A reader critiques my portrayal of race and violence

We had a bit of a feisty discussion here recently around the subject of gender roles and relationships on my post Men are in charge because the Bible says so. Not long after, I received a challenging email from Jana (who agreed to let me share our correspondence):

Sorry to leave this on a contact form not a comment. I didn’t want to start a nasty comment fight so I thought this would be best. I saw [the] article a while back and the picture disturbed me. I ignored it, as usual dismissing it, excusing it. I’m just being upity again!

But then I stumbled across it again and I just had to ask. What on earth made you pick a picture of domestic violence taken from rural Africa? Sorry to be a pain but I just can’t fathom why you would have chosen this particular picture and I just had to ask. Sorry!

Jana

Here’s my reply:

Hi Jana,

Thanks for being willing to ask. I chose the picture because it perfectly captures the spirit of male power inherent in patriarchy. When men exert power in the world it is typically through verbal, physical, or political threats, coercion, or violence. I find that highly disturbing, and I needed a disturbing picture to capture the essence of patriarchy.

So, why does it disturb you? Do you think it’s an inappropriate picture for that post?

Thanks,
Jason

Jana’s response made me realize I’d missed the point:

Hi Jason,

Yeah you are right the image definitely captures the image which you talk about in the piece. And I am in total agreement with your points. What disturbed me was why did you pick this one out of an African rural context? How many of your readers can identify with this scene? I found these with a quick search. Seem to convey the same.

http://runninginheels.co.uk/articles/domestic-violence/
http://objectifythis.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/dolce-and-gabbana-rape-ad.jpg
http://www.topnews.in/files/Sexual-violence-women.jpg

Now I am not trying to accuse you of racism or anything like. But by using the image you did, all you did was reinforce the idea that violence against women is something which those barbarians do. Because your readers won’t identify with that African villager at all. Why use a picture of an African man when there are plenty of pictures of men from your own culture doing the same?

I hate racifying things. But sometimes I feel a bit of a duty to say something which I know a lot of us BAME’s are thinking! “not again” “not another shot of a dark skinned man doing something barbaric”. Probably should have just left you alone but felt compelled to say something.

Thanks for listening!
Jana

Frankly, I hadn’t considered any of that.

That’s a fair critique Jana. To be perfectly honest I chose that particular picture 1) because it was dramatic, and 2) because you can’t really make out anyone’s face – and I’m somewhat cautious about showing people’s faces on my blog if I don’t know them, particularly when they’re portrayed negatively. BUT, I never thought about the racial or cultural messaging. I should have – which is not quite the same thing as saying I shouldn’t have used the picture, but it’s very possible that upon reflection I wouldn’t have used it, if for no other reason than to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes about blacks and black Africans. There’s an interesting, complicated, and very important discussion in there somewhere. Either way, I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

Regards,
Jason

And, our last email:

Hi Jason,

Yes I never thought that you would have chosen the picture with the express purpose of putting across that message. And I realise that it’s hard to find appropriate images especially when you are trying to meet so many criteria (not sexist, not racist, hides faces, communicates the point etc.). The last thing I would want is to suggest anything else. Race and gender issues are so interwoven and overlapping so it all very complicated. But I think you are right, there is an important (though complicated) discussion in there and it is just waiting to be had.

I heard something is going on over on your side of the Atlantic with regards to race in the church, that things are changing and shifting? In any case the race issue still exists (Obama or no), and we have to have a global discussion for a global church.

Thanks,
Jana

Friday Later I’d like to complicate this topic with some thoughts about race, violence and the Kingdom. But until then, I’d be interested in your thoughts – with the caveat that any comments on this sensitive topic need to be appropriate. Otherwise, they will be edited or deleted.

Technorati Tags: Critique, Kingdom of God, Race, Violence

Rebuilding Tomorrowland: My Guest Post at Deep Church

I have a guest-post today over at Jason Clark’s blog Deep Church for his current series on re-imagining Vineyard values. This week’s value is the “now and not yet” of the The Kingdom of God. In my post I propose a re-embrace of eschatology as a corrective to the loss of apocalyptic intensity that I think characterizes the current Christian movements of social justice as the new “now” of the Kingdom. You can click here to to read my post.

Technorati Tags: Deep Church, Eschatology, Jason Clark, Kingdom of God, Vineyard Churches

Toward a Missional Economy, Part 6

This is the final installment in my series on moving churches toward a practice of missional economics: Part 1: Manna in the Desert, Part 2: Manna in the Postmodern Desert, Part 3: From Wealth Building to Gift Giving, Part 4: From Scarcity to Abundance, and Part 5: From Altruism to Reciprocity.

