I missed it. I did not receive a Facebook invitation to it nor did I see its location retweeted on Twitter. Despite being there three days prior, it was not stated in our Sunday morning announcements and was not repeated at Tuesday night’s bible study. But somehow I’d missed it. I’d neglected to attend one of the most seminal events in African-American history and would not have known about it lest Professor Eddie Glaude not shared it with The Huffington Post. On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, Dr. Glaude told me and several others the shocking news: The Black Church was dead.
I’d missed the funeral.
Or did I?
Dr. Glaude’s assertion that “this venerable institution as central to black life as a repository for the social and moral conscience of the nation has all but disappeared” was grounded in three points. First, Professor Glaude stated that the conservatism within The Black Church as it addresses social issues had aided in its demise. Though Glaude may suggest that The Church has taken a stance on many issues plaguing African-Americans to the detriment of the community, the research shows that is not the case. In his work, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam states that the American religious communities spend between $15 to $20 billion dollars annually on social service activities and that African-American congregations have been, and continue to be, trailblazers in combining spiritual and social responsibilities for the overall enhancement of the community. Additionally, after engaging in The National Congregations Study, Mark Chaves found that churched in low-income areas performed more social services activities than others and African-American churches are more likely to participate in specific types of social initiatives such as health, education, domestic violence, substance abuse, tutoring/mentoring and job assistance. Within academia, there is an extensive rolodex of scholars of who have committed themselves to investigating the social impact of The Black Church on the African-American community and have found it to be in the trenches, engaged in all levels of development. However, one does not need to peruse academic journals to become acquainted with involvement. From the church with a thriving AIDS Ministry in North Carolina to the church that owns a halfway house in California, Black Churches in every corner of the United States have been and continue to avail themselves as conduits of change.
Secondly, Professor Glaude maintained that the African-American community had evolved past the notion of a single establishment being its epicenter. He would submit that churches now share the stage with “vibrant non-religious institutions and beliefs” and that Black pastors now compete with successful White pastors for members. This is not new. In the same tone that slaves and recently freedmen did not attend Black Churches for fear of retaliation, today’s Black family attends a multicultural and/or nondenominational church led by a White pastor because of its more holistic approach. Yet, The Black Church remains here for them today as it was for the fearful Negro of yesterday. The Black Church is not ignorant to the fact that there is no single Black experience and the term itself expresses this. When Lincoln and Mamiya coined the phrase in 1990 to place all seven of the major African-American denominations under one umbrella, it was not to eliminate or negate that the experiences of each differed. However, it was to assert that, though varied, these denominations would face many of the same challenges by virtue of being comprised of and working with the oppressed. No matter how far the African-American community progresses, The Black Church will be central to that. Religious waves and fades of participation have been a part of the spiritual fabric of our country. The question should not be posed to The Black Church as what will it do as more members seek guidance from Joel Osteen, Rick Warren and Jentzen Franklin. The question should be posed to those members who left the Ship of Zion. They should be asked how can they resolve to continue membership in churches that do not work to uplift the communities in which they live.
Lastly, Professor Glaude implied that we were witnessing the “routinization of black prophetic witness”- suggesting that, by virtue of The Black Church’s existence, its necessity is inherent. I question if this is a bad thing. When John Blassinggame described the Black Church as one of the community’s most enduring institutions in 1974, it was not hypothetical. When it was the only place one could find refuge from the master’s whip, The Black Church- in its infancy- stood for freedom. When it housed the Civil Rights Movement, The Black Church- as it began to mature- was our rock. Without The Black Church, we would have not understood the importance of gaining an identity that encompassed religious commitment and social responsibility. The Black Church was and is necessary. It proves its necessity when a mother, after losing her son to violence, can sit on a pew, hear a sermon and hymn and be comforted. It proves its necessity when a man, recently released from prison, can talk to the pastor and receive an opportunity for gainful employment from his recommendation. The beauty of a thing becoming routine is that it continues to become standard practice. When it comes to the social progression of our community, The Black Church should appreciate uniformity.
