Besides Peeta and Gale, Finnick is one of the most popular characters in the Hunger Games trilogy in my guesstimation. He’s young (but older than Katniss), tall, and snarky.

There’s an assortment of actors  that could land this role; recent rumors have TwiHards in the lead with Robert Pattinson (praying this won’t come to fruition).

This issue is important to a lot of people so here goes the poll; who would you, Political Jesus fan, and Hunger Gamers,

Jensen Ackles of SUPERNATURAL(TV series):

Robert Pattison of Twilight:

Alex Pettyfer of I AM NUMBER FOUR and BEASTLY

Or Maybe there is someone I forgot?

Take the poll; vote as many times as you would like!:

P.S. If I forgot to mention someone, please comment in the comment section!

I don’t want to do anything complex here, but I want to attempt to make an argument based on particularity.

There is a current trend in Biblical studies and theology, where STORY/narrative is emphasized, and that’s fine, since we have found the blind spots of historical criticism. But let us just no throw out the baby with the bath water as the cliche goes. I am beginning to think that where narrative and history collide is in the history of genres. We cannot have a story without a genre,, I don’t think, otherwise, we are just re-affirming our embedded theologies or our own personal autobiographies into the text.

I arrived at these thoughts through my second reading of The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic?, a book by Slajov Zizek and John Milbank. I find myself oddly enough agreeing alot more with Zizek, but really wanting to root for Milbank but I can’t bring myself to it. Anyhow, in Zizek’s first essay in this work, he repeatedly goes to novels that are detective mysteries, yet, he does not admit openly his preference, in this particular essay, for them. No, I am not saying Zizek is hiding behind “The Man of Universal Reason”; don’t be silly. What I am saying is that we need to start taking seriously the histories of genre, not only in the biblical text, but also those books we include in our little canons.

Scripture is a nice example of how genres are blended, so, like many postcolonial thinkers, I believe that there is no such thing as a “pure” form of one genre or another. That’s what makes science fiction all the more appealing to me, that it can change with each generation, and become more hybrid, like the appearance of more Western-themed science fiction works, or horror that is blended with romance (ala The Vampire Diaries).

Just as Christian theological reflection is rooted in the life of a man who lived his life out in time, in a specific place and history, stories, because of genre are also historically determined.

We just have to learn to admit it.

Related articles

• On Zizek, Theology, Women, and Anti-Judaism (politicaljesus.com)
• John Milbank on Traditional Marriage, Sexuality, and Late Capitalism (politicaljesus.com)

I am collecting posts on Biblical studies along with Theological studies;

Please do the following:

Submit links in COMMENTS section below;

Tweet me links at @RtRDH on Twitter;

or Email me at

miteewarrior@gmail.com

Sections will include:

Biblical interpretation, biblical hermeneutics, Trends in theology, Ethics, history, doctrine, Controversies (what’s being debated TODAY),Patristics/Early Church Mothers, Approaches to Race Relations, What’s Hot in Pop Culture, Philosophy and forthcoming books/book projects that are relevant to biblical studies/theology. Oh, yah, and that archaeology non-sense.

But, oh what, folks, shall the theme be for this month’s carnival, I haven’t the slightest idea, but maybe it has something to do with this 1 clue?:

1. If your arch-nemesis hands you a bowl of chili, make sure you ask what’s in it before you gobble it down!

First off, if Joss Whedon has taught us anything, it is that if you are not already a fan of the property, don’t make a movie about it. Take Ang Lee, for example. He made one of my favorite movies of all time, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Then he made Hulk. It is clear that Ang Lee was not a Hulk fan before the movie, because he got nearly everything wrong that a fan might hope for in a Hulk movie. In one sentence: I want the Hulk to beat the ever-loving crap out of almost everything at the climax of the movie, but what I got was the Hulk hugging a giant amoebae that was his dad or something… Fail. But I digress. Here are the bullet points for what arbitrary nonsense ruins movies:

Daredevil: Bullseye, one of the coolest villains of ALL TIME, is made Irish with a literal bulls-eye tattooed on his head. Dumb. Arbitrary.

X-men 3: Cyclops dies!!! At the beginning of the Phoenix saga!!??? Did you miss the part about the Phoenix Saga being about the love between Jean and Scott??? Prof X dies? Have you ever even read X-men? Dumb. Arbitrary.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Two words – Tom. Sawyer. Dumb. Arbitrary.

Wolverine: Taking Deadpool goes from a snarky, hilarious merc with a disfigured face to an abomination with swords for arms and his mouth sown shut. That should be enough, but Will. I. Am.?  What about adding Gambit in there in a way that made him currently like 60 years old? Dumb. Arbitrary.

Fantastic Four: Doctor Doom. Not scarred. Lame Costume. Was in the same ship as the FF? Dumb. Arbitrary.

Steel: Not related to Superman? Dumb. Arbitrary.

Catwoman: Wow. Too much to count. Not Selina Kyle? Not White? Not really clothed? Not related to Batman at all? Dumb. Arbitrary.

Batman and Robin: Nipples on batsuit? Technicolor settings in Gotham? Smiling Batman? Dumb. Arbitrary.

Superman IV: Lex Luthor with Hair? Dumb. Arbitrary.

My ire has been raised here because of the new CW show coming soon called Arrow. This show follows Oliver Queen (AKA Green Arrow) as a young person, ala Smallville. However, the supporting cast has been modified heavily. For one, it appears that Moira Queen is going to the the Lex Luthor to Ollie’s Clark. While she has never appeared in the comics, and when mentioned, she comes off looking like a saint with a killer chili recipe until she is killed protecting Ollie, now she seems like she is going to be all controlling and bring the drama. Dumb. Arbitrary.

Second, we find out Ollie has a sister, never before mentioned in the comics. Dumb. Arbitrary.

Third, we are introduced to Ollie’s long time girlfriend, Laurel Lance. AJAGHJAGAJGAHGJJAFAHF!!!!!!!! This one really gets me. In the comics, Ollie is often paired with his soul mate, the Black Canary, AKA DINAH laurel Lance. Why the change? Dumb. Arbitrary. Also, in the funny books, she and Ollie don’t meet until much after both of them have been heroes. Why change it? Dumb. Arbitrary.

Fourth, DINAH’s dad is Larry Lance in the comics, here changed to Quentin Lance (or something). Why the change? “Larry” not sound cool enough? Dumb. Arbitrary.

Last, and most irritating by far, is that everyone knows that Green Arrow’s city is STAR city. It is Gotham to Batman, Metropolis to Superman, Coast City to Green Lantern. But in the new Arrow show, they have changed the name of Ollie’s stomping ground to Starling City. Starling? Are you freaking serious? That is the dumbest sounding name ever. But why the need to change it in the first place? Did Star City just not sound lame enough for you? Dumb. Arbitrary.

So it seems that I could have done ok with any one of these changes on its own, but the dumbness and arbitrariness of the changes en masse convinces me that the CW is not in any way treating the source material with the same respect that the Smallville folks did when they engaged the Superman mythos. I’ll watch it, but I will have my critical eye opened from the get-go.

The Power of the Woman and the truth about Blindspots in A Marxist Continental Philosopher

“As the religion of genealogy, of the succession of generations, Judaism is the patriarchal religion par excellence.”-Slajov Zizek

First, I must give Zizek credit for trying to make in-roads in his latest post at ABC Religion And Ethics [linked here] to portray the religion of Islam more historically accurate. Even though his reading of Islamic states and their politics could face the critique of those familiar with Edward Said’s ORIENTALISM, “Here we can see how the best and the worst are combined in Islam. It is precisely because Islam lacks an inherent principle of institutionalization that it has proven so vulnerable to being co-opted by state power,” as if the Occident did not have states co-opting religion themselves (I am sure Zizek knows a little European church history). For the moment, I’ll lay aside my resistance to Zizek labeling Christianity as “a religion of the book” rather than a “religion of the Word” (huge difference in my opinion).

Instead, I want to carry this conversation into the realms of Christology and Judaism, which are inextricably linked forever and always. Zizek, in this blog post, as he does in his books and articles, argues that

“In Christianity, when the Son dies on the cross, the Father also dies (as Hegel maintained) – which is to say, the patriarchal order as such dies. Hence, the advent of the Holy Spirit introduces a post-paternal/familial community.”

Frederiek DePoorte in, “The End of God’s Transcendence: On Incarnation in the work of Slajov Zizek,” notes that in Scripture, God is personal, and by transcendent, it means that God is “Other than nature.” God is the Holy One Being who becomes Nothing in Zizek’s view. Zizek understands the Jewish God to be far too personal, far too involved in the matters of existence with Ya’s jealous rage at disobedience. (from ON BELIEF, cited by DePoorte). YHWH is a God of excess, “According to Žižek’s logic, one can thus conclude that, while Judaism is the religion of desire, Christianity is the religion of love.”

I find this trend highly problematic; Judaism represents everything that Christianity is not, Jesus is viewed as a political liberator outside of his 2nd Temple Jewish historical context. Zizek (who’s an atheist) reminds me of the fellow Christian I stayed up until 3am Central Standard time on Twitter arguing with. The Jews represent the Legalistic oppressors, while Jesus is freedom from patriarchy and a life guided by rules.

Amy Jill-Levine, in THE MISUNDERSTOOD JEW: THE CHURCH AND THE SCANDAL OF THE JEWISH JESUS, notes that Christian’s anti-Judaism has popularized the notion of a monolithic Judaism (yeah, ever read arguments against the New Perspective on Paul? I rest my case), one that oppressed the poor and women; that’s because it’s easier to preach Jesus stood up to the Jews rather than “a few Pharisees from Jerusalem” (pages 124-125). Levine is concerned (and I share this with her) that historical facts and context have become irrelevant in the name of identity politics and reader-response interpretations of Jewish sacred texts. Even if we ignore Zizek’s claims about Judaism, and just go with his claims about Jesus, where Jesus is stripped any notion of transcendence and the miraculous, Levine, who is Jewish, says that scholars and Christian skeptics still have run into a problem of making a distinction between Jesus and say, Hillel (120).

This is why I believe theologically that the Resurrection is just as equally important as the Incarnation, Ministry, and Death; we have Jesus who is introduced by angels who appear to two Jewish women, who in turn announce the Gospel (God’s Victory Speech) to the male disciples. YHWH choses these Mary’s to be the first two apostles. Zizek’s reading of Islam can be helpful here, for now Jews, Christians and Muslims have common ground by which to have dialogue; in Judaism and Christianity, God directly reveals Godself to women to instruct me on how to live their lives, while in Islam, it is indirectly by an angel.

“This should be emphasised: a woman possesses a knowledge about the Truth which precedes even the Prophet’s knowledge”-Zizek on Islam

“The essence of this post is to show that there is no logic in Rodney’s reply, but there is much bigotry against Caucasians who use logic, believe the Bible is God’s Word without error, and refuse to bow to the “run-of-the-mill post-modern narrative theory of truth” as Rodney calls it.”

The end.

No need to dignify a fundamentalist troll’s ignorance with a response.

I normally don’t respond to fundamentalist screeches or their accusations, but there comes time when I have to put up a post after reading the same crap against me over and over, that way this post, for example, the next time the subject comes up, I will refer only to this post, and not have to respond in full.

Now, every time I read or hear the words, “objectivity” on paper, on-line, or coming out of someone’s mouth, I immediately think Euro-centrism. That’s the name of the game without admitting context, folks, bottom-line for me. Recently, a blogger passively aggressively mentioned my comments from another blogger’s Google+ status on Truth: [Linked Here].

Here are some of my affirmations:

“Words also change meaning, Words have historical contexts and have human community from which they are brought forth, therefore words can never be purely objective. God is Truth, yes, but what sort of truth, that is the question. Is God true to God’s word, and therefore, God can be True and Faithful, that we know from Scripture.”

All of which is true, yes? So far, so good.

Continued:

“Jesus represents us Truth, and only through that Truth can we understand and read scripture. How do we know God? Revelation, yes? And who is that revelation? Christ, so Christ the Person is truth, Christ in his concrete, historical existence; therefore, the Christian idea of Truth should be different from abstract, objective propositional truth statements. It should come in the form of story.”

Not anything out of the ordinary; just run-of-the-mill post-modern narrative theory of truth to some extent.

The above mentioned blogged HAD ABSOLUTELY no rebuttal whatsoever except for call upon his precious “laws of logic” which he accused me of violating. See, now I am a criminal, even in philosophy? See how that works. Analytic philosophy has laws, criminals violate them. Handcuff me officer, put me away, throw away the keys! **faints, wipes sweat from forehead**

For some strange reason, all of these quotes put me in the category of being “uncharitable” and “a liberal.” I have figured out something. When a fundamentalist or conservative calls me uncharitable, I take it now as them saying that I don’t give their opinions the light of day, and have the ability to offer rebuttals they just cannot answer, that they have no choice but to resort to personal attacks. Where have I called these fundamentalists names? In fact, even the fact I am using the word fundamentalist is because it is THEIR chosen label, not mine. Furthermore, my posts against fundamentalist epistemologies such as “Presuppositionalism” only state the awkward positions that famous racist presuppositionalists such as R.J. Rushdoony have held: see me on Presuppositionalism and Segregation [linked here]. My purpose is to show the Christian presuppositionalism is really a merri-go-round epistemology, which places epistemology over and against all else, and then places God second or third. Following the “LAWS OF PHALLUS, I MEAN, LOGIC” means following a rather circular logic that leads down the path of uncritical thinking, anti-intellectuallism, and reactionary politics. No siree. No thank you!

This is not the first time, and I am sure it won’t be the last time, that a fundamentalist anti-intellectual has accused me of not following the “law of contradiction.” May I ask a question, if I may? Who set up this law? Who voted you to enforce this law? That’s all I ask. In the spirit of the police officer in Marvel’s The Avengers who asked Captain America, “Why should I take orders from you?,” I ask, WHO ARE YOU? Especially the fundamentalist blog I linked to in this post is a questionable authority on “rationality” and “logic” at best, when he is given to emotional rants against historical criticism and evolutionary science.

The fact of the matter is this; It is this fundamentalist who has forgotten the source of truth. If you find the inventor of the Law of Noncontradiction, you will see it’s not god, but Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates. Are they god? Nope. Speaking of rationality, I find the term highly problematic, especially in this fundamentalist’s usage of it. For centuries, good Christians have used rationality as THE definition of God’s image in humanity, to separate us from animals. The likes of Thomas Aquinas, among others; my problem is that this definition is very limited, and excludes special needs persons. Plus, this exclusive view of rationality/the divine image in us all has been used to justify oppression; people who have been seen as not rational as Europeans (hint hint hint) were to be subjected to European colonial rule. Exclusivist European Rationality is a very imperialist mode of thinking.

Next, on the verifiability of The Law of Noncontradiction, on whether this law exists or not, there is neither proof nor denial that it exists anyhow, and like all MANmade laws, this “LAW” is a human construct, like language is as I argued above. Language is a social construct, and so are our laws. The exclusive use of logic is a self-defeating one, lending itself towards insanity at best, and oppression at worst. All logic must have a background, a community with language rules and games from which it comes forth. Without it, human beings will see themselves as infinitely powerful to rule over others, ala the reign of European rationality in the Academy. Using ONE! SHORT, and completely and utterly UNRELATED! Bible passage, proof-texting as usual, is not going to convince me of the validity of YOUR law of non-contradiction. I live with paradox everyday, and I am fine with it, because God is all sufficient and that is all I need.

Now, ON TO THE TRUTH!:

In the Gospels, Jesus says that He is the Truth (John 14:6)–the entire physical anatomy of a second-century Jew in all of His being makes that claim, and more importantly, says that “The truth shall set you free (John 8:32).” Truth and freedom are united as one in Christ. The “law” of non-contradiction and Euro-centric rationalities are bound up in oppressions and exclusivisms that fail under Christ Jesus’ standard. The notion that laws of logic are absolute and are not to be questioned is itself an anti-intellectual endeavor. Shutting down debate before there can be a conversation? Oh, wait, I forgot I was talking about Fundamentalists here. Scott Lencke’s comments to the fundamentalist in question [linked here] are telling of the convo we had on Google+; Scott gets it right on the money! THIS!—->:

“But an epistemology – how we know the things we know – that requires objective truth as the only foundation for which we can ultimately know God, at least for me, fails to take in the reality of how God has chosen to communicate to us.”

Yup, fundamentalists deny God’s own freedom of choice, to use particular histories and specific bodies IN time to tell God’s story.

“Nobody has a monopoly on truth, neither the leader nor the militant. The search for truth in local situations is the responsibility of the community.”-Frantz Fanon, Wretched OF the Earth

“Truth liberates by placing beings in communion.” John Zizioulas, Being As Communion

Oh, and hey, I just cited 2 bible passages, that more than the 1 prooftext that the fundamentalist used. See, I can haz Da Byble.

