Not Black Enough?

Shortly after arriving in the United States with my family, I had the opportunity to attend a national conference for black evangelicals in Detroit. I was eager to learn about what distinguished black from white evangelicals. The conference was well represented with black leaders from various communities across the United States.

During the evaluation session at the end of the three day event, participants were invited to be candid in their appraisals. I publicly expressed my delight to be in attendance and took the opportunity to suggest that if sessions were more punctual and presenters had used more contemporary tools for communicating their presentations, the conference could have been much more effective.

In response to my observations, one of the organizers thanked me for participating. He went on to inform me that the organizers did not define effectiveness in the same way as their white brethren did. I guess he was saying that punctuality and utilization of effective tools to communicate were not appropriate indicators for assessing success among blacks.        

When that experience was put side by side with opinions shared by white evangelicals, I sensed that my Afro-Caribbean family was sandwiched between two cultures. For instance, it was not unusual to hear white evangelicals say to us, “we do not see you guys as being black.” Initially this was very confusing to us, but slowly we began to realize that in America, black is more than a color – it is also a culture.

It is a culture in that there are some experiences some blacks accept as being distinctly black. For instance, some would refer to the use of proper diction by blacks as pretending to be white. Such blacks would consider the occasional use of Ebonics to be culturally sensitive. However, that sensitivity may provide cultural acceptance, but it is totally inappropriate in the marketplace of ideas.

The Cosby Show provided a good illustration of this point. The show was well received by both white and black audiences. Earlier commentators felt that one of the show’s assets was its help in improving race relations by projecting universal values with which both whites and blacks could identify.   

However, a few more recent commentators suggest that the Cosby Show’s popularity has set back race relations. These more recent commentators believe the Show failed to take into account the context outside of the walls of the home in which the main characters lived. The fact that the Show failed to confront race relations in America is often viewed as a sell-out to white audiences and advertisers. However, I concur with the view that the positive role of the black Huxtable family served to reduce the negative stereotypes of blacks in the wider society. Interestingly, since the final episode more than 20 years ago, reruns of the Cosby Show still bring healthy laughter across races and generations.   

The same healthy laughter cannot be used to describe much of what is called black entertainment today. Bill O’Reilly has been ridiculed by many black leaders because he dared challenge the negative impact of some black entertainment.

According to O’Reilly, the black entertainment industry needs to stop peddling garbage. “Hey listen up you greed heads, if a kid can't speak proper English, uses the "f" word in every sentence, it's disgraceful, it's disrespectful -- it's disrespectful in his or her manner. That child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America... never. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You're the ones hurting these vulnerable children.”

CNN host Don Lemon felt O’Reilly did not go far enough in analyzing the situation among blacks in America. As a black public figure, Lemon went on to list five critical areas that must be addressed in black communities today. Like O’Reilly he felt the most critical was the more than 72% of black children being born out of wedlock, often resulting in fatherless children.

One would think that Lemon’s opinions would earn the applause of the black community. Rather, it has inspired just as much hatred from the black community as O’Reilly’s comments did. MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor calls Lemon a “turncoat mofo,” while Toure also took to twitter to revile the common sense points Lemon made. Many others in the black community took to social media to excoriate Lemon’s remarks.

We need to take time to applaud Don Lemon, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Cosby, Ben Carson and every leader who risks ridicule and calls garbage trash and not treasure. As a Christian black man, I refuse to be defined by art forms that dehumanize others. My creative expressions are honed only by my Christian worldview. A proper understanding of that worldview enriches others, embraces healthy cultural expression and celebrates ethnic differences.

Let's Talk Race

What was intended to be a simple hospital visit, turned out to be anything but simple. I was visiting a member of my congregation who was seriously ill. I was not very familiar with the surrounding area in Minneapolis, so two friends accompanied me. The patient, her husband, my friends and I were engaging in small talk at the bedside when a male nurse entered and addressed me specifically.