Finally, in his critique, Professor Glaude paints the bleak picture of Black America and asks “What will be the role of prophetic black churches on the national stage under these conditions?” My question in response: “Does it matter what churches do on the national stage if they’re performing effectively on the local one?” While not even I can ignore the conditions that affect African-Americans in disproportionate amounts, I do not believe that the solution to reducing those numbers is agreeing upon a unified agenda brought forth from an anointed national Black community Messiah and his disciples. Radical change must always begin locally. Even Jesus recognized this. Though His plan was to completely abolish the old rule and system, He did so by interacting with and changing the mindset of the people. Perhaps if many of those who call for Black Church reform would assist in it, the desire to see it move to the national stage would not exist.
But they would have to help us.
Many took Professor Glaude to task for engaging in a critique of The Black Church without being a member of one and/or assisting in its evolution and progression. They were correct. Critique cannot exist without accountability. Though Professor Glaude is clear in establishing himself as a philosopher, too many people have allowed the Black Community, and all its components, to be the place where they provided theory but no application. It cannot afford to have its native son advance this practice. The Black Church must be loved enough to be infiltrated by those who see its potential and will work to aid it transition into even greater power.
Is The Black Church dead? Of course not. Is it even dying? Not at all. But it is sick. Though The Black Church continues to be the greatest social welfare agency in it communities, the sustained impact of The Church’s involvement needs to be encouraged. As we adjust to life in this new millennium, The Church will have to adapt. Where it was fighting growth before, it must surrender. The theology taught in many of today's Black Churches must also be challenged. Too much of Black clergy are selectively and insufficiently preaching, leading to greater spiritual and social deficits among membership. Most importantly, the continued sexism in The Black Church must be questioned. When Black women can comprise over 85% of the congregation but less than 15% of its leadership, there is a problem. The Black Church is not without its obstacles. However, those that Professor Glaude put forth are not it. But just as willing as The Church needs to be open to critique, those who critique must be willing to work alongside those already committed to its growth and further it.
So when I’m asked why I didn’t attend The Black Church’s funeral, the answer is simple. There wasn’t one.
©Candice M. Benbow, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Paying It Backward: Why The Church Doesn't Have Window Seats
A lover of liberation theology, I love when The Church tackles the issues that have plagued our communities for decades and continue to impede on it. Christ challenged world systems, the status quo and commissioned us to do the same. Inherent, also, in this mandate was a commitment to holiness, righteousness and accountability. It is our responsibility to esteem each other in the faith, speak the truth in love and not deviate from His standard of living. To encourage us in doing so, many turn (and rightfully so) to The Church. It is there, many begin to understand just how their steps are ordered. The Church has a responsibility to assist its members (and those who may never join) in learning how to rightfully divide the word of truth. Yet, when truth is not spoken in The Church, adhering to this mandate can become problematic.
A little over a week ago, Erykah Badu released her video for her latest single “Window Seat”. In it, she walks down Dealy Plaza in Dallas, Texas (the same route President John Kennedy took before his assassination) and strips nude. On her back is written the word “Evolve”. When she gets to the place where President Kennedy was assassinated, she is completely naked and symbolically shot down. Erykah stated that her video was meant to challenge Groupthink Theory, which asserts that individuals will surrender their identity to conform to the group’s beliefs and agenda. Those beliefs and agenda are not necessarily in the group’s best interest but enable to it to reach an unanimous decision and (possibly) further one or more group members’ personal agendas. As a Sociologist, I think Groupthink Theories is one of the accurate and consistent theories available and can be seen everywhere: from family, to education and even The Church. Groupthink is damaging because it does not allow for the beauty of individuality to inform processes for the better. So, did I understand Ms. Badu’s “message” in the video? Yep. I got it.