Less than 2 weeks ago, I posted on Deane Gilbreathe and Larry Hurtado’s differences when it comes to religious scholarship. [linked here] I sided with Deane, and now I have come to back up my comments, clarify them, and respond to my experience of a brain fart when reading Ben Witherington III’s latest post in support of Hurtado “Academic Freedom and Evangelical Seminaries”: Linked here

I am now thoroughly confused because all of my life conservatives and evangelicals alike have told me that my work was subjective and should receive scrutiny for not being objectively true. Now, BW3 is telling me that as a conservative evangelical, this community cares not anymore that a scholar is objective or not, only that they affirm the conservative evangelical belief system(s). And I quote from BW3,

“The life of the believing scholar’s mind can be fragile, and more to the point a scholar needs to be able to pursue the evidence wherever it leads. If it leads somewhere that leaves him in a quandry, then things should be discussed. If it leads somewhere where the person thinks the faith statement is not well grounded in the Bible in some respect, then that should be discussed. But it is important that a scholar be allowed to explore various ideas and interpretations of things as he or she seeks to understand God’s Word better. Often some avenues of interpretation that at first look promising, are not.For the believing scholar in any case the search should be for what is true, not what is new, and when I say true I mean historically true, theologically true, ethically true. etc.”

Um, pardon? Just how is the Christian’s [read: white conservative male evangelical's] mind anymore fragile than the next scholar? Do conservative evangelical Christian beliefs somehow inhibit a scholar from doing thorough research? I am not trying to be disagreeable for the sake of disagreement, I am just looking for answers. As far as BW3′s commitment to what has been historically true, well, his position on women in leadership goes against that particular history or what has been theologically true in evangelicalism.

In response to commenter Charles, I think that Christian psychology is NOT confessional scholarship. I know of a conservative evangelical seminary across the street from me that is trying to purge itself from Christian counseling and psychology BECAUSE it is interdisciplinary in nature. I think that confessional scholarship HAS to preclude any cross-disciplinary approaches to religious studies, because I think that any link to knowledge between the disciplines further threatens the evangelical taboo of “secular thinkers” like Freud, Marx, and others, but especially that evil evil Marx.

I have my own clear vision of what being a scholar and Christian should be; I see myself more as a hybrid, that there can not be a “pure” way of doing Christian scholarship. Whether liberal, conservative, progressive, or moderate, or apathetic, no matter what discipline, there will always be those small group of believers who will ruffle feathers. There is no other way to insure academic responsibilism outside of administrators enforcing their interpretations of university creeds and confessions, so let’s just be honest. As a scholar, there are a variety of commitments you can be attached to, without having to be “more holier than thou.” For example, a Christian can be a scholar, pursue justice, and objectivity, and still remain in good graces of “the CHURCH.” Justice, according to the Hebrew Bible (Deuteronomy 16:20 NRSV for ex.), is fairness to all persons rich or poor in many instances, or favoring the liberation of the oppressed for the benefit of all. I think this vision of scholarship is far more viable than BW3′s and Hurtado’s ideas of “confessional scholarship.”

By the way, I just cite the Bible more than either of the two gentlemen aforementioned. Not bad for a “Non-Biblical” studies person, eh?

Well, it turns out there is another case in point that affirms my position:

Ephren Taylor, a “successful Christian” businessman with ties to Bishop Eddie Long’s New Birth is now accused of running a ponzi scheme that targeted black churches and well even Joel Olsteen’s mega church LakeWood (which has a lot of racial minorities). But of course good Christians are talking about forgiving Taylor, who has, ya know, gone into hiding after violating, oh nothing important just national laws as well as the Ten Commandments. God has no concern for justice, right? It’s all about Jesus and me, and cheap grace! Of course, these seminars and schemes are a direct result of the heresy known as the Prosperity Gospel that are killing the church. The American Dream did what racism and bigotry could not: it’s killing off U.S. American Christianity. The church is more focused on being successful rather than faithful, which is a shame.

Not to say the American Dream isn’t racist or classist either.

For more on Taylor’s crimes, see Ephren Taylor accused of 11 Million Dollar Christian Ponzi Scheme [linked here]

“You have the Blue Stick of Destiny.”

The world of comic books and the world of religion, which in my own personal context, is Christianity, have a lot of similarities. You have your political ideologues: Hawkman, he’s a conservative, and Green Arrow (yuck!) he’s a progressive liberal; Superman, according to The Optymyst, he’s moderate (I think that’s b.s., but I digress). In “The Church,” we have our conservative Bibles and books (the English Standard Version and almost every book sold at LifeWay Christian stores) as well as our “liberal” Bibles: the highly accurate New Revised Standard Version that’s seen as more gender-inclusive, and most books sold at Cokesbury stores.

When it comes to comic book movies, this gender bias is even more apparent. Last year, as we all know from the Optymyst’s review of it, DC Comics rebooted its comic book universe with the new 52, but working with Nielson, they acknowledged that this reboot ignored women comic book fans (see the post linked) for more details. AMC has even started a t.v. series, Comic Book Men, but it should really be titled Comic Book White Men.

One of things I was well aware of with Joss Whedon writing the story for Marvel’s The Avengers movie was the manly man image of the four characters, the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. In all five of the previous Avengers’ movies leading up to this one where they are actually a team, women are nothing more than mascots, serving as the girlfriends or damsels in distress (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger). Both times as I watched Avengers in theatres, it was fun to see how Whedon negotiated his preference for strong female kick-a$% protagonists (ala Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer as well as River Tam of Firefly). Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill and Scarlett Johanson as Natasha Romanov (aka Black Widow) were the typical Whedonesque strong women fighters I expected them to be. However, also Joss Whedon’s interpretation of Iron Man/Tony Stark played by Robert Downey Jr., as well as Captain America/Steve Rogers, portrayed by Chris Evans were equally provocative gender-wise, especially as it pertains to humor.  Tony Stark mocks Loki when L tries to use the alien scythe to make Stark into his personal zombie with the comment, “Performance issues are natural,” as a way of demasculinizing our foe.

The most powerful image in favor of gender equality were the screen shots of the general population of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents; in order to compensate for the four super manly men soldiers on the big screen, Joss went in the direction of representation wherever he could, and I think it works.  Unlike the comic book industry or the church, Joss knows that most of the most active participants in the Whedonite community are women.

Perhaps DC Comics, Marvel Comics, Christianity, and other religions would do well to follow Whedon’s lead and see to it that more women are placed in leadership positions.

“Ma’am. There’s only One God, and he does not dress like that!”

Related articles

• #Avengers, Religion, and Race #whedony (politicaljesus.com)
• Joss Whedon’s #Avengers and Religion #Whedony (politicaljesus.com)
• Joss Whedon On CBS Sunday Morning #whedony (politicaljesus.com)

TOWARDS AN AVENGING ASSEMBLY WE CALL CHURCH

I have often talked about the racial stereotype of the Angry Black Man, that monster black intellectuals like President Obama and Tiger Woods have tried to avoid. For many the Angry Black Man stereotype is linked forever to violence like the Los Angeles Riots in the 1990′s and gangsta rap; black men who get angry are considered a danger to the well being of society, bringers of chaos to the world order. We don’t have to go very far to see how black athletes tread the line between being passionate and wanting a friendly image. I recall a couple of years ago I presented what seemed to be from one outsider’s perspective an angry call to vengeance-filled bloody revolution because I presented on the theologies of Denmark Vesey and John Calvin, and what they meant for educating the public. Because my body has a dark brown skin tone and because I demonstrated a knowledge of my subject matter this one critic had not heard of, he assumed I was being angry Black Man and told me so, even questioning my pacifism.

Of course, anyone with good sense towards critical thinking would veer in the direction of knowing how the logic of violence and anger works and then work to understand how to cope with that rage. My rage was against institutional racism and white supremacy, things my interlocutor refuses to understand inspite of his “liberal” education.

As I was watching Marvel’s The Avengers, I observed very closely how Mark Ruffalo’s HULK was racially Othered. In fact, Bruce Banner explains to Tony Stark that he does not have a uniform or weaponized suit, but only himself, “like a nerve” he is exposed. The double-consciousness of Bruce Banner problematizes the rhetoric of freedom throughout the movie. Like W.E.B. DuBois years ago, Banner has two selves warring at each other. This is what DuBois said what it was like to be black in the United States, our histories as sufferers of enslavement struggling with the quest to become citizens in the land of the not-yet-free but always brave. The racial marginalization is further realized in the context of Nick Fury’s and S.H.I.E.L.D.’s xenophobia. One random janitor in a building Hulk has demolished asks him, “You an alien?,” which Bruce Banner exposed (literally- no clothes) quickly responds, shaking his head, “No.” When I hear this question being asked, I think about the people who currently have to hear this question, perhaps a Latino/a in Arizona who has lived here all of her life, but is subjected to questionings about her citizenship because of the color of her skin and the fact of her bilingualism.

Perhaps the Avengers can teach the Church that the raging racial minorities are needed, the iconoclasts that they are, leaving destruction in their wake. Surely temples will fall, but in Christian theology, with the fall of temples, there is Resurrection, and New Creation.

“The Lord watches over the strangers;
he upholds the orphan and the widow,
but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.”

Psalm 146:9

Speaking of widows, where does this leave the Natasha Romanoffs/The Black Widows and Agent Maria Hills in the church? More to come on Gender and The Avengers. I promise.

Related articles

• Joss Whedon’s #Avengers and Religion #Whedony (politicaljesus.com)

HOW TO WATCH COMIC BOOK MOVIES AS AN ANGRY BLACK MAN (theologian)

You know, I have been really stoked about this movie. And it didn’t disappoint. His Marky Markness,

Joel (linked here) wrote about some of the eschatology of Joss Whedon, similar to his views on CABIN IN THE WOODS. Well, as a theologian, when I watch movies, my religious ideas just do not go away as I put them up in a box somewhere. But neither do I try to find a Christ figure in every narrative. Just can’t do that. Jesus is more than a story, he’s a body, with flesh and bones.

Joss Whedon may or may not be familiar with the current debate surrounding the popularity of Calvinism in Baptist circles. Calvinism, for those unfamiliar, is a theology that insists that there is no free will, that all of our lives have been pre-determined from the beginning. Just when? Well, that’s a debate among Calvies themselves, ask them. Whedon’s philosophy is a useful ally to free will theologians, particularly, Liberationist and Open Theists. Open theists believe in free will, (many affirm) that God knows all possibilities and allows us to choose our destinies, since God is love. Love needs freedom, and that freedom is then used for free service before God, and never compulsion. Joss Whedon does know that in human history, there will always be a group of people who want to limit our freedom, in the name of “peace and unity”; people who believe that starting chaos for the sake of order will bring about harmony. This describes the way Calvinism works in baptist churches. There’ll be 1 or 2 run of the mill Calvinists in a congregation, and they hear a sermon by John Piper or Mark Driscoll, and they get inspired to lead a prosecution against a pastor if she does not affirm predestination and all that nonsense. Churches split up, feelings are hurt, and cynics are birthed.

And there is something to say for race and the Hulk, is there not?

More to come, I’m sure.

Related articles

• Joss Whedon On CBS Sunday Morning #whedony(politicaljesus.com)

  ---

I have really started to love Syfy’s Original series Eureka; I can’t get enough of it, along with a couple other SyFy original shows, but last week’s episode made a relevant point about myth “versus” reality/historicity, a point which I believe can point biblical scholars in the right direction in the Historical Jesus versus Mythical Jesus debate.

Fargo, in conversation with the skeptical Dr. Holly Martin (played by Whedony player Felicia Day) about a Dragon who has been let loose on the citizens of Eureka, explains the logical possibility for the existence of dragons:

“mythical is just another word for not yet discovered”-Doug Fargo

At the conclusion of the episode, Fargo brags to Holly, that tons of pounds of impossible is being sent to a compound since Global Dynamics captured the beast. What’s interesting here is that nothing that Eureka’s best and brightest are experiencing is real, but it feels real. Holly was scratched by the mythical dragon, but the injuries disappear; she is the first person to ask questions, coming closer to discovering the truth of their living in a dream world.  Dragons are not based on historical realities, but we imagine them as reptiles, and reptiles are real, historical animals. It’s sort of like the unicorns; unicorns don’t exist, but they are constructed as horses, right? So really, the definition of myth should not be  seen as something independent of truthful reality or historical experience. In fact, myth, because human beings are story-driven creatures, can tell truth.

Now, of course in biblical studies, mythicists see myth as something diametrically opposed to THE TRUTH. Here’s your mythicist sign! Mythicists, like confessional Christian scholars, are driven by their presuppositions, their past bad experiences with religion, and thus the self is the foundation for their research, in the end. The beginning of objective scholarship and the scientific study of religion is to to first admit our biases, and then move away from them, before coming back to them, so that they be under scrutiny, time and again. This is called being self-critical.

The Father of modern Black Theology James Cone gets the Historical Jesus right:

“We [Black theologians] want to know who Jesus was because we believe that that is the only way to assess who he is. […] Without some continuity between the historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ, the Christian gospel becomes nothing but the subjective reflections of the early Christian community.”- James Cone, A black theology of Liberation, page 112-113.

Cone argues that the Black Christ’s birth as a carpenter’s son in the midst of an impoverished shepherd community, his ministry of reaching out to the poor and setting the captives free, as well as the political situation regarding the execution of the Oppressed One makes Jesus’ life even more significant to the African American community. But then again, Jesus acts on behalf of the Oppressed, for the salvation of the cosmos in Liberation Theology. Election moves from particularity to the universal, just as scholarship should.

Mythicists would be wise to adopt the view of myth from Fargo, that their Jesus is not yet discovered, and those who affirm the historical Jesus would be wise to learn from James Cone, that the real, concrete body of the Son of Man as well as the historical setting of this Nazarene has a divine purpose, and are not to be easily dismissed by theologians living in the abstract.

Related articles

• Prepare To Be Shocked By Final ‘Eureka’ Episode(huffingtonpost.com)

  ---

• io9 really liked Glimpse! Go Team Eureka!(wilwheaton.typepad.com)

  ---

• The Encyclopedia Black Rises: Is It Tom Verrena or Rook Hawkins?(politicaljesus.com)

  ---

The Color Of Thomas Jefferson’s Enemies

I have written on here before about the Christians who call themselves Dominionists, and who want to set up a Domination System in the name of Jeebus. In fact, I argued, given the Dominionist position on absolute “free” (free, for whom?) market capitalism being compatible with the Old and New Testament practices, that Dominionists have no choice but to support America’s enslavement of Africans (and Native Americans). David Barton is the most prominent figures in the Dominionist “Christian” political movement. In his mission to show us the “truth” of history, it has to go under some revision. Revisionist history, however, whether it is from the Left or Right, seems to come right before authoritarian governance. Barton’s latest propaganda piece is on Thomas Jefferson, aptly entitled, The Jefferson Lies. Why? Because its a book filled with Barton’s lies about Thomas Jefferson.

Everyone agrees, even Barton, that Jefferson denied the Bodily Resurrection as well as the Divine Sonship of Christ. So how does this make him Christian, then exactly in Barton’s view? What exactly is a Christian, if not a person who simply affirms these 2 beliefs? I have a feeling that Barton’s answer would be frightening. One of the best rebuttals against Jeffersonian democracy and his racist ideals came from a historian who lived closer to Thomas Jefferson’s day, David Walker. David Walker, in his Appeal to the Color Peoples of the World, cites history as the reason to defy 10th Amendment states’ rights conservativism, African enslavement, and racial discrimination. Like his Federalist contemporaries (Alexander Hamilton, for ex.), David Walker relies on the fall of ancient empires as lessons to be learned.

David Barton and others of his ilk would do well to read U.S. American history from the underside of history. It doesn’t take a committee to debunk Barton’s lies about racist Founder Thomas Jefferson; just a reading of texts by his own contemporaries.

Whedon, famous for Buffy The Vampire Slayer and most recently, Cabin In The Woods, was interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning. His t.v. hits are “short lived” and “quirky” which I take to be a little insulting given his body of work, as if cancellation is his fault. Oh well, I don’t watch CBS for anything really, so it hardly matters.

Here’s the video.