“Who are you?” he asked. To which I answered by giving my name. He proceeded to ask, “And what are you doing here?” Before I had a chance to respond, the husband of the patient answered that I was their pastor. With that, the nurse left the room.

We looked at each other baffled at what had just happened. We were baffled because, of the four persons in the room, I was the only one who was black. Because of the severity of the illness and the tension the white nurse created, no one dared discuss what had just happened. 

It was on our way to the car, my two friends steered the conversation to what had just taken place. They were confident that they had just witnessed a display of racial prejudice. They were so disgusted and embarrassed that they offered to support me in whatever way I chose to respond to the matter.

More than 15 years have gone since that incident, and although it never altered my sense of worth as someone of value, the memories of bigotry have not left me. Unless one has experienced racial prejudice, one is not fully disposed to understanding it.

Prejudice is a bias, favoring or opposing something based on personal opinion or feelings. It means to "pre-judge" or to make an assumption beforehand without any knowledge, factual reason, or objective consideration. It is an unjustified or incorrect attitude (usually negative) towards an individual based solely on the individual’s race, gender or disposition.

Racial prejudice is the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others. It is those feelings of superiority that cause some ethnic groups to feel entitled to discriminate against other groups that are different. 

Historically, these feelings of superiority have been influential in establishing institutions that protect and advance varying forms of prejudice. Thankfully, with increasing ethnic diversity and academic opportunities, many of these color structures are dying.

Isn’t it ironic that we appreciate variety in the colors of the rainbow, in nature, in floral arrangements and interior designs? However, when it comes to fellow human beings, we discriminate. Have you ever heard of a hospital advertising for blood from black, white or Hispanic donors?

It is equally ridiculous to believe, that although the best dressed among my colleagues at the hospital, my skin color disqualified me from visiting a patient. In a carefully worded letter I expressed my disgust to the hospital administration. The hospital called to verify the authenticity of the letter and promised to investigate the matter. The process of enquiry was as pathetic as the conclusion reached.

Among the options available to me, I knew my reaction had to be guided by my Christian worldview and not my ethnicity. In addition, I was not prepared to affirm someone else’s warped understanding of superiority with any uncivilized reaction. Like the apostle Paul, when imprisoned for no cause, he used his incarceration as a platform to advance the cause of Jesus Christ. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. was no different. When beaten and imprisoned for righteousness, he refused to resort to violence. He even dissociated from others who felt violence was justified. Dr. King was determined to be guided by his Christian convictions and not by what his alleged superiors expected. Hence, when he is remembered today he is referred to as a godly leader and not a militant filled with hate.

Racial and social prejudices are not contemporary phenomena. In his New Testament epistle, James confronted prejudice. Simply put, he said, “...don’t show favoritism” (James 2:1). James went on to remind his readers that “God has chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith...”

In Galatians the apostle Paul challenged Peter for being prejudicial in his treatment of Gentile Christians. Paul contended, “...as for those who seemed to be important-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance...” (Galatians 2:6).

The same should be said of Christians today – we should not judge by external appearance. To me it is sad when one’s claim to superiority is only skin deep.

Innocent or Not-Guilty?

Within recent days the nation has been divided on hearing the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial. Much of the reaction however, does not concern the trial. Many used the trial as a metaphor, or as a mirror of other national issues. Some of these would include gun control legislation, racism, civil rights or even Florida’s “stand your ground law”.

The 27 pages of jury instructions reminded the six jurors of what the case was all about. It was not about who killed Trayvon Martin. Rather, it was about the reason for killing Martin. The jury was told if they had any reasonable doubt on whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.

According to the judge's instructions, "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person ... would have believed the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force."

The jury was never asked to declare Zimmerman to be innocent. Innocence presupposes blamelessness or freedom from moral wrong. In addition, innocence implies the absence of evil intent. To declare someone to be innocent requires knowledge no court of law possesses.

In order to come to a reasonable conclusion the court required truth. One reason that could not be determined was because one of the two witnesses was dead. In his absence, attempts at determining truth required various branches of forensic science. From this scientific evidence, the court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, and as such, Zimmerman could not be held liable on the charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

In order to determine if justice was served, one must ask the hard questions. The judicial system was not designed to take revenge. Rather, it was intended to ensure a just outcome, based on available facts.