However, I am not naïve. Erykah Badu intentionally releasing this video days before her album hit stores was one part marketing strategy. In a time where the music industry is suffering and every little bit helps Soundscan and bank accounts, I doubt she didn’t think all this talk about the video would generate buzz around the album and translate into more sales. However, despite recognizing how much of a marketing genius she was for the timing of “Window Seat”, I can’t help but look at the social irresponsibility of it all. Do I think that same message could have been conveyed differently? Yes. Does it mean the message didn't get across? Nope. We got it. But it was, using the Dr. Huxtable’s analogy when Vanessa brought Dabnus Brickey home, the difference between the porterhouse being one a plate or garbage can lid. Following her tweets, a few interviews and blog posts, I don't even believe she's at all comfortable with the delivery because she's trying too hard to sell and justify it. It is what it is and let it be. I do feel she was negligent for "evolving" with kids walking down the street with their parents though. She even tweeted she hoped the kids would not be too traumatized by what they saw. Have we gotten so consumed with our own desire for pseudo freedom that we force others to engage in it with us? How do we reconcile the images we provide our children? No, “Window Seat” was not “Tip Drill 2.0” but how do we explain the difference? Do our daughters have to remove their clothes, for any reason and at any time, to assert to the world that they are free? Of course not. I love Erykah Badu. To this day, I still bump Mama’s Gun and “Honey” will forever be my “It’s finally summer” anthem. However, I can’t ride with Badu on this one. She was wrong…
…and apparently criminal. The Dallas Police Department has charged Erykah Badu with disorderly conduct and she was levied a fine of $500. I thought it seemed fair. She broke the law and should pay the consequences. Imagine my surprise when I see a tweet from a popular pastor to Ms. Badu on Sunday (April 4) afternoon stating his church agreed to pay her fine. The pastor tweeted earlier that he’d be preaching about her video. I was excited; I hope that it would speak truth in love and encourage all Believers to not look to worldly outlets to embrace our individuality. When he said his church was going to pay her fine, I got confused. Through Twitter, I asked him why. He responded and told me to look at the sermon on YouTube to understand. I did. I watched all five videos. I still don’t understand.
Now I have followed this pastor’s ministry down through the years. He preached a sermon that got me through undergrad and just a few years ago, a sermon of his ushered in a defining moment for me. I’ve purchased his books and several sermons so I am no stranger to having a window seat (pun intended) to his ministry. I’ve supported him. Still, this sermon hurt as much as it offended. Now, given the start of the first video I can't tell you the text his sermon came from, though he did reference scripture. However, I can tell you that he begins by asserting that because we have embraced European standards and embrace an enslaved mentality, we reject images of Black beauty. He spoke to the oppression of African American women, not only in the communities but in the Church and that Erykah’s walk down Dealy Plaza was one in which she fully embraced being made in the image and likeness of God and ignored those who jeered. He spoke of the misogynistic images of women purported by entertainment and the media and did not understand how we could sway to the likes of Foxy Brown, Lil Kim and Trina but condemn Ms. Badu for “Window Seat”. While there were numerous points in his sermon that made me pause and cringe (I will never get/accept/cosign on that crucifixion analogy), the pastor posed a somewhat rhetorical question to those who did not approve of the video. He asked how can you think some is vulgar that reflects and is a mirrored image of what you look like and who you are?
While I understand the need to embrace and believe in who you are, I also understand that, as Believers, God has given us a blueprint in doing so. Do I want my daughter to be self assured? Of course. But do I want her to believe the only she can become that is by tossing her bra by the manhole? Of course not. I want her to be confident in the fact that she’s been transformed because her mind is renewed. She recognized that when she set her mind on things above and began secure in God’s plan for her, she didn’t need to make outward statements because her inward commitment manifested itself.
He stated that if this had been a White artist, agencies would have stepped up to her defense. He offered to pay her $500 fine because he said someone needed to stand with Erykah and asked the question “How many people are willing to pay your penalty?” I agreed, in part. I do think The Church needs to extend its love to Erykah but in the same manner that Jesus extended it to the woman who was caught in the act of adultery. After Jesus convicted the angry mob to realize their own sin and they walked away without stoning her, Jesus asked her where her accusers had gone and was there anyone there to condemn her. When she responded that there was no one, Jesus told her He wouldn’t condemn her either. And then He told her to “go and sin no more”. Jesus stood with her even while telling her that what she did was wrong. We need that kind of message. No amount of self assurance can excuse righteousness. And we certainly shouldn’t be paying for it. I would hope that The Church would see the importance and more empowering message in investing an additional $500 in programs that teach our children than paying the fine of someone who traumatizes them. Can we help pay the penalties of those who can’t afford to pay their own? If The Church is willing to pay the fines of a celebrity, the parking tickets of a college sophomore should be considered benevolence, as well.