Related articles

• Best Of Joss Whedon’s Reddit AMA(buzzfeed.com)

  ---

• Joss Whedon Weighs in on Buffy vs. The Avengers’ Natasha Romanoff [Notable Quotable](jezebel.com)

  ---

• Call for Papers Update: Joss Whedon and Theology(politicaljesus.com)

  ---

• “Avengers” director Joss Whedon: Yes, he’s a geek (cbsnews.com)
• Buffy Spinoff Still An Option For Joss Whedon! (perezhilton.com)

However, I have to agree with Deane Gilbreathe in the comment section,

“Do the degree-granting institutions in question have “statements of faith” or similar professions to which their “academic” staff must adhere? If so, as I suspect some may have, they could hardly be said to be “committed to academic excellence” in the first place. Can they properly be termed “academic” institutions if they refuse some possible conclusions of academic work from the outset? I don’t think so. The dismissal of those who think beyond the permissible boundaries merely confirms that some such institutions are mere farces of academia – and that the degrees they issue are not worth the paper on which they are written.”

Part of being part of the academy in the area of religious studies, is that it is the scientific study of religion, whether we like it or not. This necessitates the qualified and differentiated use (each field will use it differently) of the scientific method. We ask questions, form a hypothesis and then work to see if our hypothesis works out or not. What so called confessional institutions and do, if they have “Statements of Faith” or Dogmas that their faculty must adhere to is have a tailor-made answer already available, and it is up to the researcher, bound by her oath, to affirm these answers. This is not research; it’s called preaching to the choir. Call it anything, but do not called it objective or research or anything of the like.

The funny part of all of this is as a black man, who still wades his foot in the Academic pool, these white men from conservative “confession” institutions, wave their fingers and me, and decry my work as subjective, but their work is “objective” even though they in no ways believe in scientific reasoning or even a debate about a plethora of topics, of which I can name: penal substitution [some scholars are members of bodies that force you to hold to that one], inerrancy, plenary inspiration, Christian supersessionism, imperial Christian politics, Just War Theory, among others). But I have always considered their claims to “objectivity” to be pseudo-science and fraudulent, and will maintain so.

I do not have the words right now (that are not NSFW) to describe a person who does “research” only to present her employers belief system. Isn’t that called propaganda? I think Hurtado’s comparison of “secular statements of faith” about race, sexual harassment, etc. utterly fails. Banning sexual harassment is about promoting the common good and a person’s human dignity. I know cases in which statements of faith actually lead to the harassment of the violator, and not just “Christian discipline.”

Just sayin’

I cannot express how excited I am for this project. I have been meaning to do a post on why I do theology, critical race theory, and pop culture, and I plan on it. But for now, I am just grateful to God for God’s goodness.

TF is still looking for a couple of articles

“To make it as current as possible we need to add two new categories of essays including “Religion and Community in The Avengers,” and “Religion and the End in Cabin in the Woods.” We need to find 2-3 essays for each of these categories, but the rest of the contributions for the volume are in place with a deadline of the end of 2012 for turning over the edited chapters to the publisher. My fellow co-editors include Tony Mills and Ryan Parker.”

Please submit, that would be awesome.

My contribution will be on Critical Race Theory, Theology, and the BuffyVerse. All I can say I have no plans to completely affirm past articles on race and the BuffyVerse.  Because I am coming from a theological perspective, my conclusions are gonna, by nature be different, though still being within the Realm of CTR and Postcolonialism.

Shhhhhsssshhhhh. Don’t Tell No Body!

Related articles

• The New Black Theology And The Patristics (politicaljesus.com)
• Racial Justice and Science Fiction: Joss Whedon as Prison Abolitionist (politicaljesus.com)

We here at Political Jesus besides being fans of Detective Comics also have gained fame for our investigations in the past: See my posts on The Church of Scotteriology– an ongoing investigation and My successful find of the Second Quest for the Historical NT Wrong.

Recently because I was searching on the interwebz and I came across some strange findings. There’s an apologist for fundamental atheism out there named Rook Hawkins. According to FreeThoughtPedia, Rook Hawkins is/was a member of the Rational Response Squad. you know, like the Way of the Master, for atheists. The latest posts that we have for Tom, I mean, sorry, Rook, is 2008: The Rational Response Squad archive:Rook Hawkins, about the same time that Tom Verenna took up a blog on wordpress.com under Musings. That year, Tom did have a small skirmish with one John Loftus, on the validity/nonvalidity of mythicism, and curiously, John Loftus had a guest-poster who even cited Rook Hawkins the same year, in December: Arguments for and against the historical Jesus: Debunking Christianity. One of the commenters even left a post linking a highly polemical blog (but point is noted) about Tom using the pseudonym Rook Hawkins.

It’s quite an oddity that no other Bibliobloggers have mentioned these posts, but they point to an interesting question. Is Tom really as agnostic and on the fence as he says he is? Or is there an ulterior motive behind his own mythicism? Or, why hasn’t Tom been upfront with this part of his past?

Curiosity killed the cat.

#IJS

I’ll be honest, when I first read that there was yet another list out there ranking Christian blogs, I was quite cynical; and I was surprised when I learned that we were #200 on the list, I mean, without even trying, am I right? Am I right? You can see the whole list, The Top church Blogs linked here, from Church Relevance.com.

Yah, I heard the uproar over the list’s gender biases, and I so agree with Amanda Mac’s comments [linked here] but really, what would we expect from a list that leaned heavily toward all male Calvinist blogs? We were expecting equal representation? Puh-leeze! Scot McKnight is at #41, yeah, Jesus Creed, #41. That’s really all I have to say about that folks. And with one or two exceptions, where are the Catholic and Orthodox Christian blogs? Did they some how fall off the face of the Earth?

I never sought to be relevant on this blog, and I never will. My intention back a few years ago, in early 2008 until today, has been to speak my mind over what’s been burdening me, anytime I want, any topic I want. But now I have Christianity Today following me on Twitter because I am relevant. Don’t know how long that will last. And at least we at Political Jesus are considered Christians. Whew! Glad we don’t have to fight over that label.

On a different note, I could have just as easily bemoaned the lack of people of color on this Top 200 church blogs list, but why bother? I have other battles to engage in, and I have no time for self-congratulating Calvinists and their pompous ranking systems for blogs. I’d rather keep writing theologically about Trayvon Martin and Rekia Boyd. Plus, I know that micro-blogging is the wave of the future, I consider myself far more influential, if we can call it that, on the Twitter (without meaning to). Why? Because I can be myself, I can have fun, and engage more people, that’s why!

Oh, FYI: and it’s my goal to make the church LESS efficient and LESS effective in what it’s doing now, and more faithful to the liberating, peace-making Gospel of Christ Jesus.

#Misbehavin’

If you (my regular audience) had not noticed, I have avoided posting on anything for a while; not because I did not have the time, but because over the distraught I felt for the Trayvon Martin and Rekia Boyd stories that have made national headlines. Murders happen everyday, so what makes these killings any different? That is the question that white conservative news commentators have been asking. The answer is quite simple: injustice. And not just any injustice, but injustice that is the spawn of racism. Today, I wish to write as a young African American male who loves to wear hoodies of all colors, drink tea (coffee disgusts me), a Baptist, a pacifist, and an educator.

First, as an educator: There has been some rambling and rumblings from white conservative race hustlers who depicted 17 year old Trayvon Martin as a thug, a street rat who was never up to any good, and who had a horrible attendance record at school, thus, his suspension. As an educator who works for the public education system, I am intolerant of tardies, so much so, that if I get word that a person is skipping class (regardless of prior record, race, age, or gender), I will write a referral. If a student is 15-20 minutes tardy or more, I consider that basically skipping, and I write students up. However, being tardy, skipping class is not a violent crime, and does not make Trayvon a thug. In fact, I have had honors students of all races, ages, and classes attempt to skip class or leave class and get away with it. Are they thugs? Should they be criminalized in the minds of our community? I seriously doubt it. As for Trayvon and how his school system suspended him for being tardy way too often, that is probably a bad idea; there is something called alternative/third party schools he should have been sent to at the worst, and at the best, probably in school suspension. The problem lies with both Trayvon’s choices as an individual to be late (but what student is so excited to class they aren’t tardy from time to time?) as well as the shape of our school systems as being the spitting image of our prison systems.

I learned the hard way, in critically examining my own teaching style, threatening students with write-ups is futile at the secondary level. Kids wear it as a badge of honor, and so I try to avoid them from now. Plus, I know first hand that there are some teachers who target African American males just for fogging up the mirror. I have substituted at third-party/alternative schools; very little difference culture wise between a prison and those schools. Part of my resistance to the stereotype of being “the angry black” as well as resisting influence of the PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX of which I will continue to write about, because Christianity continues to play the cheerleader to the executioner.

Secondly, As A Baptist: I have lived the majority of my life as member or participant in a Baptist church. I respect my Southern Baptist friends, I attend a church that identifies as Southern Baptist, but what I do not have time for is the SBC’s leadership, especially their history and views on race. Southern Baptist views on race and ethnicity go hand and hand with the Lost Cause Myth (the military humiliation of the Confederate States of America) as See my book review ofMark Newman’s Getting Right With God here linked argued. The PLAGIARIZED [see here, from the Washington Times] racist arguments that Richard Land made in order to call himself “controversial” were both ridiculous and a great example of conservative white race hustling. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Over and over in Richard Land’s radio show, YOU CAN LISTEN HEAR on 3/31/2012, Land repeats over and over: “What is a white Hispanic?” “Does that make Obama a white-black?” as a direct response to the media that tentatively called George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin’s murderer, a white Hispanic. What does this label mean? Well, um, it means that George Zimmerman has one parent that is “white” and the other that is “Peruvian”–what we categorically have constructed as “Hispanic” (Is there some planet or country called Hispania that I never learned about?). There is no way that Zimmerman can be racist, according to Richard Land, I mean the Washington Times, for the following reasons: Zimmerman “is Hispanic,” he may have “black family members” “He’s a registered Democrat” and according to “his mother: GZ has mentored a black single mother, and helped raised money for her all black church.” See, a racist would never do any of the above actions mentioned, right? According to the Washington Times, I mean, uh, Richard Land, these facts preclude Zimmerman from being a racist. In reality, this is White Conservative Race Hustling at its best. Notice how the topic has been changed from the loss of a HUMAN life to “oh, the murderer was a good person,” “he had black friends/family members.” What do these relationships have anything to do with George Zimmerman murdering an innocent teenage carrying Skittles and a can of cold tea? Absolutely nothing!

George Zimmerman, in the eyes of Fox News and other Conservative White Race Hustlers like Richard Land and Geraldo Rivera, has become a martyr of “political correctness” and “race mongerers.” Meanwhile, Richard Land, for example, can hide behind a veil of claiming that he’s worked for racial reconciliation. Let’s give him a pat on the back, everyone! He’s not racist, see, he realizes the bad history of race relations. So now, Land and Fox News and the Washington Times feign concern for, what, three or four people who call themselves the New Black Panther Party, and want to retaliate against GZ, in the name of fearing black racism? Let me state for the record, the BPP is relatively insignificant and irrelevant to the discussion, until you get to Fox News’ fear-mongering tactics. The Right paints black as unpatriotic, thuggish, and against the second amendment, and then distorts the truth to feign fearing black vigilante justice, and yet they defend George Zimmerman’s right to do vigilante justice? It’s the log in the eye, my friends, a log in the eyes.

The reason why I call Land’s positions on race racist is not because he has expressed animosity towards anyone; they are racist because his positions, like many conservatives’s views on race, are based on the premise that race is a biological, natural fact. The Constitution was written by men like Thomas Jefferson who believed that black were inferior naturally, and his views on race was part and parcel to his political philosophy. Any honest historian will tell you that; just not a conservative one. In reality, race is a social construct. It’s okay for Geraldo Rivera to argue (and then later apologize for) that black boys should not be wearing hoodies……so Justin Beiber can though….no suspicion there, right?

Do not blacks have the freedom of expression (within certain Constitutional limits set by the Supreme Court of the United States)? And so therefore, do not we black Americans have the right to wear hoodies as we so please? Just a question. The real race hustlers are those conservative whites who try to hide behind the Constitution in the name of “law and order.”

Lastly, as a Pacifist

I want to take up the latest argument by conservatives, a recycled, rehashed one, used against all proponents of nonviolent resistance. Richard Land’s, I mean, the Washington Times’ and Fox News’ concern really is not about Ron Paul’s coming race war at all. Instead, it boils down to electoral politics, and “exposing” President Obama who politicized the Trayvon Martin murder to galvanize his black base. I am utterly disinterested in this political season, one that has spanned since January 2009. I did not vote for President Obama, and I am not a supporter of his now, let’s just get that out of the way, so when someone responds, they will not make that HUGE mistake. In fact, I would say that Obama’s response, while nice and commendable, still is not enough. His “Trayvon Martin coulda been my son” pushes a concrete oppressive reality into the realm of the abstract. In other words, Obama does not have a son, he has 2 daughters, and his quote changes the topic from being about injustice to being about himself partially. That is why I believe showing solidarity is of most importance through first using SILENCE, being quiet, and listening to the victims for a while before taking action. I think this is very important, especially in incidents such as this. Sympathy is good, but solidarity is far superior.

Conservative White Race Hustlers propose that the Trayvon Martin murder will start a new set of riots and backlash from black Americans. What gives them this idea? Were there more black people to join the National Rifle Association recently?

While the African American community in Chicago were trying to fight gun violence through even a city-wide ban, (so much for states rights, and government by the people, right?!?, am I right?) whites have been far more successful in instituting stand your ground laws by the likes of the NRA, making it safer for vigilante avengers, who want to be comic book-like Punishers, killing persons in the name of “self-defense.” Stand Your Ground Laws both undermine what our Justice System claims to be as well as the authority of the police departments. If everyone has the right to be a policeman or woman, they also have the right to act as judge, juror, and executioner. In effect, Stand Your Ground Laws mark the legalization of lynching, you know, that thing that was never banned, and you know, and that which a few U.S. Senators did not even believe our government had to apologize for (hmmmm curious….)

My pacifist (and pro-Democratic Republican form of justice views) believes that no man (or woman) is a law to himself (herself), and that the proper authorities for dealing with violations of the law are not biased individuals of whom society has not given its trust, but to fair persons that have been entrusted by the community to enforce the law (the police). This is part of the thrust of John Howard Yoder’s THE POLITICS OF JESUS, and the idea of sub-ordination, or placing ourselves underneath an order. “Stand Your Ground Laws” makes room for the Devil (so to speak), where a select group of men can choose to place themselves above this “order” and name themselves “Neighborhood Watch Captains.”

Fact is, history testifies to the fact that black U.S. Americans are biased against anarchism and fascism, two sides of the same coin. For just as law and order dictatorships on the state-wide level protect racist histories and systems, anarchism/what some call libertarianism leads governments neglecting their duties to protect individuals, and in the end, vigilantes take that responsibility upon themselves. Is it any wonder why the decades that Paultards dream of (the first 3 decades of the 20th century) coincide with the same era in which ahem, the Ku Klux Klan were at their peak, and the federal government was negligent in its responsibility to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness for its Negro citizens, but instead allowing them to keep getting lynched? Just curious.

DOES THIS GUY LOOK SUSPICIOUS?

Related articles

• Crazy Talk: Obama Is ‘Using’ Trayvon (theroot.com)
• Richard Land only Represents Richard Land (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

“And the cheerleaders and jocks shall inherit the Earth…..”-Jesus at A Church Near You?

I know I haven’t blogged in a while. Honestly, I could not bring myself to posting anything, that’s how saddened I was over the whole state of affairs with Trayvon Martin #Love4Trayvon. I know I am going to be late to the party, as usual, infamously, but today I just wanted to think about White America’s take on Revival in general. Whenever I hear some emotionally charged town-crier from the Evangelical wilderness, talking about revival fire this, revival fire that, I always get leery and cynical. Just under who’s terms are we going to have this so called revival, I mean if it’s not too late for the Rapture to come get us #SNARK.

I am a fan of Tim Tebow; I rooted for him in the Playoffs, no way in heck would I root for the Broncos given my bad history with them, but I rooted for Tebow, he’s a great role model, but he is not the first white evangelical Christian to play professional football. Mike Singletary, an African American, was a Super Bowl winning, star middle-linebacker for the Bear, and he was a Bible believing Christian. Did he get any publicity for his faith? Does the media just expect your run of the mill Black athlete to affirm a belief in a higher power?

My favorite athlete growing up was the Reverend Reggie White, former Eagles’, Packers’, and Panthers’ Defensive linemen, and the greatest sack machine ever. Ever. He was a Christian, known for being outspoken for his faith, how come churches never talked about him leading a revival? Is revival an inherently cultural concept, where one culture determines over the other how the churches are going to be “revived” aka make more money and fill more seats? I believe it is. It’s great that all of these Christian athletes are having success, and being persecuted for what they believe (it’s to be expected), but I think this faint hope of athletes leading a “revival” should come with some caution. What would make the culture of THE CHURCH that much different than a high school? All the jocks in charge, all of the geeks and dorks, well silenced and marginalized? It’s not as if Christianity in the USA is as anti-intellectual as it already is!?!?