The prosecution had the responsibility to present those facts. The prosecution also had the responsibility to share those facts with the defense. The prosecution should never attempt to withhold information that could influence the outcome of a case. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution sent the case to the judge, and attempted to willfully withhold exculpatory evidence. Interestingly, the Director of Information Technology who disclosed what was happening has since been fired by the Florida State Attorney’s Office.

According to Harvard Professor of Law, Alan M. Dershowitz, “The prosecutors denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations. Prosecutors violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team.”

The American legal system is one of the best in the world - however, it is not perfect. Like in the case with the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial, those who use the system try to manipulate the system for political and financial gains.

Every civil system operates on an assumption of truth. To undermine truth is to undermine reality. Hence, to swear and then fail to tell the truth is perjury – a felonious act, which can result in a miscarriage of justice. Other than its mention in the Ten Commandments, the Bible speaks strongly against perjury (The false witness will not go unpunished; no one who utters lies will go free Proverbs 19:5). For this, I believe both the prosecution and the defense will be held accountable.

Since the not-guilty verdict, there has been much hostility and requests for a civil trial. Within the American legal system that route can be pursued. I believe the outcome of such a trial might bring about some healing in the nation. It is best when civil outrage can be addressed in a court of law, rather than on the streets, as persists in many countries.

However, I long to see similar outrage about the other killings. In the 513 days between the death of Trayvon Martin, and the George Zimmerman verdict, more than 11,000 African Americans were murdered by other African-Americans. As a matter of fact, almost 22 African-Americans are killed every day in America. And that is separate from the 1,875 black babies that are aborted daily.

In these killing fields of America there ought to be outrage and a refocusing on the message of wholesome living offered by Jesus. It was He who said, “I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life that they ever dreamed of” (John 10:10 – The Message).

Egyptian Christianity

From time to time I come across people who refer to Christianity as “the white man’s religion.” Such persons know very little history. Africa has had a greater influence on Christianity than many Western countries. Doctrinal definitions of orthodoxy like the Trinity, emerged through a process that began in Africa, and more specifically in Egypt.

Out of the African ethos came a great hunger to follow the consensus of the New Testament canonical writers. The New Testament was written all around the Mediterranean, but the canonization process took place as a result of decisions taken in Africa. Even the Old Testament Jesus used was translated in Africa (The Septuagint – a Greek translation).

From its inception, Christianity was nurtured on the African continent. The Middle East and African origins of Christianity emphasized the communal nature of the Christian faith - so unlike the individualism that is prevalent in today’s American Christianity.

In the early centuries of Christianity, it was the Africans who understood what it meant to die for the faith. Their sacrificial lifestyles, models of mutual care, and pursuit of spiritual community continue to teach us in these days of compromise and “easy believe-ism”.

The great tradition of philosophy and theological scholarship that distinguished Alexandria in the age of Origen and Clement was swept away by the invasion of Islam in the seventh century, while elsewhere in North Africa, Christianity left only relics and fading memories as Muslim forces moved in to assert control.

However, because of the rural roots of Coptic Christianity in Egypt, many believers escaped the barbarianism of the Muslims. “Coptic” means “Egyptian,” and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians.

As a denomination, they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 - A.D. 62.

This is the same Coptic Church that has been in the news recently and had been persecuted by former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s Islamic regime. It was this Islamic regime that openly persecuted Coptic Christians with impunity.

Egypt’s Christians have celebrated the Egyptian Army’s decision to force president Morsi out of power and set up a new government, after some

30 million Egyptians took to the streets to demand Morsi’s ouster. The June 30 protests sponsored by the Tamarod (“Rebel”) movement are being called the largest mass demonstration in world history.

