care of their families. They took the mantles that were passed to them and used them as a foundation to build their communities and our nation. They remind us, each of us (the single mother, wife, or young person of any gender), of what we can do with faith, friendship, and forgiveness, for this, yes this is how real black wives behave! Thank God for their tenacity, legacies, and friendship.
THE FIREBRAND: Cast member, Tara Lewis, and her husband Brian. Tara’s polarizing approach to ministry and life has other cast members unsettled.
One of the many complaints I get about Christians is the prevalence of believers who think they are somehow better than others. These folks just hate “bougie” Christians. An urban term derived from the French word “bourgeoisie,” you can spot a bougie Christian from a mile away. You can’t hold a conversation with them without feeling like they are preaching at you. They speak Christian-ese, using words that only folks “in the fold” know. They’re the Christians who make it seem like they’ve cornered the market on what it looks like to be a Christian. They hold fast to black and white, and diametrically oppose gray; there’s no gray with God. These Christians know all the answers.
This week, on a national scale, we encountered one of these folks in living color. With both consternation and fear, I sat on my couch Monday night and fired up my DVR to watch TLC’s The Sisterhood. From the creators of The Real Housewives of Atlanta, the show’s concept is to take an in-depth look at the lives of a group of pastor’s wives in the city of Atlanta. Usually, I’m not a big fan of reality television shows. There are better things I can do with my time (like watching paint dry), especially when it comes shows that tend to exploit the African American community. Now TLC comes up with the bright idea to enter the African American Church—a sacred space. As someone who loves the church, and particularly the African American Church, I decided to watch at least the first episode. I’m not too excited about the concept. Besides the fact that not one first lady appears anywhere in Scripture, the whole concept is paternalistic and makes me cringe when I see gifted women in church described in that way.
Enter Tara Lewis. Married to a Jewish convert to Christianity, the couple moved to Atlanta to pastor a church. After several weeks, the elders of the church asked the couple to leave. I’m sure we’ll learn the reason, but you have to wonder what happened. One scene in the show demonstrates how easily the bougie Christian effect can arise. One of the wives, Domonique Scott, decides to invite Tara and another pastor’s wife, Ivy Couch (a former member of R&B group Xscape), to her home to sit and chat. The following transpires within minutes of Tara’s arrival:
Ivy: “You look fabulous. What’s been going on?”
Tara: “We had a wonderful day today. It was amazing. God is gooooooood.” *waits*
Because we all know what the response is supposed to be, right? That’s church talk 101. All the time…All the time…God is good.
But it gets better. Ivy then asks Tara about racial identity and what she’s taught her children.
Tara: “They see themselves as Jewish and black…I think Christian. I think my spiritual belief. I think kingdom first. My color…it doesn’t matter…”
Ivy: “But when you say color doesn’t matter…in all honesty…it sounds better than the reality that we live in…society is going to see them as African American [children].”
Tara: “…before I am a human being, I am a Christian. Because I was known before I was even formed in my father’s womb, in my mother’s womb…one of the things you’ll learn about me is that I’m Kingdom…the Bible says first in the natural then in the Spirit. What reigns and rules in His authority, reigns and rules over society for God.”
Ivy (sidebar): “Are we at church? Is it Sunday morning?”
My thoughts exactly! I think Tara may have set the record for most out-of-context Scripture use in one conversation. But she’s not done.
Ivy (expressing concern about Tara’s use of cliches): “Don’t you want to be effective, Tara?”
Tara: “I am effective. I’m effective so much in the church. My effectiveness is not questionable.”
Ah ha!!!! You’re effective so much in the church. What about Monday through Saturday in the world? Would any of these people know any of the phrases or words you used? Don’t get me wrong, I’m Kingdom all day long. But we have to watch our language when we are talking to people who don’t know a thing about Scripture. And that’s the thing that frustrates me the most about “bougie” Christians: They don’t get this reality.
They probably love the bougie Psalm. They aren’t like the heathens. They walk in integrity (Psalm 26:11). They bathe in their innocence (Psalm 26:6). They don’t hang out with liars or hypocrites (Psalm 26:4). This is the five-star restaurant psalm. The filet mignon psalm. If it were a geographical location, it would be in Beverly Hills. And honestly, this psalm could perpetuate the stereotype. Why would anyone be interested in a God whose people feel that way about outsiders? I think the first part of the psalm clears up any misunderstanding.