I’m sick of seminaries and denominations talking down to lay people, acting like they are not smart enough to handle the latest debate. It’s preposterous and an unspoken thing that just goes on. As if throughout the church’s history, great thinkers had not relationship to the church. You know on Palm Sunday, I had a conversation with one of my friends at church, she is in her 90′s I believe, and she has been theologically educated; her daughters have even been theologically educated in an Ivy League school. Sadly, she’s the one person I have been able to talk to at church to articulate what I want to do scholarship-wise. But I think that is relationships and opportunities that churches miss out on, when they dismiss the dorks and geeks in their pews, in favor the jocks and the rich. Jocks and geeks don’t have to be against each other; far from it. If THE CHURCH is about fellowship and love for the Other, Christ has reconciled even these trivial rivalries so that the BODY of Christ can exist in wholeness, geeky head and jock hands!

First, some context: I went and saw this movie more for the fact that my husband and I were able to finally have a date night, and it was the only movie that looked decent enough to see. (We are refraining from seeing the Hunger Games until I can read the books this summer). It’s been a long winter for decent date movies. Indeed, we haven’t been to the movies since Haywire in January.

Now, for the movie itself:

On a positive note, this movie is visually stunning. Beautiful scenes, elaborate (if somewhat over the top) costuming, and an intriguing orchestration.  Also, I was pleasantly surprised (though also a wee bit disappointed) that Sean Bean broke his acting mold.

Unfortunately, that’s about all I can say positively. The dialogue was generic, and the few good lines in it (like the focus-group quip) were badly timed which meant humorous lines fell flat. And that was part of the bigger problem: was this moving supposed to be fantasy, comedy, drama? It did none of them well.

The characters:

I can’t for the life of me figure out why Snow White finds the Prince attractive. At the very best he is bland, at worst he is annoying. Either way, the Prince was abundantly forgettable. The dwarves had potential, but there was not enough time devoted to demonstrating their unique personalities (though, having them be thieves instead of miners was quite smart). Speaking of the generic dialogue, Julia Roberts was maybe, sort-of trying to do an accent but it was so inconsistent she shouldn’t have bothered. And was the queen really evil? Narcissistic yes, but was that enough for the audience to see her as the villain? Not really. A generic queen who failed to be the big baddie that the story needed. The supporting cast’s abundance of talent is wasted and I’m not quite sure why the stellar actors that they cast (e.g., Nathan Lane and Mare Winningham) actually agreed to do the film. (paycheque?)

Ella Enchanted (Image via RottenTomatoes.com)

And Snow. Dear Snow. If this movie had been made in 2004, it would have starred Anne Hathaway. Indeed, there were several moments where Lily Collins seemed to be channeling Hathaway’s performance in Ella Enchanted (including the dance number at the end), but the difference is Hathaway at least had some spunk. Indeed, Ella Enchanted and Mirror, Mirror are interchangeable in their mediocrity. Now I get that this is Collins’ breakout role. With some more practice and opportunities to grow as an actress she will probably be an actress to look out for, but for now she was, like the rest of the movie, generic.

The story:

Since retelling fairy tales is all the rage right now, Mirror, Mirror attempts to retell Snow White for a modern audience and we seem to be on a Snow White kick. I figure that Snow White is the new Cinderella, with a modern retelling being presented every six months until Hollywood latches on and obsesses over another story.  Of course Mirror, Mirror updates and changes the story while retaining key elements: the evil queen, the dwarves, the magic power of a kiss, the poisonous apple. But, for all their updates, the story is forgettable and generic. The twists were for the most part predictable (save for one).

So the question becomes is it because Snow White is hard to re-envision for a modern audience? Is there just not enough story to work with? If Once Upon a Time is any indication there is enough story and a unique way to re-tell the story of Snow. Mirror, Mirror fails to do this in any memorable way.

Here’s hoping Snow White and the Huntsman does a better job of telling the story.

Summary:

Generic movie. Generic acting. Generic storytelling. Visually stunning movie. 1.5 browncoats out of 5.

We, here at Political Jesus, officially endorse former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. No one has endured more tribulations than Gingrich. His story reminds us of King David from the Bible who fell, and then rose again to greatness.  Gingrich has the experience and being a Southerner, he has the base to defeat President Barack Obama in November.

““Well, the blacks know more about the universe than the white people. Dirty priests in back streets in Dublin frightening half-witted children to death with stories about it. You’d say they are unenlightened. They’re not: except that they think there is a way of escape. There isn’t. That is the real universe, always has been, always will be. That’s what it all means”- Ransom speaking to the “Un-Man”

C.S. Lewis in the second of his Science Fiction Trilogy, Perelandra

“Like many immigrant groups in the United States, the Irish were characterized as racial Others when they first arrived in the first half of the 19th century. The Irish had suffered profound injustice in the U.K. at the hands of the British, widely seen as “white negroes.” [and]

“The comic Irishman – happy, lazy, stupid, with a gift for music and dance – was a stock character in American theater. Drunkenness and criminality were major themes of Irish stereotypes, and the term “paddy wagon” has its etymological roots in the racist term “paddy,” a shortening of the name “Patrick,” which was used to refer to the Irish” from St. Patrick’s Day, Irish-Americans, and the Changing Boundaries of Whiteness.

“My beloved brethren:—The Indians of North and of South America—the Greeks—the Irish, subjected under the king of Great—the Jews, that ancient people of the Lord—the inhabitants of the islands of the sea—in fine, all the inhabitants of the earth, (except however, the sons of Africa) are called men, and of course are, and ought to be free. But we, (coloured people) and our children are brutes!!”

“Have you not, Americans, having subjected us under you, added to these miseries, by insulting us in telling us to our face, because we are helpless, that we are not of the human family? I ask you, O! Americans, I ask you, in the name of the Lord, can you deny these charges? Some perhaps may deny, by saying, that they never thought or said that we were not men. But do not actions speak louder than words?—Have they not made provisions for the Greeks, and Irish? Nations who have never done the least thing for them, while we, who have enriched their country with our blood and tears—have dug up gold and silver for them and their children, from generation to generation, and are in more miseries than any other people under heaven, are not seen, but by comparatively, a handful of the American people?”

From David Walker’s APPEAL Linked Here.

“They arrived as Irish, Italian, English, German, and various other ethnic and cultural groups from Europe. Yet somewhere on the shores of America they established a new identity. They became White. They subordinated their ethnic and cultural particularities in order to adopt a common national identity as White Americans.”

- Kelly Brown Douglas, Sexuality and the Black Church, page 13.

Just something to think about.

Ireland for the Irish.

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/17/st-patricks-day-dismantling-anti-irish-racism/feed/ 0 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/17/saint-patrick%e2%80%99s-breastplate-prayer/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/17/saint-patrick%e2%80%99s-breastplate-prayer/#comments Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:17:00 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/saint-patrick%e2%80%99s-breastplate-prayer/ Continue reading →]]> I bind to myself today
The strong virtue of the Invocation of the Trinity:
I believe the Trinity in the Unity
The Creator of the Universe.

I bind to myself today
The virtue of the Incarnation of Christ with His Baptism,
The virtue of His crucifixion with His burial,
The virtue of His Resurrection with His Ascension,
The virtue of His coming on the Judgement Day.

I bind to myself today
The virtue of the love of seraphim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the hope of resurrection unto reward,
In prayers of Patriarchs,
In predictions of Prophets,
In preaching of Apostles,
In faith of Confessors,
In purity of holy Virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I bind to myself today
The power of Heaven,
The light of the sun,
The brightness of the moon,
The splendour of fire,
The flashing of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of sea,
The stability of earth,
The compactness of rocks.

I bind to myself today
God’s Power to guide me,
God’s Might to uphold me,
God’s Wisdom to teach me,
God’s Eye to watch over me,
God’s Ear to hear me,
God’s Word to give me speech,
God’s Hand to guide me,
God’s Way to lie before me,
God’s Shield to shelter me,
God’s Host to secure me,
Against the snares of demons,
Against the seductions of vices,
Against the lusts of nature,
Against everyone who meditates injury to me,
Whether far or near,
Whether few or with many.

I invoke today all these virtues
Against every hostile merciless power
Which may assail my body and my soul,
Against the incantations of false prophets,
Against the black laws of heathenism,
Against the false laws of heresy,
Against the deceits of idolatry,
Against the spells of women, and smiths, and druids,
Against every knowledge that binds the soul of man.

Christ, protect me today
Against every poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against death-wound,
That I may receive abundant reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ within me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ at my right, Christ at my left,
Christ in the fort,
Christ in the chariot seat,
Christ in the poop [deck],
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks to me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I bind to myself today
The strong virtue of an invocation of the Trinity,
I believe the Trinity in the Unity
The Creator of the Universe.

Trinity! Equality! Liberty!

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/17/saint-patrick%e2%80%99s-breastplate-prayer/feed/ 7 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/16/pastors-do-your-own-research-for-your-own-sermons/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/16/pastors-do-your-own-research-for-your-own-sermons/#comments Sat, 17 Mar 2012 03:10:54 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9709 Continue reading →]]> Well, besides church consultants (not touching that one yet), there is this business of penniless and poor seminarians research groups who will do the pastor’s dirty work for her. Of course businesses like this one or that one aren’t illegal or unethical, but a church, no matter what size, should have a preaching leader who knows all of the content of her sermon.

Furthermore, I wonder what happened to trusting the Spirit to deliver the Word of God.

#justprayin’

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/16/pastors-do-your-own-research-for-your-own-sermons/feed/ 2 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/16/some-tips-for-joining-professional-association-for-religious-scholars/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/16/some-tips-for-joining-professional-association-for-religious-scholars/#comments Sat, 17 Mar 2012 03:01:46 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9700 Continue reading →]]> There are some of you out there wondering probably, this religious studies stuff sounds cool. How does Rod get to present so many papers at conferences?

Well, there first time I presented a paper it was at the 2008 Joint Annual Meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society and Society for Pentecostal Scholars. All because I wanted to meet Jurgen Moltmann, whose theology changed my life, oh, yeah, and it was on Duke’s campus, so I was hoping (and did so) to run into Stanley Hauerwas.  All of that happened because I saw a poster for the event, a call for papers, wrote and emailed a paper proposal, and it was accepted.

So, here are a couple of tips.

1. I would start by finding a scholarly professional yada yada organization that deals with religious studies. Pretty simple. There is: The American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Evangelical Theological Society, and American Schools of Oriental Research for archaeology. Check out their membership requirements, you will have to pay to be a member, student member, etc. etc.

2. Second, look for Calls for Papers online or at your school. Calls for papers inform you what kind of paper conferences are looking for, where the conference is being held. Why go to conferences? Why present? To network with other scholars, to be a public intellectual, to share your research work with others in your field. A good place to start is RELIGION CFP.

Some organizations will let you propose a panel, as 2 friends and I did for the regional AAR. Depends entirely on the CFP. I went as an Independent Scholar because I do not have an official relationship with an educational institution, either by employment or going to school there. At conferences, you represent what school you go to. Independent Scholars who present are rare, but they are there.

Paper presentations and/or panels can become book ideas, collections of essays, etc., so it’s important to do your best work. I myself over-prepare when I present, and I usually aim to write more than I need to, and then cut down the pages, saving the other work for a potential article. For the panel presentation on Harlem Renaissance and Black Religion(s), I had about 28 pages of work on 2 writers, and I decided to go with just one, but use my other work in the future. Over-preparing and over-reading helps me immensely with Question and Answer sessions. I have always done this.

In terms of practice, speaking comes naturally, and I practiced my presentation once, and it was during work, and I timed myself at what, 35 minutes, and that was with a ton of distractions. On Saturday, the presentation with me albeit talking a little fast, was at 28 minutes. My plans for me to go to the next level is to have a script ready for me, but still use the script less and less, and make my presentations more conversational with dialogue. How will that work in the Academy? I am still thinking that through.

Related articles

• In which I was part of a panel at a scholarly conference for the first time (politicaljesus.com)

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/16/some-tips-for-joining-professional-association-for-religious-scholars/feed/ 4 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/14/john-milbank-on-traditional-marriage-sexuality-and-late-capitalism/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/14/john-milbank-on-traditional-marriage-sexuality-and-late-capitalism/#comments Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:52:30 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9694 Continue reading →]]>

Radical Orthodoxy theologian John Milbank makes some interesting observations of capitalism in his latest contribution to “Religion and Ethics.” I have been thinking along these same lines, especially his insights about young girls as both the consumer and victim of late capitalism.

“Moreover, there are crucial negative testimonies to its persistence. It would seem that when it is denied that a woman’s body or biology has any psychic correlate, that then her purely physical difference gets vastly over-accentuated and exploited. Thus children are increasingly differentiated by gender to a ludicrous degree in terms, for example, of every item intended for little girls being coloured pink and the ever-younger adoption of sexualised clothes and make-up by adolescent and pre-pubescent girls.

Indeed, it has been plausibly argued that the “young girl” is now at once the prime commodity and the prime consumer of late capitalism. Is it an accident that the according of only “human” rights to women coincides with a new phase in their degradation?”

Oh, and I like this promotion of stay-at-home dads:

“This conclusion is by no means simply traditional since it rejects the patriarchalism that puts men naturally on top. Instead, it newly implies that just as we need men in the home, so we need women in politics, business, the arts, academia and even the military. This prospect belongs to a radical as opposed to a liberal feminism, because it suggests that a new public role of women can truly make a difference.”

I would recommend you read the rest:

John Milbank: Gay Marriage and the Future of Human Sexuality

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/14/john-milbank-on-traditional-marriage-sexuality-and-late-capitalism/feed/ 2 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/11/in-which-i-was-part-of-a-panel-at-a-scholarly-conference-for-the-first-time/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/11/in-which-i-was-part-of-a-panel-at-a-scholarly-conference-for-the-first-time/#comments Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:33:56 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9685 Continue reading →]]>

My Experience At the Southwest Commission for Religious Studies

Saturday, I entered arena of scholarship once more, the first time as an “Independent Scholar.” But don’t be deceived, my independence gave me the freedom to ask questions at every session I attended. My goal was to network as much as possible, and I achieved that goal, primarily in the morning.

In the afternoon, I felt I was in good company with the Womanist and Liberationist Ethics session of the AAR, and then a little later at the plenary session lead by Joerg Rieger.

Our panel, the Harlem Renaissance and Black Religion(s), was the first Panel I have been asked to be a part of. It was sort of a risk to go where I had never gone before, to actually do a scholarly presentation on black science fiction, postcolonial theology, Christianity, and race, but I pulled it off. My thesis adviser and Brite professor Keri Day was the moderator, while Phillip Luke Sinitiere also presented on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I also volunteered to read Lou Joseph’s paper on Langston Hughes’s play Emperor of Haiti so he could receive credit on his CV. I felt like this panel was the beginning of something different and special, and Lou’s work was very important. Thus, I felt compelled to volunteer to read (I myself in the past have had a reader for a paper).

The best thing about all of our research projects is the potential for engaging the Harlem Renaissance and Black Religion(s) from an intercultural perspective. With Lou’s look at the Haitian Revolution in light of the Catholic religion and Langston Hughes’ literature, Phillip’s engagement with Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s being influenced by the Negro church tradition, and my observations on the similarities and differences between Irishman C.S. Lewis and George Schuyler, the possibilities are real and endless. It’s part of my vision to be a Black Church scholar for a Multicultural world, and this project may fit the bill. At the panel itself, I spoke for a total of close to 80 minutes (both presentations were at 30 minutes, then the q & a); I just couldn’t stop talking. I was like the Bubba Blue of Black Sci Fi!

(NSFW)

I would definitely like to be part of a panel again, even if it’s not about the Harlem Renaissance or science fiction. I would highly recommend you give it a try if you are a student, since it means collaboration with other scholars and more engagement with the audience.

Related articles

• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)
• 2 New Projects on Zora Neale Hurston and Theology (politicaljesus.com)

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/11/in-which-i-was-part-of-a-panel-at-a-scholarly-conference-for-the-first-time/feed/ 8 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/04/i-need-some-suggestions-top-3-5/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/04/i-need-some-suggestions-top-3-5/#comments Mon, 05 Mar 2012 03:52:19 +0000 Optimistic Chad http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9683 Continue reading →]]> I am moving into the next phase of my life (slowly…), where I am to be the senior minister at a church. Since the vast majority of Christians that I know either can’t remember what was taught at their baptism/confirmation/communicant’s class, and they haven’t really bothered to pay much attention since, I feel like I have my work cut out for me in terms of taking a congregation in maintenance mode and moving them towards being on mission with God.