We are unfortunately living in a time when truth is considered treason. I don’t want my sin to be celebrated. I want to be challenged to live holy. I love my dear sister Erykah and she had the *right* to make that video (and suffer the legal and social consequences). But who will be brave enough to remind her that just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should? Who will, in love, tell her that her freedom doesn’t need to be confirmed if she’s been freed by the Son? Who, without fear, will say to her that if she commits to dying daily, she won’t need a window seat because she’ll be living in peace and overflow? Who will say to our leadership that we want more than catch phrases to help get us free? Who will encourage them to be more concerned with purity than popularity? Who will ask them to preach the absolute Word of God?
I believe in accountability. Inherent in accountability should be correction and love. Accountability without correction is passivity and accountability without love is hypocrisy. I want God’s best for all of us. But that will take a commitment to living out His mandates, walking in His truth, abiding in His love. We can’t do that if we’re bound to false senses of freedom and suspect doctrine.
Get free…in Him.
…and walk where you want- covered by His grace, favor, liberty, wisdom…and any other freedom garment available at Macy’s.
@CMB, 2010
A little over a week ago, Erykah Badu released her video for her latest single “Window Seat”. In it, she walks down Dealy Plaza in Dallas, Texas (the same route President John Kennedy took before his assassination) and strips nude. On her back is written the word “Evolve”. When she gets to the place where President Kennedy was assassinated, she is completely naked and symbolically shot down. Erykah stated that her video was meant to challenge Groupthink Theory, which asserts that individuals will surrender their identity to conform to the group’s beliefs and agenda. Those beliefs and agenda are not necessarily in the group’s best interest but enable to it to reach an unanimous decision and (possibly) further one or more group members’ personal agendas. As a Sociologist, I think Groupthink Theories is one of the accurate and consistent theories available and can be seen everywhere: from family, to education and even The Church. Groupthink is damaging because it does not allow for the beauty of individuality to inform processes for the better. So, did I understand Ms. Badu’s “message” in the video? Yep. I got it.
However, I am not naïve. Erykah Badu intentionally releasing this video days before her album hit stores was one part marketing strategy. In a time where the music industry is suffering and every little bit helps Soundscan and bank accounts, I doubt she didn’t think all this talk about the video would generate buzz around the album and translate into more sales. However, despite recognizing how much of a marketing genius she was for the timing of “Window Seat”, I can’t help but look at the social irresponsibility of it all. Do I think that same message could have been conveyed differently? Yes. Does it mean the message didn't get across? Nope. We got it. But it was, using the Dr. Huxtable’s analogy when Vanessa brought Dabnus Brickey home, the difference between the porterhouse being one a plate or garbage can lid. Following her tweets, a few interviews and blog posts, I don't even believe she's at all comfortable with the delivery because she's trying too hard to sell and justify it. It is what it is and let it be. I do feel she was negligent for "evolving" with kids walking down the street with their parents though. She even tweeted she hoped the kids would not be too traumatized by what they saw. Have we gotten so consumed with our own desire for pseudo freedom that we force others to engage in it with us? How do we reconcile the images we provide our children? No, “Window Seat” was not “Tip Drill 2.0” but how do we explain the difference? Do our daughters have to remove their clothes, for any reason and at any time, to assert to the world that they are free? Of course not. I love Erykah Badu. To this day, I still bump Mama’s Gun and “Honey” will forever be my “It’s finally summer” anthem. However, I can’t ride with Badu on this one. She was wrong…
…and apparently criminal. The Dallas Police Department has charged Erykah Badu with disorderly conduct and she was levied a fine of $500. I thought it seemed fair. She broke the law and should pay the consequences. Imagine my surprise when I see a tweet from a popular pastor to Ms. Badu on Sunday (April 4) afternoon stating his church agreed to pay her fine. The pastor tweeted earlier that he’d be preaching about her video. I was excited; I hope that it would speak truth in love and encourage all Believers to not look to worldly outlets to embrace our individuality. When he said his church was going to pay her fine, I got confused. Through Twitter, I asked him why. He responded and told me to look at the sermon on YouTube to understand. I did. I watched all five videos. I still don’t understand.