The fall from power of former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood could prove a decisive moment for the future of Coptic Christianity in Egypt. Since the Muslim Brotherhood took power, the situation of Egypt’s Christians had deteriorated rapidly. Not only had attacks on Christian communities rapidly increased under Morsi, but churches had been attacked or bombed.

In an unprecedented move, Islamists besieged St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, the heart of Coptic Orthodoxy, in broad daylight. More than 500 Christian women were kidnapped to face forced conversion, rape or forced marriage. Under the authoritarian rule of the former regime, Christians in Egypt experienced the worst suffering in more than sixty years.

Egypt is still in crisis, in that having been ousted, the Muslim Brotherhood has instigated protests and refuses to sit at the table to form an interim government. The willingness of Christians to discuss an interim government with the military is now cause for further targeting by radical Islamists.

In the early centuries of Christianity, Egypt gave the world great thinkers like Clement, Origen and Athanasius – today, our brothers and sisters in Egypt need our help. Actually, we need their help also. We need to understand and appreciate more of what it means to live in community as believers. The challenges of post-modernism require less cerebral and more demonstrative Christianity.

That demonstrative Christianity was what Paul encouraged when Christians were suffering in Jerusalem. He challenged the churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Corinth to provide practical assistance to those who pioneered the faith (See 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:5).

If you would care to know more about the impact of African Christianity, here are two helpful resources you may want to access: www.worldwatchlist.us and Thomas Oden’s volume – How Africa Shaped The Christian Mind (exploring the role of African Christians and theologians in shaping the doctrines and practices of the church in the first 500 years).

Redefining Marriage

The recent rulings by the US Supreme Court marked a confusing day for the institution of marriage in America. The decisions are complex and will take days for legal analysts to understand the full implications. What we do know is that both good and bad have come from the court’s decisions.

In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, the court approved federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states which have adopted homosexual marriages.

In the California Proposition Eight case, the Supreme Court did not overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions. The Court also did not force one standard upon all the states but instead respected the rights of states to define marriage. Thankfully, the Court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they may have done.

One of the things the Supreme Court also did was to open the door for dialog about marriage and other familial arrangements. As a Christian, the Court has challenged me to re-examine marriage and other familial arrangements in the Bible.

In the Bible, marriage contracts and arrangements come in different shapes and forms across cultures. For instance, in Genesis we read where Abraham got married to Sarah, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). In addition, Abraham’s son Isaac, got married to his first cousin (Genesis 24:15). Sometime later, Jacob, Isaac’s son, got married to two sisters, both his cousins (Genesis 29:10).

These practices describe what anthropologists often refer to as polygeny (births through ancestral relationships) and tribal endogamy (marrying only within one’s tribe). Interestingly, many of the marriage customs of American aborigines run parallel with those of the biblical patriarchs. 

Both in Genesis and later Old Testament texts, polygamy (having many wives) was also practiced. However, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul expected church leaders to be the husbands of one wife. In attempting to establish a norm for marriage, Paul invited the young Christians to consider the model of Adam and Eve.

That model was one man with one wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus made a similar reference to the Adam and Eve pattern. He acknowledged the accommodations in marriage, but stressed the original intent was to bring together male and female.

Some analysts would want us to believe that the Supreme Court was similarly acknowledging accommodations in different forms of marriage. With this I must disagree. Nowhere in the Bible do we find accommodations including same sex marriage as a viable alternative. Every familial accommodation involved males and females. Same sex relationships were always renounced as deviant.

Even outside of Jewish society, same-sex relationships were rarely viewed as something noble. No culture or society in history has flourished because it welcomed the practice of same sex relationships. However, the practice of heterosexual marriage, the union of husband and wife is timeless, universal and particularly special because children flourish best with a mother and a father. Ninety-four percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In addition, every major world religion affirms marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

For such reasons I will agree with John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, when he said “no court decision or public opinion poll can affect that which is evident in biology, logic, common sense and the collective wisdom of human history.”

Similar sentiments were shared by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He contends, “Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from that union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.”

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, we appeal to every leader in America to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. This creation arrangement has always been suitable – “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 1:27).