If you were to recommend 3 to 5 books as resources for either broadening a believer’s horizons to encompass the scholarly responsible Jesus, or simply a great introduction to our faith, which would they be?

 

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/04/i-need-some-suggestions-top-3-5/feed/ 2 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-is-a-slut-according-to-jesuss-words/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-is-a-slut-according-to-jesuss-words/#comments Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:34:32 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9662 Continue reading →]]> How This Angry Black Male Protestant (&Pro-Life) Thinks About Contraception, etc.

^47NYou not only followed their ways, and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. ⁴⁸As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. ⁴⁹This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. -

Ezekiel 16:47-49 NRSV

¹⁰Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

¹³People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. Mark 10:10-13 NRSV

First, A Story (again, right?)

So here I am again, writing about my experience and how it will soon relate afterward to the ideas I explore after it. It was 3:55pm on Thursday afternoon when I was filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, having just had a great day at work, being educated with Special Ed/Special Needs high schoolers. As I was commuting on the bus on my way home, I noticed a very attractive black woman sitting across from me. #ThemTexasGirls

Anyhow, I worked to avert my eyes, trying to show self-control, and contemplated on what I was going to read or what t.v. I was going to watch. Suddenly, my good day was interrupted by a black man (like me!) who had a Black Power fist comb in his hair, a copy of Frederick Douglass’s “My bondage and My Freedom” in one hand, and his 4 year old son in the other. The first thing he did after he paid for his pass was make a bee-line to the seat right in front of me, and then immediately went over, and played his sorry misogynist game with the aforementioned lady. All the while, I live tweeted part of the conversation because I found it disgusting, and had no words at that moment. At one point, he said about himself to our lady friend, “I’m a barbarian, and I will drag you off the bus.”

Frustrated by his failure to seduce this woman, our antagonist walks back to his seat, and starts harassing, no, verbally abusing a young white man two rows in front of him. He threw profanities at him, threatened to beat him up after this friend, we will call him C, tried to take up for himself. Our Black Panther went on to argue that nowadays, black people can do “whatever the hell we want” as opposed to the days of enslavement. Eventually, the bus driver after one warning, asked the man and his son to exit the bus, which they did with an indignant and shameful response. Someone I Can’t See kept telling to talk to C (the white man) before I ran out of time and had to get off the bus or before he did. So, in a moment of courage (overcoming anxiety), I walked up to C’s seat, right next to him, introduced himself, and informed him (something to the effect-I’m paraphrasing): “I don’t know if you believe in God or not, but I do. You are beautifully and wonderfully made in the image of God. What you experienced was racism, but God loves you.

END OF STORY

I have resisted wanting to talk about contraception for the past few weeks even though it has been on the minds of everyone and their grandmother lately.  Why is this such an issue? Why now? Joel Watts has rightfully criticized Rush Limbaugh for being a hypocrite and a coward, bullying a college-coed. Today, first I want to talk about Jesus before I get into MHO about S-E-X.

So, it’s obvious to a reader of the Gospels in the New Testament that Jesus is Jewish, and is a faithful Jew at that, faithful to the tradition of Jewish prophets. One of the prophets we don’t hear about in Sunday School is Ezekiel, one of my favorites. His oracles are just a delight to read and re-read, his sign-acts are things that would be censored by CBS during the Super Bowl. They are so disgusting that they would be disallowed on the reality t.v. show Fear Factor (hey, try some REAL Ezekiel bread!). Anyhow, Ezekiel is an angry prophet who is exiled outside the big city of Babylon, the empire in his day with Nebuchadnezzar as ruler. Before he uses some trickery to criticize Babylon, Ezekiel goes after his fellow citizens (what a patriot!) and explains to them why they are in exile. They have been faithless to YHWH, basically, religious and economic sluts when it comes to worship. Ezekiel’s powerful imagery of Israel and Judah’s sluttiness (Chapters 16 and 23). Indeed, this imagery is ingrained in the patriarchal imagery of Ezekiel’s day, but all of the leaders are male, the priests, the kings, the rich house-hold heads. In a similar turn, in the song of Moses, Israel’s unfaithfulness is pictured as a very obese manly man given to idolatry (Deuteronomy 32:15-18). So, unfaithfulness then is connected with the image of not being able to have self-control.

Ezekiel talks about those Male sluts from Genesis 19, the Sodomites, and he says, “You know what their sin is?” It was greed, inhospitality, it was being apathetic to the poor. When you argue for “total freedom” in sexual relations, you are also going to have to argue for “total freedom” in economics, which is ignoring the plight of the poor and widows and orphaned and the disabled and the unborn. Indeed if we fast forward to Yeshua the Messiah years after the exile, Jesus is teaching Jewish Prophetic family values to his disciples and audience. His teachings on Marriage (which we call his teachings on divorce) are not about our views of divorce, they are about fidelity in marriage. Taking Genesis 1 as part of a marriage rite, Jesus understands that Adam and Eve, as the first married couple in YHWH represents God’s will for marriage, and in the Mark version of this passage, agency is not just with men, but also with women, and therefore responsibility lies with both to act responsibly and faithfully to each other.

A Word on Contraception

Now, I have made it known that because of my commitment to nonviolence, I am pro-life, that the government should protect human life from “womb-to-tomb.” As a Protestant, I do not affirm the Catholic teaching on contraception and Natural Family Planning. For those interested in Catholic views that are challenging NFP, please see Katie Grime’s series, Women Speak About Natural Family Planning. These real stories are shocking and informative. I have been chastened by them and have learned a lot the past week. For instance, contraceptive medication can be used to deal with medical issues that women deal with. If you want more details and specific, go ask a woman, not me please!

That being said, there is something to be said about Comprehensive Sex Education and the Common Good. If I say I am pro-life, then I need to work in the public sphere for what is good for the community. Not everyone is a Christian, and therefore, to have Christian expectations and hopes on non-Christians is an epic fail. Morality cannot be legislated, it can only be embodied in Christian practices through our witness. Abstinence-only education should be privately supported alongside Comprehensive Sex Education for those students in schools who wish to opt off of CSE for religious reasons.

Scripture does not really address contraception, and to talk about the story of Onan in Genesis, I think is faulty proof-texting at best. Christians should use wisdom when talking about this issue with non-Christians, and public health and safety concerns MUST come first (ahem, neighborly love).

Now, for Christians and sex. Everyone’s ideas of orthodoxy and orthopraxis (right practice) is gonna be different, so here’s my take. First of all, I affirm traditional marriage between a man and a woman as the appropriate context for sexual coitus. Not only that, I, unlike other Protestants, believe marriage is a sacrament (for different theological reasons than 1 would assume). Now, some in the audience will ask, well, does not Homophobia exist in THE CHURCH? And I will say, Oh Yes, it does, a lot of Christians have irrational fears about even being near homosexual persons. Do I believe that heterosexism exists in THE CHURCH? My response would be, You are asking the wrong question. Churchy sex lives, for liberals and conservatives, center on people who are in relationships; there is a (excuse the horrific neologism) (having sex)-ism, whatever it is where people who aren’t dating anyone are not included a full participants in religious communities. As a single, celibate straight male who wishes one day to be married, the Church in conservative evangelical circles is obsessed with Singles Ministries as the Pie-in-the-Sky-We-Only-Good-For-Waiting and nothing else line of thinking. On the other hand, more liberal mainline churches that support “marriage equality” are telling me that I have to be in a relationship with someone and experience erotic love, otherwise, I am not fully human either. This is the same logic as Kelly Brown Douglas’ book Sexuality and the Black Church, we ain’t nothin’ but mammals so let’s do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel.

I am sick and tired of being told I am not fully human because I am not married or having sex. Don’t lecture me about how marriage is sacred when this country was built on the back of enslaved Africans whose marriages were not considered legal or sacred (knock knock, social conservatives)! Don’t lecture me about having to have sex because it’s natural and I don’t need self-control becuz Jesus the Magician has made us all anarchically free when your movement continues to claim to supersede the Civil Rights Movement ignores its own racism (yoo hoo!: social progressives). Don’t lecture me about how I should wait until marriage until you explain to me why during segregation, white men took their liberties to rape black women. Don’t lecture me about your marriage equality until we can talk about the racial and economic conditions that create male-on-male prison rape in our injustice system. Don’t say in one breathe that I am to be celibate and practice self-control, but corporations can do whatever they want. Stop telling me that businesses are out of control, and then have the nerve to say we don’t have to have will-power when it comes to our sex-lives.

I guess my harsh offensive words to THE CHURCH are these: Self-Control should be as much as a part of the Christian life as breathing is to the human anatomy. What this means is that single Christians are no longer marginalized in congregations, and celibacy is seen as a valid choice to be encouraged. The Church of Rush Limbaugh is slutty because they are Sodomites who hate the poor (oh, and that 4 marriage things–see, a propensity to unfaithfulness in 1 area….well you can guess). Can there be secular reasons for being celibate? I believe there can be, like remaining on task to struggle against an evil corporation (that’s 2 science fiction references– Dollhouse and Angel).

As I concluded my presentation at the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion in 2009, I say yet again, that THE CHURCH must learn to teach that part of living as the Holies of Holies of YHWH is to re-educate ourselves on the lost virtue of Will-Power.

*ducks, prepares for angry comments, tweet mentions, and persecution*

Related articles

• Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Slut’ Attack Costs Him Advertisers (nymag.com)
• Rush Limbaugh calls a Georgetown University law student a “slut” and “prostitute” (haleybehre.wordpress.com)
• Advertisers jump ship in wake of Rush Limbaugh ‘Slut’ scandal (bazaardaily.com)

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-is-a-slut-according-to-jesuss-words/feed/ 13 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/02/more-time-less-time/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/02/more-time-less-time/#comments Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:54:41 +0000 Optimistic Chad http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9654 Continue reading →]]> I have been doing some thinking this morning about our faith.

It seems that there is no shortage of Christians who want to somehow justify the tenets of Christianity to the rest of the world. It is almost like we can’t justify why or what we believe unless we can convince others of the same thing.

I think of Muslims and how I would never dream of asking them to justify why they don’t drink. I would never ask a Mormon to justify why they don’t do caffeine. For them, it is simply a tenet of their faith, and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If you don’t like it, don’t be a Muslim or a Mormon. (as an aside, I know that there are Muslims and Mormons who don’t strictly follow their precepts, but in my experience, this is either the exception or a temporary lapse).

Why then, do Christians, especially in America, need to justify their beliefs and practices with logic or reasoning before they commit to them? Must Christians give a reason that justifies sex only within marriage? Must we give a well thought-out secular argument for keeping the Sabbath? Why do we have to convince ourselves by convincing others that abortion, war, sexuality, service to the poor, economic practices, and even general kindness are things that Christians should have a particular stance on?

In fact, historically, Christians have logicked (i made that one up, color me Tertullian) their way out of practicing things that are rather central to Christianity itself. Practicing the Sabbath, for instance. We, by and large, no longer do it because it makes very little sense economically or socially. but was that ever the point in the first place? Wasn’t it to remind us that God is the God who sets slaves free, never to be slaves again-and-don’t-you-forget-it-every-time-you-do-no-work-one-day-a-week? What about service to the poor and giving to those who ask of you (whatever you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me…)? Christians by and large don’t do this most often because we logically reason that they will likely not spend the money the way we would want them to (and we haven’t cared enough about them beforehand to prepare something non-monetary in case we chance upon someone who has needs…). In the immortal words of the bards (also known as Caedmon’s Call), “And the least of these look like criminals to me, so I leave Christ on the street.”

It is almost laughable how loudly we Christians will argue for something to become a law that we don’t even practice ourselves. Abortion, divorce, and homosexuality are just as prevalent among those in the church (before we kick them out) as they are everywhere else.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is not whether or not the practices of Christianity make sense, but whether or not we are willing to do them anyway since that it what it means to be a Christian. If we aren’t willing to participate in the norms of Christianity (“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says”), perhaps we require a slightly different label. Perhaps we should call ourselves “admirers of Jesus who like potlucks”…

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/03/02/more-time-less-time/feed/ 3 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/29/call-for-papers-update-joss-whedon-and-theology/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/29/call-for-papers-update-joss-whedon-and-theology/#comments Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:40:58 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9648 Continue reading →]]> In December, I mentioned that the site Theofantastique had a CFP for papers in theological and religious studies with regards to the work of Joss Whedon. The deadline was supposed to be today.

However, through the magic of facebook, I learned that there has been an extension given, to March 14th. If you are interested, please go to Theofantastique for more information.

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/29/call-for-papers-update-joss-whedon-and-theology/feed/ 1 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/21/science-fiction-and-racial-justice-c-s-lewis-as-anticolonial-subversive/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/21/science-fiction-and-racial-justice-c-s-lewis-as-anticolonial-subversive/#comments Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:49:06 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9628 Continue reading →]]>

 

Examining the Particularity of World World II Whiteness

““But the fellah, the unemployed and the starving do not lay claim to truth.  They do not say they represent the truth because they are the truth in their very being.”-Frantz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth, page 13

For many, the mention of Clive Staples Lewis and racial justice may be an odd pairing, especially given Lewis’ place among white conservative evangelicals who cling to his every word on mostly every issue, I mean, except inerrancy and evolution, no doubt.  However, I like to think outside the box, and outside the norm when it comes to resources for the cause of racial justice, and it is in my limited interpretation of Lewis’ Space Trilogy that I now turn, in particular, the second of the series, Perelandra.

Our story begins in Lewis’s Out of the Silent Planet, where our hero Ransom (uh oh, spaghetti theology-O’s!) is kidnapped by Devine and Weston. Devine and Weston (our unassuming antagonists) just so happen to be racist bigots against colonized subjects in Great Britain’s territories. Devine has a paternalistic attitude for an Indian colleague of his, and even though a relative of his may have married one of them, their culture, their existence is inferior in comparison to W’s and D’s progressive society. As Devine tries to seduce Ransom into his and W’s greedy ambition, D names everything from “Dear Old Place and to Playing the Game, to the White Man’s Burden and a Straight Bat.” Of course, Lewis is mimicking the logic of liberal imperialism, empire in the name of scientific and technological progress.

Ransom lands on a mysterious planet, Malacandra, and it is there that he meets some strange black beasts with amber-tinged eyes (the colored-Other we shall say). “Unconsciously he raised himself on his elbow and stared at the black beast.” It is in this encounter that Ransom feels the urge to fellowship in communion with this strange sentient being. “It was like a courtship – like the meeting of the first man and the first woman in the world; it was like something beyond that; so natural is the contact of sexes, so limited. the strangeness, so shallow the reticence, so mild the repugnance to be overcome, compared with the first tingling intercourse of two different, but rational, species.” Going back to my posts on Willie Jennings book on theology and race , The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race, the idea that we are created in the imago Trinitas, image of the Trinity, made for a God who lives in community and for other planetary creatures to love and live in fellowship with as well, goes hand and hand with anti-racist theologies. Unlike the movie Avatar (2009) where the monstrous animalist culture Other remains a colonized subject to remain on the margins, the hrossa and the other sorn (sentient beings) that Ransom encounters are persons with a subjectivity of their own making and have no need of being liberated by the colonial whites.

Ransom informs the sorn of humanity’s colonial failures:

They were astonished at what he had to tell them of human history – of war, slavery and prostitution. “It is because they have no Oyarsa,” said one of the pupils. “It is because every one of them wants to be a little Oyarsa himself,” said Augray. “They cannot help it,” said the old sorn. “There must be rule, yet how can creatures rule themselves? Beasts must be ruled by hnau and hnau by eldila and eldila by Maleldil. These creatures have no eldila. They are like one trying to lift himself by his own hair – or one trying to see over a whole country when he is on a level with it – like a female trying to beget young on herself.”

In Lewis’ hierarchy, God rules over humanity, and then governments rule as a mediator. Democrats (the small d for democratic philosophy) is not looked upon as something worth promoting, but as a form of anarchy itself. In the text Perelandra, Lewis shows the most of what Brian McLaren called in his Generous Orthodoxy, a postcolonial embarassment, in the description of Ransom’s encounter with the Green Lady:

Embarrassment and desire were both a thousand miles away from his experience: and if he was a little ashamed of his own body, that was a shame which had nothing to do with difference of sex and turned only on the fact that he knew his body to be a little ugly and a little ridiculous. Still less was her colour a source of horror to him. In her own world that green was beautiful and fitting; it was his pasty white and angry sunburn which were the monstrosity

She is dark and beautiful, he is ugly, “a little ridiculous,” and pasty at that! Melatonin as a signifier of beauty in this instance remains a reminder for Ransom (and for Lewis) the sins of European empire. Ransom’s struggle is with Weston who becomes the Un-Man whose goal it is to “To spread spirituality, not to spread the human race.” From a historical context, Lewis is criticizing one of his contemporaries, Olaf Stapledon, who I shall feature in this series. Lewis even rejects this theory, is this spirituality is not grounded in a Christian spirituality like that of the Middle Ages. His suspicion recognizes that the thrones of empires change seats, like in one instance, the throne may be religion, and in another science, and today, for example, the CEO’s chair. Humanity’s thrones are fluid and elusive, and it is up to the Christian to discern where injustice lies. Ransom argues (for Lewis) that the evidence of the Un-Man’s inhumanity is found in the lives of the oppressed.