Now I have followed this pastor’s ministry down through the years. He preached a sermon that got me through undergrad and just a few years ago, a sermon of his ushered in a defining moment for me. I’ve purchased his books and several sermons so I am no stranger to having a window seat (pun intended) to his ministry. I’ve supported him. Still, this sermon hurt as much as it offended. Now, given the start of the first video I can't tell you the text his sermon came from, though he did reference scripture. However, I can tell you that he begins by asserting that because we have embraced European standards and embrace an enslaved mentality, we reject images of Black beauty. He spoke to the oppression of African American women, not only in the communities but in the Church and that Erykah’s walk down Dealy Plaza was one in which she fully embraced being made in the image and likeness of God and ignored those who jeered. He spoke of the misogynistic images of women purported by entertainment and the media and did not understand how we could sway to the likes of Foxy Brown, Lil Kim and Trina but condemn Ms. Badu for “Window Seat”. While there were numerous points in his sermon that made me pause and cringe (I will never get/accept/cosign on that crucifixion analogy), the pastor posed a somewhat rhetorical question to those who did not approve of the video. He asked how can you think some is vulgar that reflects and is a mirrored image of what you look like and who you are?
While I understand the need to embrace and believe in who you are, I also understand that, as Believers, God has given us a blueprint in doing so. Do I want my daughter to be self assured? Of course. But do I want her to believe the only she can become that is by tossing her bra by the manhole? Of course not. I want her to be confident in the fact that she’s been transformed because her mind is renewed. She recognized that when she set her mind on things above and began secure in God’s plan for her, she didn’t need to make outward statements because her inward commitment manifested itself.
He stated that if this had been a White artist, agencies would have stepped up to her defense. He offered to pay her $500 fine because he said someone needed to stand with Erykah and asked the question “How many people are willing to pay your penalty?” I agreed, in part. I do think The Church needs to extend its love to Erykah but in the same manner that Jesus extended it to the woman who was caught in the act of adultery. After Jesus convicted the angry mob to realize their own sin and they walked away without stoning her, Jesus asked her where her accusers had gone and was there anyone there to condemn her. When she responded that there was no one, Jesus told her He wouldn’t condemn her either. And then He told her to “go and sin no more”. Jesus stood with her even while telling her that what she did was wrong. We need that kind of message. No amount of self assurance can excuse righteousness. And we certainly shouldn’t be paying for it. I would hope that The Church would see the importance and more empowering message in investing an additional $500 in programs that teach our children than paying the fine of someone who traumatizes them. Can we help pay the penalties of those who can’t afford to pay their own? If The Church is willing to pay the fines of a celebrity, the parking tickets of a college sophomore should be considered benevolence, as well.
We are unfortunately living in a time when truth is considered treason. I don’t want my sin to be celebrated. I want to be challenged to live holy. I love my dear sister Erykah and she had the *right* to make that video (and suffer the legal and social consequences). But who will be brave enough to remind her that just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should? Who will, in love, tell her that her freedom doesn’t need to be confirmed if she’s been freed by the Son? Who, without fear, will say to her that if she commits to dying daily, she won’t need a window seat because she’ll be living in peace and overflow? Who will say to our leadership that we want more than catch phrases to help get us free? Who will encourage them to be more concerned with purity than popularity? Who will ask them to preach the absolute Word of God?
I believe in accountability. Inherent in accountability should be correction and love. Accountability without correction is passivity and accountability without love is hypocrisy. I want God’s best for all of us. But that will take a commitment to living out His mandates, walking in His truth, abiding in His love. We can’t do that if we’re bound to false senses of freedom and suspect doctrine.
Get free…in Him.
…and walk where you want- covered by His grace, favor, liberty, wisdom…and any other freedom garment available at Macy’s.