The Modern Doctrine of the Autonomous Self
Each of these three paradigm shifts lead us to another major dilemma rooted in our commons Modern concepts of the self and the life of virtue that only the cross of Christ can address. The common thread of all the dominant economic paradigms previously mentioned is the Modern doctrine of the autonomous self.

Concerning this, theologian Thomas Oden states, “The rhetoric of unrestrained, individual freedom is a prominent earmark of the spirit of modernity.” Westerners today simply assume that well-being means being free from dependencies on others. Likewise, Christopher Kaiser observes

“We painstakingly differentiate ourselves from our families, our upbringings, and our jobs. We affirm our freedom, even at the expense of the extreme psychological discomfort associated by a sense of homelessness.”

The church has played a powerful role in the development of this doctrine, principally through a particular theological stance of Martin Luther’s. Unwilling to impose the difficult scriptural prohibition on usury amid emerging mercantilism (particularly among of his financial benefactors), Luther declared that all life was divided between the “civil” and the “religious,” freeing the realm of civil affairs from the strictures of biblical paradigm (even for Christians) and effectively fragmenting society into a collection of isolated individuals. Lewis Hyde astutely remarks on the affect of this for every person: “Now each man is separated. The church and the state may be separate, but each man partakes of both.”

In other words, Luther blessed the Modern fragmentation of the individual self in the realm of economics allowing us to “believe” one ethic in our private lives yet live another ethic publicly.

This radically new and free sense of self created a wilderness of being, where everyone lives ultimately free, disconnected, and isolated lives even in the midst of a society. One result has been the lionization of self-sufficiency – a public virtue that creeps into even our compassion work. For example, even Christians in the West frequently judge the impoverished precisely because they haven’t achieved autonomous financial independence. It’s no wonder that Dallas Willard calls ours the, “culture of rejection,” and says that its roots in Modernity, “deeply affects the concrete forms Christian institutions take in our time.”

This doctrine is not without its Modern critics, who point out the sad consequences. Alexis de Tocqueville found American individualism frightening because it leads to the apathetic withdrawal of people from public life into a private sphere of isolation. Lewis Hyde agrees, saying,

“In the ego-of-one we speak of self gratification, and whether it’s forced or chosen, a virtue or a vice, the mark of self-gratification is its isolation.”

This is the essence of poverty; whatever possessions one might hold, isolation makes one impoverished. Miroslav Volf adds to this spiritual diagnosis: “All things are from God and through God, and yet we want to be independent of God, standing on our own two feet, claiming God’s gifts as our own achievement.” Relational detachment – principally from God – is the truest form of bankruptcy and naturally leads to all other forms of poverty.

The New Kingdom Self
Countering isolation must involve re-defining the self in terms that are relational rather than consumeristic. Bryant Myers agrees, “Development cannot be reduced to simply empowering individuals with new choices.” We must recognize that the solutions to economic inequality can’t be found in the building of new markets for the inundation of new consumer products aimed at the underdeveloped.

Not surprisingly, it is the Apostle Paul who is most radical in his terminology when he speaks of the death and rebirth of the human self in relation to Christ:

“It is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:19-20).

Paul is talking about nothing less than the re-definition of the self and Volf captures the implications of this for the act of gift-giving, saying,

“But now hasn’t our very self disappeared and been replaced by Christ? What else could the death of the self mean? In fact, however, it has not disappeared at all but has been reborn as a new self, as a self that has been returned to itself. Christ’s indwelling presence has freed us from exclusive orientation toward ourselves and opened us up in two directions: toward God, to receive the good things in faith, and toward our neighbor, to pass them on in love.”

So the new self of the Kingdom is subsumed into the person and work of Christ – a kind of self-death that recapitulates the cross in the life of the believer. This new self is radically open to giving because doing so does not violate any boundaries that need protecting. Rather – and perhaps most importantly to the three shifts outlined previously – being “in Christ” re-locates the boundaries of the self beyond the walls of the body, extending them throughout the sphere of Kingdom relationships, and rooted in one’s relationship with Christ himself. This is not an autonomous self, but a self dependent on Christ, interdependent with others, and intimately intertwined throughout; it is a Kingdom self.

Only by learning to live such a collectively cruciform life can the Church hope to embody a truly missional economy and appropriate the equality of the eschatological Kingdom in our time as a prophetic sign and foretaste.

Questions:

1. What do you see as the boundaries of the “Kingdom self” proposed above? Is every Christian our brother/sister, or is every “American” (or other compatriots), or is the Christians called to consider every human being a fellow child of God? What are the implications of these boundaries for a “missional economy?”
2. What do you think are some ways missional churches could put missional economics into practice?

Technorati Tags: Bryant Myers, Christopher Kaiser, Economics, economy, Kingdom of God, Martin Luther, Miroslav Volf, Paul, Self, Thomas Oden