“Well, the blacks know more about the universe than the white people. Dirty priests in back streets in Dublin frightening half-witted children to death with stories about it. You’d say they are unenlightened. They’re not: except that they think there is a way of escape. There isn’t. That is the real universe, always has been, always will be. That’s what it all means”

Lewis makes plain the imperial struggle in which he is waging with his pen by taking this interplanetary war and making it a very terrestrial one here on earth, on a college campus no less in the third piece of the Ransom Trilogy, That Hideous Strength. Ransom calls upon Merlin to help him in his struggle against the National Institute of Coordinate Experiments (NICE), who recognizes the Nimrodian nature of these science-worshipping beasts:

For the Hideous Strength confronts us, and it is as in the days when Nimrod built a tower to reach heaven.”      “Hidden it may be,” said Merlinus, “ but not changed. Leave me to work, Lord. I will wake it

The question for Lewis is not whether or not Christians should work for a better world, that’s obviously a yes. God has given the faithful that responsibility. The question is “What do we want that better world to look like?”

And I would say, it should look a little bit like racial reconciliation and justice.

Related articles

• Racial Justice And Science Fiction: Introduction (politicaljesus.com)
• Racial Justice and Science Fiction: Joss Whedon as Prison Abolitionist (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)
• The Shape of Things To Come: Blogging for Black History Month (politicaljesus.com)

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/21/science-fiction-and-racial-justice-c-s-lewis-as-anticolonial-subversive/feed/ 1 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/18/movie-review-colombiana/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/18/movie-review-colombiana/#comments Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:25:55 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9618 Continue reading →]]> Or Why I Fervently Believe Our Heroines Should Eat

“Eat!”- Cateleya to her pet dogs

“I don’t eat breakfast.”- Cateleya to her Significant Other, Danny

-from Colombiana

Last night, I decided to RedBox Colombiana, a movie I have been wanting to see for a while. I am a big fan movies with movies featuring female characters who kick ass. Colombiana, like HAYWIRE, was a very likeable movie, only I enjoyed Colombiana’s story better.

As a Christian pacifist, I have some concerns in pop culture and probably with myself. Why do I have problems with movies featuring violent males, and “pro-wrestling” and Mixed Martial Arts but enjoy movies when women do it? Perhaps it breaks stereotypes. I haven’t had time to think about it. But a larger problem with Revenge + Justified violence movies, much like TAKEN with Liam Neeson, and even the ABC hit series REVENGE (which I haven’t seen a full episode) is that revenge/retributive justice is promoted as the only alternative in an unjust world. Restorative justice and reconciliation are viewed as non-options, keeping the status quo of gender violence and capital punishment in tack.

Secondly, as a Christian thinker who gets into gender issues, I found the presentation of Cateya’s body, the overly-thin type, plus her quote that she “doesn’t eat” breakfast to be far too problematic in this day in age where churches, governments, and media contest over the bodies of women. Particularly relevant to this discussion is Elizabeth Antus’s (of Women In Theology) article in The Other Journal, To Love Oneself Through Food. Unhealthy social forces convince women to obsess over the size of their bodies already as is, and the makers of Colombiana want us to see Cateleya as a hero, who skips meals, and has remained abnormally thin all of her life in order to pursue her agenda for vengeance? Seems too puzzling for me. Also, the whole “dress as a drunken prostitute thing” really was playing on the whole, yah know, the hottentot venus, where black women are nothing more than erotic zoo exhibits; kinda like most hip-hop music videos.

Overall, I would recommend it (with a huge grain of salt). I am still undecided about the PJ movie ratings system. Gotta be something whedony tho.

]]> http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/18/movie-review-colombiana/feed/ 0 http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/15/racial-justice-and-science-fiction-joss-whedon-as-prison-abolitionist/ http://politicaljesus.com/2012/02/15/racial-justice-and-science-fiction-joss-whedon-as-prison-abolitionist/#comments Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:18:34 +0000 RodtRDH http://politicaljesus.com/?p=9607 Continue reading →]]>

“My surreal experience is the stuff of science fiction (sf).This rumination caused me to think of ‘what if’…..”-Isiah Lavender III, in Race in American Science Fiction, page 2

“Somebody get me a lawyer, because my civil rights have seriously been violated. (a beat) Oh, I get it. I get it! You all can cater to the demon, cater to the dead man, but what. About. The BLACK. Man?!”-Charles Gunn, Angel: Season 1, Episode 21 “Blind Date”

This blog post was not supposed to happen, except perhaps on the trail end of this series, since I was not going to do this post since Whedon has yet to complete a sci fi novel for his audience to receive (graphic novel yes, comic book yes) but I mean more of the traditional novel format such as the now ever popular and recommended The Hunger Games. However, life doesn’t always work out the way you want it, and now, as with any good blog post before introducing a critical idea, a personal story.

It was late in the evening, around 10:30pm CST. Valentine’s Day was about to end. After celebrating this day of love, and even being an anti-racist witness at work (teaching middle schoolers about racist jokes and why they are wrong), I was in a jolly mood after watching another great episode of New Girl, and surpassing 30k on Twitter. I heard some voices shout close by my front porch. It was strange, but I could have sworn I thought the commotion was happening across the street. I then heard my brother’s voice, nervous and intimidated, explaining he was getting his keeps to our part of the duplex. I walked out, there were two police officers, both white and both male. Shouting at my brother, with a gun pulled out. They asked for his backpack, looked, saw his alibi (he had been to the TCU basketball game where we had just upset #11 UNLV, and then McDonald’s). They let him go, withdrew their guns, and briefly informed us of a robbery not too far from our neighborhood. As if that justified the racial hatred and violence that had just happened. The truth is: my brother was harassed by the police because of the color of his skin.

What my brother and I experienced has a name with a face: it’s called the Prison Industrial Complex–partly involves the corporate takeover of our prison system, the other portion involves the militarization and concrete racist, discriminatory practices by local law enforcement. For more information on the Prison Industrial Complex from a religion perspective, I would start with books like Mark Lewis Taylor’s The Executed God (a link to my review and reflection).

I would like to consider for a moment how could Science Fiction speak to my experience as an African American male, even SF works not originally intended for me to be an attendant in the audience (hint, hint). One of my favorite episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer so far has to be “What’s My Line Again?” parts 1 & 2. In it, we are introduced to a Slayer from Jamaica named Kendra whose bodily existence threatens Buffy’s exclusive claim to the title of Slayer. In part 2, Willow, the open-minded bookworm tries to comfort B, “Don’t worry. We all know you’re the real Slayer.” As if K isn’t a Slayer? She has the same abilities and calling, right? Why shouldn’t K be consider a real Slayer?

While there have been critical race theorists who have rightfully called out Whedon on the awkward storyline that is Kendra (and the view of props people of color in the Buffyverse in general), one thing they have all failed to point out, in light of the U.S.American context at that time and in these times, is that Buffy refuses to be a part of career day. The “test” has picked her future as a police officer. Sure, one could chalk this up as her desire to remain a vigilante. But another perhaps more liberating view of Buffy’s disgust with being part of the 5-O is that she denies the white privilege that the position of being a police officer brings.

For those not interested in a girl power show with tons of humor (but just as much awkward multicultural white liberal encounters with props people of color) but may be interested in a dark horror/detective genre show, I would recommend Buffy’s spin-off, ANGEL. Seasons 1 and 2 of Angel are perhaps one of the most overlooked works by Joss Whedon when it comes to race relations. Through the first episodes of Angel, the villains, Wolf Ram and Hart are portrayed as a demon-possessed corporation/law firm dominated predominantly by white males. The addition of Charles Gunn added a racial and class dynamic to Angel’s story that was there (Angel/Liam is of lower-class Irish origin, and his story is the story of the Irish male outcast in U.S. history). One episode (I believe it was Season 1, Blind Date) has Gunn just walking into WR&H’s headquarters, and shouting, “I feel like my civil rights have been violated!” and who could ever forget his quote about evil white corporations do have a face.

“”Whoo-whoo! My god! They told me it was true, but I didn’t believe them. Damn, here it is! Evil white folks really do have a Mecca. (Holds up a hand to the security guards stepping out from behind their desk) Now, now, girls, don’t get all riled up.”-Gunn

Gunn as both former “thug” and vigilante problematizes Angel (vampire turned redeemer) in his relationship with a police officer, Kate.  The Season 2 (#14) episode, “The Thin Dead Line,” tells of a frustrated police chief using the dark arts to “resurrect” former cops as zombies to harass Gunn and his friends at a shelter. Filled with images of white male police officers, harassing poor blacks and Hispanics, “TTDL” should be seen as an indictment against the Prison-Industrial Complex.

With regards to the Prison-Industrial Complex, it seems as if SF(F)[science fiction/fantasy] may be prophetically speaking ahead of “THE CHURCH.” But then again, we can go back to studying Karl Barth’s systematic theology while devaluing Bonhoeffer’s witness, since his letters were written with chained hands.

Related articles

• In the Mail: Girls Who Bite Back (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm, the Pilot: A Great Lost Episode of Joss Whedon’s Angel (politicaljesus.com)
• Call for Papers: Joss Whedon And Theology (politicaljesus.com)
• Buffy The Vampire Slayer Saves Planned Parenthood (thinkprogress.org)
• Racial Justice And Science Fiction: Introduction (politicaljesus.com)

I think she’s on to something:  Grimm is grittier, but OuAT is darker.

When both shows launched, I was psyched for both. But Grimm failed to make a splash after the first half-dozen episodes. It has only been the last two or three episodes that have encouraged me to continue watching. Once Upon a Time, on the other hand, had me hooked right from the get-go and continues to enthrall me. I sit on edge waiting for the next episode.

As I was reflecting on the shows this weekend, after a particularly well-done OuAT episode, I was struck by the differences between the two shows. Grimm is a predominantly male-led show. OuAT is a predominantly female-led show. And I think that this then reflects the style of show that is being presented.

Grimm is a cop procedural with a ‘monster of the week’ theme.  The cops investigate, the one cop is also a Grimm, recognizes the work of Wesen and sets out to find out more with the help of his Blutbad buddy.  The two cops, Nick and Hank, are guys.  The quirky Blutbad is a guy.  The captain, and the secondary cop characters are guys.  Sure, there is Nick’s girlfriend, but for the most part she’s just there for support; that is, one more example of who Nick has to hide his Grimm calling from.  The show plays on the grotesque (take last week’s Tarentella episode, eww gross).  What I find interesting is that the show gets good when there are strong female villians (Amy Acker, Nana Visitor, the Captain’s mysterious protégé), but unfortunately, given the nature of the ‘monster of the week’ set-up, there is no follow-through.

Once Upon A Time, on the other hand, is a predominantly female-led show.  The three central characters are the Grandmother (the Evil Queen/Mayor), the Step-daughter (Snow White/Mary Margaret) and the Granddaughter (Emma).  The show revolves around the story of these three.  The Evil Queen banishes the fairy tale world to our ‘real’ world, and holds them all captive in a sleepy little town in Maine.  Snow, in a bid to save her newborn daughter from the impending banishment, hides her daughter in a wardrobe that transports her safely out of the fairy tale world and safe from the Queen’s curse.  Emma (through the work of her son) comes to Storybrooke, and, as Henry knows and the audience knows, will be the means of ruin for the Evil Queen, and the end of the curse. As a result, the show is much more story and character-based.  It is not a procedural.  And while some may argue that it is a “fairy tale character of the week” based show, the difference between that and Grimm’s monster of the week set-up is that the focus on a specific fairy tale character each week on OuAT serves to develop the plot, the mystery and the characters of the residents of Storybrooke.  Take, for example, last week’s episode that was built around ‘Beauty and the Beast.’ The beast in this rendition was Rumpelstiltskin, and the events of the fairy tale story impacted not only how we see him (we now have some sympathy for him, but he’s still freaky scary) and also advanced the plot (we now know 100% that Rumpel/Mr. Gold and The Evil Queen/Mayor are both fully aware of both worlds, and that forcing Mr. Gold to say his real fairy tale name in Storybrooke gives the Mayor power over him in this realm).

That’s not to say that the men play a minor role in OuAT.  Indeed, Mr. Gold is just one example of important characters advancing the plot.  But the story revolves around the three women.  And for the most part, the other men, Prince Charming, Jiminy Cricket, and even young Henry, are in some ways (for the moment) two dimensional prop characters, without depth and designed to amplify and develop the main characters.

Now, up until recently, Rod had been a huge Grimm fan, while poo-pooing OuAT.  That seems to have changed, as he tweeted yesterday that he likes them equally.  And I have been rather harsh in my critique of Grimm, but have loved OuAT.  But given in the last couple of episodes of Grimm (the writers have given Nick more of a backbone), I’m beginning to really enjoy it.  Balance and harmony seems to be coming to Political Jesus with both Grimm and OuAT being appreciated for their own unique contributions to television.

Hmmm…anyone seeing this as a metaphor for a certain argument that is never-ending within North American evangelical Christianity and our tendency to polarize the other? It’s about finding balance and appreciating both, while under the large banner of being Christians, or in this case, being fans of TV shows about fairy tales.

So, which show are you watching?  Are you watching both? What do you like/dislike?

Related articles

• #Grimm: Tarantella (politicaljesus.com)
• #Grimm: Organ Grinder (politicaljesus.com)

I was just cruising on the blogosphere, and Joel out of nowhere admits he no longer a non-trinitarian!

What in the world! Is it April Fools’ yet? Oh no, I think my posts on the Trinity have gotten to him to be honest. I can be very persuasive like that. Anyways, welcome back to Christianity, Joel Watts!

Trinitarian Tuesdays: Joel

This review of last night’s Grimm comes late because I had an event at church last night. The opening scene had the eerie quotes from a Japanese fairytale, The Goblin Spider.

“Instantly, the priestess changed into a monstrous goblin-spider and the warrior found himself caught in her web.”

We are first introduced to our antagonist for the episode,Lena Marcinko played by Dollhouse’s and Angel’s Amy Acker at a fancy bourgeois art gallery. A guy named Ryan pursue her, and attempts to rape her (he being a Creature/Wesen himself) but before he does, she kills Ryan in what looks like self-defense.

Meanwhile, Juliette and Nick’s house gets egged by kids (who happen to be Wesen, and the children of Wesen). Juliette’s conversation with Nick (Grimm) leads to Nick asking, “You’re telling me you think these kids think I am some kind of monster?” Still confused, Grimm turns to our favorite Blutbat, Monroe. Eddie informs Grimm, “You’re the monster under the bed.” There continued to be a little economic commentary from Grimm’s characters; Renard and Hank both suspect that our victim Ryan is a gambler, in the Stock Market. There have been tidbits throughout the season of this, the struggle of the rich versus the poor, and I do really wish they would make that a larger part of the story, given the original historical context of the Brothers Grimm’s stories.

Nick, seeking answers to his questions, goes to the trailer to read Aunt Marie’s diary. She apparently had met a Grimm from the Asia-Pacific, by way of Singapore Steamer, Japanese doctor by name of Hasegawa who left notes with a rough translation about an unknown creature, a Spinnetod (spider-creaturely, usually a woman) who has feed on young men in order to keep her youth. GrIMM’s writers wanted to make it obvious that this story was a tribute to “The Goblin Spider”;

“Japanese? That’s interesting.”- Eddie to Grimm

Grimm and Hank discover that although Lena is behind the murders of two young men, her family happens to be a trio of Spinnetods, her husband and her teenage daughter. As a way of providing dark humor, Nick and Eddie go to a Wesen retirement home, to visit a “retired” Spinnetod named Charlotte. Charlotte tells our friends that if Spinnetods want to avoid the Mortification process (aging/dying), they must kill three young men every few years.

“The biological imperative is virtually impossible to resist.”- Charlotte to Nick.

Charlotte also tells our men that in so many words, these black widows are also gold-diggers: “We’re attracted to shiny objects, we are.” I admit that I was satisfied with this episode of Grimm, and Fred from Angel made it all the more worth to watch. Even though Grimm’s mythology borrows from fairy tales from other cultures, I wonder just how much the American myth of the woman as gold-digger as well as the evil old spinster played a part in this particular story. This specific episode, Tarantella could easily be interpreted as playing into sexist and ageist stereotypes, one in which only men win the day, and therefore patriarchy.