“For your steadfast love is before my eyes, and I walk in your faithfulness” (Psalm 26:3)
A full recognition of God’s faithfulness causes a response that changes you from the inside out. You then begin to boast—not in what you have done for God, not in how effective you are in your ministry, but in what God has done for you. So how do you avoid bougie Christian behavior? A few tips for my girl Tara:
1. Keep God’s steadfast love before your eyes: Keeping this in mind gives us perspective. Because, real talk, God’s steadfast love and grace are the only reasons we are “in the fold.” (Psalm 26:3)
2. Extend that love to others in a graceful manner: God’s love isn’t just FOR us, it should flow FROM us. And it should be graceful. (Colossians 4:6)
3. Realize His grace was sufficient for you and should also be sufficient for others: In doing so, we realize where we’ve come from and can relate to others who may be in similar circumstances. (2 Corinthians 12:9)
4. Boast only One person—the Lord: Deflect all personal praise to the true object of our worship. Christ’s words still ring true, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all people to me” (John 12:32, author’s paraphrase). Boast in Him and He’ll do the rest. (2 Corinthians 10:17)
We’re only one week in, so maybe things change with Tara. But I’m scared. I’m scared she won’t be as effective as she purports because she doesn’t realize the importance of relating well with those who are outside of the church. A lesson we all need to brush up on.
Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
My soul is weary with sorrow; strengthen me according to your word. –Psalm 119:28
When the soul is crushed with the weight of unanswerable questions, how do we begin to bind up our wounds? How many times have we gone through this? How many more can we endure?
We experience such shock each time we hear the news. But at what point do we refuse to dismiss such instances as “random” and “unheard of”? When do as a society begin to take collective responsibly for the lives that have been lost? How many will it take before we examine the “cultural pathology” of mass shooting?
There is a double standard that exists around the explanation of such events. It would not take very many mass shootings in which the perpetrators were black, Muslim, or Latino before we would hear comments about “violent cultures” and the ‘moral bankruptcy‘ of an entire group.
Jared Lee Loughner shot former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others in Tucson, AZ. on Jan. 8, 2011. Six of those shot died.
This is the danger of maintaining cultural white male default. We are blind to the ugly aspects of a culture that is perpetually considered ‘normal.’ If these shooters were black men, there would be a collective shaking-of-heads at their ‘inherit violent nature‘. If Latina women were committing mass shootings at a similar rate, the media would certainly be asking what the cause of it might be. But after the Newton shootings, we will see no law enforcement policy changes that will increase the racial profiling of white men.
It is a chilling aspect of white privilege to be able “to kill, maim, commit wanton acts of violence, and to be anti-social (as well as pathological) without having your actions reflect on your own racial group” (Chauncey DeVega). Time and again, the white men who commit these mass shooting are framed as “lone wolves” and “outliers,” with little examination or reflection on a broader cultural responsibility.
On July 20, 2012, James Eagan Holmes shot multiple guns into the audience at a midnight screening of ‘The Dark Knight Rises,’ killing 12 people and injuring 58.
“When white people do something bad it is due to circumstances, a bad upbringing, a psychological disorder or something. Because, apart from a few bad apples, white people are Basically Good. Everyone knows it. But when black people do something bad it is because they were born that way.”
When the shooter is white, we dig into school and psychiatric records in search for explanationsas to why someone so “normal” would do such a thing. The shooter is often perceived as the quite, unremarkable “boy next door” that no on ever dreamed would suddenly snap.
Charles Carl Roberts murdered five girls and injured five others at an Amish school in Lancaster County, PA., on Oct. 2, 2006.
When violence is perpetrated by a person of color, we are quicker to be satisfied with broad explanations of terrorism, religion, or turf wars. Indeed, “after Maj. Nidal Hasan carried out the Fort Hood shootings, his Muslim faith became all the public needed to know about his motive.” The news media routinely “pathologize people of color as naturally criminal and violent.” Urban is used as shorthand for immorality.
As sensationalized as inner-city violence is, mass shootings of strangers in public settings like schools and shopping malls are virtually non-existent in urban neighborhoods. And despite gun-blazing stereotypes, the majority of people of color are pro-gun control, in stark contrast to the white voting public.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, killing 13 people and injuring 24.
Finally, the understandable horror that is felt after each mass shooting is in stark contrast to the silence and apathy with regard to the children that are dying on the streets everyday. There are daily cries for change and regulation coming from the mouths of mourning mothers that are never heard. The shock expressed after the events like those in Newton subtly sends the message that “this shouldn’t happen here, in our idyllic white suburban community. We’re not like those neighborhoods where you expect random violence.” These attitudes are reflected in the difference in public attention span depending on the race of the victim, whether it’s a shooting at a Sikh temple, or a missing child report.
When white is seen as the default, any deviant behavior can be excused as the exception to the rule. Conversely, when we limit our interactions with those of other races, we are forced to rely on heuristics to generalize about the “other.” If Adam Lanza were black, it would reaffirm stereotypes of a violent culture. If he were Muslim, the shooting would be a “clear act of terrorism.” But as a white male, he is characterized as a disturbed individual, wholly distinct from the race and culture to which he belongs.