@CMB, 2010
Nathan K(NOW)ledge
I knew what God would call me to do would be as unique and unreserved as I am. I figured it would utilize my outgoing nature and ability to not back down from anyone or anything as its fuel. As I thought about my purpose, when I was younger, I assumed I would be a successful attorney fighting for justice and equality, taking down corrupt judges and prosecutors. As I got older, I began to see His plan for me evolve into the more academic arena: equipping the next generation of leaders. But as I began to mature in Him (big difference), I recognized that my purpose included a great deal of all what I previously thought and then some.
Three times in my life (that I can remember), specifically recently, I’ve been referred to as a “Nathan” for this time. Once, a friend had been praying for me and called me with that revelation. Next, I had a dream in which a man I’d never seen before told me I was to the Church what Nathan was to David. Lastly, a lady at my favorite local Christian bookstore told me that “Boaz” would have no problem handling my “Nathan” because, serving in that role, is where he found and learned the most about me. (That last one threw me for a loop and I’m still, as my prayerful friend would say, “unpacking” it.)
My curiosity and desire to be educated in all things won me over and began to research Nathan and share my experiences about him (and me) with others. For so long, I only knew Nathan as the one God sent to rebuke David for the Bathsheba fiasco (2 Samuel 12), but Nathan had done so much more. God used Nathan to tell David it was time to build the temple (2 Samuel 7) and warn him of a plot to overthrow his rule (1 Kings 1). I realized that because Nathan had earned David’s respect and trust, he was able to hold David accountable. Accountability. That is what made their relationship so effective. Though Nathan was a prophet, he did not mind serving under David because he knew that his king submitted to a higher authority. And David didn’t mind heeding to the correction of Nathan because he knew that higher authority was at work in him and informed every word he uttered. They trusted the hearts of one another and believed their intentions were to solely do the will of God.
As I began to understand Nathan and David’s relationship better, my purpose became much clearer. If The Church is David and I am Nathan, we were to hold each other accountable. While The Church (specifically its leadership) was what I was to submit to, I also have a responsibility to speak, to it, the truth in love. We should appreciate a great level of respect for each other and reciprocity, considering I’m its daughter- having been committed to its teaching and necessity since birth. Accepting my call would not be challenging. Unfortunately, walking in it and being respected while doing so would be….
Three times in my life (that I can remember), specifically recently, I’ve been referred to as a “Nathan” for this time. Once, a friend had been praying for me and called me with that revelation. Next, I had a dream in which a man I’d never seen before told me I was to the Church what Nathan was to David. Lastly, a lady at my favorite local Christian bookstore told me that “Boaz” would have no problem handling my “Nathan” because, serving in that role, is where he found and learned the most about me. (That last one threw me for a loop and I’m still, as my prayerful friend would say, “unpacking” it.)
My curiosity and desire to be educated in all things won me over and began to research Nathan and share my experiences about him (and me) with others. For so long, I only knew Nathan as the one God sent to rebuke David for the Bathsheba fiasco (2 Samuel 12), but Nathan had done so much more. God used Nathan to tell David it was time to build the temple (2 Samuel 7) and warn him of a plot to overthrow his rule (1 Kings 1). I realized that because Nathan had earned David’s respect and trust, he was able to hold David accountable. Accountability. That is what made their relationship so effective. Though Nathan was a prophet, he did not mind serving under David because he knew that his king submitted to a higher authority. And David didn’t mind heeding to the correction of Nathan because he knew that higher authority was at work in him and informed every word he uttered. They trusted the hearts of one another and believed their intentions were to solely do the will of God.
As I began to understand Nathan and David’s relationship better, my purpose became much clearer. If The Church is David and I am Nathan, we were to hold each other accountable. While The Church (specifically its leadership) was what I was to submit to, I also have a responsibility to speak, to it, the truth in love. We should appreciate a great level of respect for each other and reciprocity, considering I’m its daughter- having been committed to its teaching and necessity since birth. Accepting my call would not be challenging. Unfortunately, walking in it and being respected while doing so would be….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)