It’s funny how me proving to Joel how evil Jar Jar Binks was still has so much evidence. Now, a deleted scene from Star Wars Episode III has revealed that Jar Jar Binks was a traitor all along, a collaborator with the Sith. Thank the heavens this has been revealed. Now, Joel can see the light. Join the Dark Side! It’s okay, really.

So, first, Lando Calrissian betrays the Rebellion. Now, Jar Jar Binks. Apparently, George Lucas believes that black people are minstrel who are the worst traitors in the galaxy. Thanks, George Lucas! But hey, he did do Red Tails, that counts for something, right?

Related articles

• Jar Jar Binks is back, and still offending filmgoers, Star Wars fans (thegrio.com)

My Ethiopian Bible is bigger than Your White King James Bible!!!

“Let me add one more line in order to connect my African-South African reality with that of my fellow Africana sisters: ‘Isono sethu ubulili bethu besifazane–”Our sin is our female sex.’ ” Madipoane Masenya (page 33)

Like many posts I do, I begin this one with a personal story. A while back I was riding the Fort Worth T bus on the way home from a long morning at work. I sat in the back, wearing my blue “Got Jesus?” hoodie when a elderly black man across the aisle from me, informed me that my hoodie was wrong, that I had the wrong name on that shirt. And I responded, what am I doing wrong? And the man said, God’s name is Jehovah, and Jehovah only. Of course, my reply was well Jehovah is the German rendition of the divine name in the “Old Testament.” He tried to call himself persuading me to his “argument” but I tuned him out, and went on my merry way. Lovely story right? Probably wondering what exactly does that have to do with this post on Women, Art, and Responsibility in The Africana Bible?

Well, my friend, for Christians in the African Diaspora, the Bible is a cherished book. West Africans generally, according to Steed Vernyl Davidson, Justin Ukpong, and Gosnell York in “The Bible and Africana Life: A Problematic Relationship,” sometimes sleep with their Bible under their pillows (hey in Texas, it’s guns–okay okay, I kid, well maybe not) (p 39-40). The Bible is seen as being able to be reconciled with African worldview(s), but funny thing is, some white Christians identify their own brand of Christianity as THE only way of being biblical. Funny how that works, eh? The Bible permeates so much of African diasporic life that the Hebrew Bible inspires artwork, from John Edgar Wideman’s novel Two Cities to Harriet Power’s “Bible Quilt” to the spirituals of enslaved Africans sung on American shores to Isaac Hayes’ album, Black Moses. Need I go on? — see “The Hebrew Bible in Africana Art, Music, and Popular Culture” by Kimberly N. Ruffin (page 52-57).

Back to my story: is Jehovah, the German iteration of YHWH, the Holy Name, the SINGULAR, ONE AND ONLY WAY to address God, to have a relationship with God. 1000 years ago, God became Incarnate in a German Barbarian, and it is by being a part of the Prussian race that one is saved, right? Looks that way. That’s the logic my friend on the bus. My friend and his fellow co-religionists are reading the Bible irresponsibly. Rev. Wil Gafney argues that responsibly reading Israel’s Scriptures means “putting an end to the mediation of the scriptures through gentile languages, especially German, in this post-Holocaust world” (48). Indeed, even Israel’s Scriptures depiction of God’s Gender is not masculine (sorry, John Piper), but the only reproductive organ God has in the Bible is a womb (50). Whoopsy! Looks like androncentrists, sexists, and masculinists have a problem with God! Gafney continues, “The reception of the scriptures of Israel into the Christian canon was and is marked by usurpation, colonization, anti-Judaism, and anti-Semitism. Specifically in the West, the scriptures of Israel have regularly been mediated through gentilic culture and languages, particularly German, which is especially onerous in a post-Holocaust world” (47). When you think about it, misogynists who hate women, they read the Bible irresponsibly too.

Related articles

• Introducing The Africana Bible: Not A Commentary, but A Folklore (politicaljesus.com)
• The Africana Bible: Judges and Dethroning Bishop Long (politicaljesus.com)

I question whether there is not some equivocation in failing to specify the virtues which entitle sacred theology to the title of ‘queen’. It might deserve that name by reason of including everything that is learned from all the other sciences and establishing everything by better methods and with profounder learning …. Or theology might be queen because of being occupied with a subject which excels in dignity all the subjects which compose the other sciences, and because her teachings are divulged in more sublime ways. — Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Dowager (1615)

Today, there is a group of theologians who go by the Radical Orthodoxy project, led by John Milbank and his interpretation of the idea that “Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.” As such, what you get is an ecclesiology that has a huge need for linguistic gatekeepers, since only Christians are able to understand the language of Christianity, ala post-liberalism (at least my reading of it). Each Radical Orthodox book I have read has the same blueprint: engage in what seems to be scathing critique of some “secular” discipline and practice, say, economics, and then use the last chapter to talk about how THE CHURCH is the solution to the problem.

Obviously, this take on RO on a blog may seem polemical, and granted, I am capable of more complex and generous reading of RO theology, but the reason why I introduce RO at the start of my introduction to my series on Racial Justice and Science Fiction. The implications for RO/THE CHURCH theologies is that they are closed, anti-conversational, and more biased/less critical towards traditions that just are not liberating. If indeed the RO/THE CHURCH theologians are correct, what is the point of doing other disciplines for? And furthermore, where in history has THE CHURCH been the leading teacher for solving the world’s problems? It seems to me that RO/THE CHURCH Christian thinkers are way too utopian in their collective praise for Aquinas and company.

Take the literary genre of science fiction, for example. In Adam Roberts’ Palgrave History of Science Fiction, Roberts’ argues that the emergence of Science Fiction happens in part to the Protestant Reformation. Much of the ways of knowing the world (epistemology) that the Reformers promoted was a PROTEST (zing!) against things like Geocentrism and Sacramentalism (according to Roberts), and in Roberts’ words, “Catholic fantasy.” I reject Roberts’ binary (read: Anti-Catholicism) but his argument has some merit. There cannot be science fiction prior to the birth of the scientific worldview. One could say then that Science Fiction, from the beginning was a theological, and continues to be a theological enterprise from its very inception. No, I am not saying that all science fiction works make a case for God or Higher Being of some sort, but what I am contending is that Science Fiction writings, plays, and movies have always reflected our (humanity’s) ultimate concerns.

If theology is seen as a closed conversation, since she is viewed at the top of the pyramid (ala Milbank), then prophetic critiques from the “outside” “secular” voices hold no weight. However, if theology is viewed in a non-hierarchal and conversational manner, then maybe perhaps the “secular” becomes a very integral part of the life of “THE CHURCH.” After all, the body of Christ is to be a community of the Word, which in Scripture, usually means a dialogue, and covenant, which eventually means a quest for justice.

This leads me to this series on Racial Justice and Science Fiction. Sometimes, theologians find the strangest of allies, but when it comes to advocates for racial justice and critical race theorists, perhaps this pairing is a bit too odd. Make no mistake this series will not be a dismantling of any science fiction texts on the level of my and Adam’s take on William P. Young’s The Shack (even though that is a possibility). Instead I have decided to take a random sampling of some of my favorite science fiction writings to share with the audience, and give examples have these texts can “make it plain” to folks what antiracism looks like, and in so doing, opening up the possibility for people to dream, and then work for racial justice, like that great Trekkie, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Texts/Authors included are:

Olaf Stapledon’s The Last and First Men

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World

C.S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy (special focus on Perelandra–the 2nd piece)

Octavia Butler’s Kindred

Related articles

• The Shape of Things To Come: Blogging for Black History Month (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Book Reviews And I’m Taking Suggestions for Posts (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)
• Galileo on the relation between science and religion (http://lippard.blogspot.com/)

When I first heard of The Africana Bible, my first reaction was, oh, here we go again. What haven’t black scholars already said about Black Interpretation and The Bible. I’ve already read and own Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation, as well as True To Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary. I really didn’t understand the difference until I read Hugh Page Jr.’s essay, “The Africana Bible: A Rationale.” He sees The Africana Bible “as a work produced by those who function as poets and ‘storytellers’ in academic, church, and other settings” (page 5). In Page Jr.’s eyes, The Africana Bible can be used as a tool that “increases awareness of Black lived experience throughout the world” as well as “enables Black experience today to be viewed from a global perspective” (ibid). The Africana Bible is not a commentary, but a product of Africana expressive culture, as it “blurs the lines between literary prose, critical scholarship, and (at points) poetry” (page 8).

Leslie R. James’ piece, “The African Diaspora as Construct and Lived Experience” traces the history of biblical studies with the histories of oppressions of African peoples during European colonization. For example, European Christianities changed with the work of Albert Schweizer’s The Quest for the Historical Jesus; while Schweitzer seems to give up looking for Christ as a historical figure (within a particular version of European messianism), Frantz Fanon asks us to look for a New Humanity, one that lied outside the realm of Europe, and made available to all peoples in his Wretched of the Earth. Fanon had transformed the subaltern embodied experience of the colonized into a a gateway for universal truth. No, I did not stutter. The label of Africana is diasporic in nature, and we (I as a reader and the writers of this book) this term metaphorically. The allegory of Diaspora opens up the story of the Hebrew Scriptures to Christianities worldwide, and in the U.S. American context, Black Americans have learned true neighborly love, solidarity with the Other, the Israelites of the Bible through Israel’s stories. James contends, “Diaspora has to be perceived as ontological, epistemological, ecumenical, political, and practical” and may I add THEOLOGICAL as well (16)! We know that YHWH is the God of our ancestors, the God of our weary years through the stories of the First Testament, and in our experiences in Diasporic religions.

The multi-authored essay, “African and African Diasporan Hermeneutics: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Journey, Exile, and Life through My/Your Place contends that “Africana biblical hermeneutics are contextual, particular, and powerful” (19). However, Africana biblical interpretation, assuming it is done by Christians, is not rigidly situated and static, enclosed to our Africana communities. Rather, as I have argued with a Trinitarian and Black reading of the Acts of the Trinity, cultural and theological readings of Scripture are reconcilable because of the Trinitarian existence of our God, the Lord Incarnate Jesus the Messiah. Cheryl A. Kirk Duggan begins her portion of this piece, “A trinitarian God-presence and an awareness of the Bible emerged through my daily experiences of family, church, and culture” (21). Did you catch that? Trinitarianism and the concerns for holistic living (a Womanist theological concern) are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they go hand in hand! The multiplicity of ways people engage the Bible with other texts–”in multiple places and spaces”–embolden communities to work for justice and love (22). Kirk-Duggan continues,

“The Pentateuch, or Torah presents creation, sin, liberation, celebration, regulations, injustice, the mystery of God. and the import of faith. Royal histories warn us about messianism, flawed leaders and seductive failures of empires. Unfortunately prophets for justice often demonize women to show Israel/Judah their errors [me-ahem, like Ezekiel]. Wisdom literature, especially the Psalms, provides a liturgical corpus for confession, petition, and thanksgiving.” (page 22)

Africana theological hermeneutics of the First Testament should then include a reading of JUDGES that challenges the seduction of messianic bishops and pastors building empires. Africana theology and biblical scholarship should eventually become a part of the new black theology movement, and become inclusive of Early Christian writers as well. David Tuesday Adamo, in his “The Bible in Twenty-First Century Africa,” points specifically to the Alexandrian Fathers (Clement, Origen, and Athanasius) as Africans who used the Bible to fight oppression (pages 27).

Next up: The Africana Bible, Women, and the Arts.

Related articles

• The Africana Bible: Judges and Dethroning Bishop Long (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Book Reviews And I’m Taking Suggestions for Posts (politicaljesus.com)
• The Shape of Things To Come: Blogging for Black History Month (politicaljesus.com)

“We shall see the crumbs of bread…..and they will show us our way home again.”

This week’s episode of Grimm was the darkest and probably the best all around episode to date.  We open up with the image of a raven pecking, feasting on a corpse which had just been thrown overboard, into a river.  The raven, for those unfamiliar with the Brothers Grimm’s work, is a symbol for evil and wickedness, primarily from women (part of the residue 19th century Prussian liberal male sexism). Our usual suspects, Nick and Hank, are on the job, at the scene of the crime.

Next, we see Nick, going to Monroe (surprise surprise?) for advice, about his relationship with his significant other, Juliette.  Nick finally tells Monroe that Aunt Marie told him to break up with Juliette. Of course, this should bring out more of our suspicions. Is Aunt Marie right in this matter? And going back to last week’s episode, Of Mouse and Man, where there is a family spooked by the sight of Juliette, one has to wonder if she herself is not a Wesen (of course, that’s my take).

Hank and Nick take a look at the body, and find two holes in the neck of the victim. Sergeant Wu asks, “Anyone believe in vampires?”

Throughout the investigation, Hank and Nick discover the victims are usually homeless street kids, renting P.O. boxes., going to the free clinic, taking temporary employment opportunities. Hank summed up the situation: “Sounds like migrant labor.”

This modern day Hansel and Gretel re-telling stayed faithful to the original tale which begins as a story of economic oppression. When Nick and Juliette take Hanson and Gracie out to dinner, Gracie tells them, “It’s pretty simple. Our parents sucked.” Oh, but it’s still the mother’s fault. Don’t forget that. Women are evil. T.V. is always a good reminder of that. Thankfully, the big bad Wesen this week were not the center of the story (which they shouldn’t) but we met a Fuchsbau for the first time, a cat-like creature who sells dried up, grounded human organs for a price, and he begs Grimm not to kill him. Of course, this indicates that Marie and other past Grimms had a history of extreme violence and murder against the other Wesen. The other Wesen this week was a Geier, a witch-like troll, with a crooked beak. She seems to be the one behind the whole “free health clinic turned human organ selling cartel” scam. Enter Captain Renard: “Well which ever way you look at it, it’s still cannibalism.” And in a moment of truth and dark humor, Sergeant Wu corrects him “Uh, I think it’s pronounced capitalism.”

Nick, being so goodhearted, attempts to save the Geier, but she falls into a pit of fire (happens at the end of the actual Hansel and Gretel story too!). At end of this, Renard recieves a package, a box, with the Reaper emblem on it. It’s the ear he sliced off from another Reaper who tried to trespass on the Captain’s territory. A mysterious voice, speaking for “the Ferrat” (I can only assume to be the ruling council of Reaper warns Renard, “A Grimm on his own is like a Samurai with his Master.”

Renard counters that this one has a badge and conscience. Does that make all the difference, with Grimm’s family past history and all? Perhaps Renard is more complex than I first realized. Maybe he, like Nick, is a rebel against his own tradition, although Nick is not aware of it yet.

I just simply cannot wait for next week: Amy Acker (FRED FROM ANGEL) will be guest starring!!!

Related articles

• Grimm: Of Mouse and Man (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Game Ogre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm, the Pilot: A Great Lost Episode of Joss Whedon’s Angel (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: The Three Bad Wolves (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Variations on a Theme (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Danse Macabre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Bears Will Be Bears (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Lonelyhearts (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: BEEWARE (politicaljesus.com)
• TV Friday: Grimm (canada.com)
• A Preview of Grimm Episode 1.10 – Organ Grinder (dreadcentral.com)
• Once Upon a Time Vs. Grimm Ep 9: Daddy Issues (tor.com)

Girls Who Bite Back: Witches, Mutants, Slayers, and Freaks came in the mail yesterday. Can’t wait to finish reading it. Already completed one essay essential for my current work on race and science fiction/ fantasy: “‘Cuz the Black Chick Always Gets It First: Dynamics of Race in Buffy the Vampire Slayer” by Candra K. Gill.

On Wednesday, Professor Anthea Butler responded to Bishop Eddie Long’s enthronement. Please read her article, for she gives great insight into the cult of the pastor in the black church. First, as a disclaimer, I don’t want to make this just about New Birth or Eddie Long. It’s significant that a religious community is attempting to reach an unreached people group in the U.S.; Black males, no matter, and that a church sees itself as political. However, what I want to deal with today is something no one really likes to talk about, and that is the royal ideology behind the Black Pulpit (well, really, the American Protestant pulpit). Part of the reason why I am afraid of working for a church is the cult of the pastor, the sectarian veneration of preaching leader of a congregation.

Part of this comes from U.S. American theology’s obsession and too optimistic reception of the Monarchy period in Ancient Israel. We like to talk about David who had a heart for God; David, had a heart for worship. Sure, we acknowledge he was wrong for murdering one of his great soldiers and taking his wife, but David’s greatness as king, his reputation as a worshiper over turns that little blemish. What ends up happening is that churches use this ideological gaze in which we look at David, and turn it on the person at the center of U.S. American Protestant worship services: the pastor.

Challenges to the royal ideology of pastoral authority are rare, even from progressive circles. It is seen as a reality to be dealt with and managed. I have grown to not accept this “reality” as such, for I feel that an adequate challenge to this brand of authoritarianism can be built from one of the strangest and most violent texts in the canon: Judges. From a very young age, for some strange reason, I have always been fascinated with the book of Judges. The stories of Gideon, Ehud (he was left handed, and you know, lefties are the smartest), Deborah, the moron Jepthah, and Samson have a special place in my heart. When I took a Judges class in undergrad, where the mode of interpretation of reader-response was prevalent, I felt a greater appreciation for Judges, especially its politics and history. How do I JUDGE a bible translation? Some scan through Romans, and others the Gospel of John, but for me, it is Judges. It is the reason why I do not like the New Living Translation in part because of its take on Judges 6:12, that YHWH calls Gideon a mighty hero– that places a value on the label of Gideon as a soldier which was not there before. Gideon, my favorite character in the Bible, is the anti-hero who struggles with embracing the royal ideology himself (as we discover by Chapter 9).

Many interpreters choose to read and promotes Judges 1-18, and skip over chapters 19-21 because of the gruesome imagery of male on concubine rape, as well as the degradation of cutting the women’s bodies to shreds as a call to war. I find this trend disturbing. I wait each Sunday to hear a sermon on Judges 19 to no avail. Alas! One example of this type of sugarcoating Judges is from The Global Bible Commentary, by Fidele Ugira Kwasi. Certainly, a liberationist reading of Judges from his Congolese context would help him to battle economic justice. The idea of God displaying divine wrath against social inequality is a fair reading of Judges, but this is the problem with contextual reading that are static. We are not allowed to move to hear other voices.

Walter Brueggemann, in his essay in Struggling With Scripture, entitled “Biblical Authority: A Personal Reflection,” argues that the Bible as the inherent Word of God, “is not a fixed, frozen, readily exhausted read; it is rather a ‘script,’ always reread, through which the Spirit makes new” (page 12). Making interpretations the settled and closed words of humanity demands colonizing churches with the familiar, and making them, in Walter’s words, playgrounds for idolatry. This is exactly the case we have with Black and White U.S. American Christian readings of 1st & 2nd Samuel, as well as 1st & 2nd Kings. Alternative voices appear in the text, they are just silenced. I oppose the idea what others call “the preaching moment” as sacrament for this very reason, that idolatry takes place too often in ecclesial bully pulpits.

In The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures From Africa and the African Diaspora, Randall Bailey chose not to avoid those hard texts, the ones in Judges where the bodies of nameless women are violated. Instead, he has provided a reading that makes these nameless marginalized women the center of the text. The focal point of the book of Judges is not therefore, that of Pastor Bishop So And So charismatic leaders who lead Israel into battle, but the victims, those who suffer the most from Israel’s infidelity to YHWH. Bailey concludes his piece, “Somehow, although the men get the titles and books named for them, it is often the sisters who get the job done. Could this be why you are bitter, Peaches? [from Nina Simone's 'Four Women'] Or are you angry because the book does not show God intervening to help any of these women in dealing with the oppression they face or in saving their lives from the excesses and foolishness of the men in their lives? (122)”

Are you laughing at the congregation at New Birth for their enthroning of their Bishop? Are you angry with yourself having once dreamed of being treated like king in front of the whole congregation? Do you taste the bitterness of Jepthah’s daughter or the Levite’s concubine?

Related articles

• Bishop Eddie Long is crowned ‘king in God’s government’ (VIDEO) (thegrio.com)
• Eddie Long ‘crowning’: Why do black churches often put pastors on a pedestal? (thegrio.com)
• The Shape of Things To Come: Blogging for Black History Month (politicaljesus.com)
• Eddie Long crowned ‘king’: New Birth criticized for ceremony that went viral (thegrio.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Well well. It seems like Anonymous stumbled upon some e-mail conversations, and found NeoNazis (American Third Position Party) collaborating with Ron and Rand Paul at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee). Should anyone be surprised, really? Paul’s charade has gone on long enough. He is free to be a member of A3P if he wants, just be honest about it, dude.

For more:

Read– The International Business Times: Anonymous Expose Nazi Third Position ‘Bridging Tactic’ with Ron Paul

Muchos gracias to Joel Watts

Related articles

• „Anonymous” Reveals Close Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis (dokmz.wordpress.com)
• “Anonymous” Reveals Close Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Anonymous Hacks Account of Alleged White Power Supporter, Finds Emails Coordinating Meetings With Ron (and Rand) Paul (minx.cc)
• Anonymous Claims Neo-Nazi Links to Republican Ron Paul (ibtimes.com)
• Anonymous Hacks White Supremacist Site, Finds Direct Links to Ron Paul (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Well, I know I have not been posting recently, but I plan to get back to it. I have some things in store.

I want to do a controversial series to make everyone squeamish, so I wanted to do what has turned out to maybe a 5 or 6 post series on Racial Justice and Science Fiction. Included in that will be C.S. Lewis, Octavia Butler, Aldous Houxley, and Olaf Stapledon among others.

I also have plans to do my series on The Africana Bible, and first up will be an introduction and a reflection Judges (My Favorite book) as a response to Bishop Eddie Long’s Enthronement.

#MISBEHAVING

Check out Amanda Mac’s blog as she hosted this month’s Biblioblog Carnival: Biblioblog Carnival for February 2012 at Cheese-Wearing Theology

Babylon 5

 

“I don’t wear the dress. You make Paul wear the dress.”- Mallory Kane

Last week, Amanda Mac gave her glowing endorsement of Haywire in her movie review.

So, I took her and Chuck’s advice, went and saw it. I must say, the first 10 minutes of the movie, the acting was sub-par. But other than that little blip, I found the movie quite entertaining and provocative. It was interesting how gender wasn’t ignored, neither was it over-done, like say, that gorramm awful Catwoman (2004) movie starring Halle Berry. I also grinned with the Wonder Woman reference by a police officer to Mallory when she was under arrest. Overall, I would compare Haywire to those who are familiar with The Bourne Trilogy, and just as enjoyable as the Bourne Ultimatum.

I haven’t thought of a ratings system yet for PJ. Maybe that will be next. Any suggestions? How about 5 Yoders? Or 2 Moltmanns up?

Related articles

• Female Characters Who Kick Ass: Introducing Mallory Kane (politicaljesus.com)
• Movie Review: #Haywire (politicaljesus.com)

Postcolonialism and Science Fiction by Jessica Langer

I am really hoping this one arrives, I really am.

Related articles

• Postcolonialism and Science Fiction: An Excerpt (3quarksdaily.com)
• A Book Recommendation: James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction (politicaljesus.com)
• Langer’s Science Fiction and Postcolonialism (adamroberts.com)

Traditionally, the Patristics and their work were used as apologetics to protect Christians and our propositional truth claims. Tertullian agrees with me! No Augustine agrees with me! Origen is a heretic! Clement of Alexandria? Can you say liberal?

Recently, there has been a trend in the discipline of black theology to use Early Church thinkers toward anti-racist ends. The cover story in The Christian Century: The New Black Theology highlights this move brilliantly.

“What is revolutionary about these three black theologians is that they rely heavily on dogmatic texts from the patristic period to the Reformation. Why is this novel? Because nonwhite male theologians have historically been hesitant to trust these sources—and for good reason. In the worst of times, classic theological texts have been used to oppress persons of color and women. In the best of times, the overwhelming attention given these particular voices obscured other voices, giving the impression that the only Christians speaking and writing about God for the last 2,000 years were European men. Those who did not fit that description simply did not know how to relate to a tradition that claimed to speak for but did not reflect them.”

I would highly recommend that you give the article, linked above, a read. I am filled with excitement for this trend, if you couldn’t already tell. But first, I would like to show gratitude to the theological foremothers and forefathers who came before me, the crazy Zilpha Elaws, Julia J.A. Footes and James Cones, whose sharing of the Gospel have had a great impact on me theologically. The great news about this “new” black theology, Black Theology 2.0, is that theological resources from Early Christianity, and from the Antebellum South are read as equals. These acts in themselves are subversive, for they challenge our racist, sexist academic canons in theological studies that now exists as the hegemons that racial minority scholars have to face.

Two more important and encouraging signs about this theology is that #1, these black male writers are arguing how racism against blacks has its history intertwined with the histories of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism, as Frantz Fanon argued a long time ago. Secondly, the “new black theology” has begun to make Christian theology an essential resource for critical race theory in general. That is why, even though I really, really hate neologisms, I have some desire to tentatively call this new theology, to escape the black-white binary, Critical Race Theology. I am still working on it, so it is a work in progress.

For more information about what I am calling “CRITICAL RACE THEOLOGY”:

Visit J. Kameron Carter’s blog and read my review of his book: Race: A Theological Account

Read my review of, and read Willie Jennings’ The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race.

See also Brian Bantum’s blog, as well as from the evangelical perspective, Anthony Bradley’s site.

Network on FACEBOOK with theologians and religion scholars doing critical race theory:

Theology and Critical Race Theory

The Journal for Race, Ethnicity, and Religion

Society of Race, Ethnicity and Religion

You may also be interested in reading my Master of Theology Thesis, Beyond Liberated: Divine Transcendence and Cultural Hybridity in the Theologies of Clement of Alexandria and James Cone.

Related articles

• The Patristics And The Abolition of Slavery (politicaljesus.com)

Last year in December, Joel made note of the similarities between the Pastoral Letter of 1st Timothy and Plutarch.

As I was reading Plutarch’s Morals on Kindle myself, I noticed a few similarities between this 2nd century thinker’s viewpoint and the apostles. One difference I would maintain is that for Plutarch, his code of ethics is for males who were born of good birth.

Plutarch wrote his Morals because he believed that ethics was philosophy, and vice versa:

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 207-13 |

Philosophy, therefore, ought to be regarded as the most important branch of study. For as regards the cure of the body, men have found two branches, medicine and exercise: the former of which gives health, and the latter good condition of body; but philosophy is the only cure for the maladies and disorders of the soul. For with her as ruler and guide we can know what is honourable, what is disgraceful; what is just, what unjust; generally speaking, what is to be sought after, what to be avoided; how we ought to behave to the gods, to parents, to elders, to the laws, to foreigners, to rulers, to friends, to women, to children, to slaves: viz., that we ought to worship the gods, honour parents, reverence elders, obey the laws, submit ourselves to rulers, love our friends, be chaste in our relations with women, kind to our children, and not to treat our slaves badly”

The life of virtue is one of an on going nourishment:

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 1653-55 |

For just as nurses mould with their hands the child’s body, so tutors, receiving it immediately it is weaned, mould its soul, teaching it by habit the first vestiges of virtue.”

The language of teachers being serving as mothers, breastfeeding the soul is reminiscent of Clement of Alexandria’s views on the Church, giving breast milk to all of her little babies: CoA refers the nourishing Father who provides us with milk to drink, which is the teachings and sacrifice of Christ in Clement’s The Educator.

Plutarch continues,

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Note Loc. 269 |
I will next state something quite as important, indeed, if anything, even more important. That is, that life must be spent without luxury, the tongue must be 15under control, so must the temper and the hands.”

Do not these words ring with the Wisdom of the Letter to James:

“But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing. If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” James 1:25-27

The pure religion has a bridled tongue, solidarity with the poor, and a sanctified lifestyle to offer to the Father.

What I found to be most interesting is Plutarch’s take on wives submitting to husbands, or rather husbands not ruling over wives as complementarians would have us to understand the cultural context,

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 1365-67 |

But the husband ought to rule his wife, not as a master does a chattel, but as the soul governs the body, by sympathy and goodwill.”

Plutarch is not trying to appease egalitarians out of some dream of political correctness, as egalitarians like me are accused of. No, what he is saying is that there is an essential unity between man and woman in marriage, and so the overlordship that complementarian academic scholars like the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is not consistent with Greek philosophy of the 1st and 2nd centuries Common Era. My point is that Plutarch’s understanding of submission, although not perfect, or Christian, still come pretty close to what egalitarians have been arguing about men being the SOURCE of women (like Adam “birthing” Eve in Genesis)–Thanks Suzanne!

I have been wondering silently to myself what a Christian Plutarchian understanding of kephale would mean when Christians read 1st Corinthians. Maybe if we took consideration of the Incarnation, how the mystery of the Logos became one with the anatomy of a fetus inside the womb of a 2nd Century Jewish virgin. A soul governing the body? Sound familiar? Read the above paragraph again. Think about it.

Plutarch had a good grasp of what justice is; it is not vengeance or privatized judgements in favor of one person over the other. No, he had a social understanding of justice.

“Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Note Loc. 1736 |

For virtue, when it considers what it ought to do and what it ought not to do, is called prudence; and when it curbs passion, and sets a fit and proper limit to pleasure, it is called self-control; and when it is associated with our dealings and covenants with one another, it is called justice”

Justice cannot be understood without relationships with others, without covenants. Plutarch’s admonition for his audience (rich Greek males) to practice self-control rings odd in the ears of our hedonistic society today, where the rich get richer and more hedonistic (even when they do go to church) while the poor get poorer and the Republican lecturing circuit.

I will end this post with Plutarch’s political advice to those of us living in the United States today:

Plutarch’s Morals (Plutarch)
- Highlight Loc. 327-28 |

Abstain from beans: that is, do not meddle in state affairs, for the voting for offices was formerly taken by beans.

Beans beans they are good for your heart, if you eat too many, they will make you fart. Don’t vote, folks, or you’ll get the runs!

Well, now there is another kick-ass character to add to the list: Mallory Kane.  Mallory Kane is played by MMA fighter Gina Carano in the movie Haywire.

Haywire is The Bourne Identity meets Ocean’s Eleven.  It has the feel of the 80’s action flicks of Jean-Claude Van Damme, in which the movie isn’t dependent on the star’s acting ability.  That being said, Gina does a pretty good job holding her own in the acting arena, and given a few more films, she will be pretty good.  (Remember that the trio from Harry Potter had no acting background before they got pegged for Philosopher’s Stone, and look at how they matured in their acting over the next seven films).

Move over JVC, Bruce Willis, and Jason Statham.  There is a new action hero on the scene.  But the question is, will audiences accept this 21^st century heroine?

Some people might be uncomfortable with the fight scenes because of their realism.

It is this realism that caught me off-guard during the first fight scene.  Fight scenes with characters like Buffy and Sydney are almost cartoonish.  But this was different.  You can tell that Carano does all her own fight scenes, and there is nothing flashy about them.  She is doing what she knows, grappling and striking, leg locks and arm bars.  All of which makes the fight scenes have a strong sense of realism about them. Compared to the cartoonish fighting of Alias and BtVS, Mallory is fighting ‘dirty’, and is not relying on stunt doubles, special effects, wire-fu, or highly stylized choreography.

Add to it that all the fight scenes are Mallory versus guys, and there may be some discomfort at the violence involving a woman, since we’re all taught that men aren’t supposed to hit a lady. But as Ewan MacGregor’s character says to Michael Fassbender’s character “Don’t think of her as a woman”, meaning that to do so will be to underestimate her.

To those who may feel uncomfortable, I would suggest that if that is the case, ask yourself, “Would I feel uncomfortable with this violence if it was done by a male action hero?”  or “Do I feel this uncomfortable when Buffy is wailing on the vampires?”

The other thing I appreciated about this movie and the Mallory Kane character is that the movie doesn’t make her into a sex object.  It would have been easy.  An action movie for a mostly male audience means that the movie can show skin and sex appeal or even sex itself.  This movie is discreet.  The romantic sex scene is all innuendo, with the scene cut after the kiss, and restarted the morning after.  As well, when Mallory has to go undercover in evening wear, she shows just how uncomfortable she is with it.  It is not her.  She is playing a part.  But more importantly, the evening wear isn’t skanky or revealing; it is classy and elegant.

From what I’ve seen, the movie is getting decent reviews.  I hope that means that we will see more of Mallory Kane/Gina Carano in the future.  At the very least, hopefully it shines a spotlight on the female MMA circuit. There are some very talented female athletes who compete and who don’t get nearly the coverage that the male-dominated UFC gets.

I am speaking out of my capacity as someone with Methodist and Wesleyan friends, as well as someone who agrees for the most part with Wesleyan theology. John Wesley would not approve of the prosperity anti-gospel, and the Word of BANK  Faith movement. I have already made my opposition known to Tither-Driven Churches; I would now like to use John Wesley himself as an example, especially in light of lame-line seminaries aligning themselves with heresy in order to make a cheap buck. It’s pretty unbelieveable that this same school United Seminary has a member on its board who would rather go on an anti-Catholic rant (he’s a Methodist pastor) rather than confronting heretics. Apostacy wins. Tradition loses.

There is a difference between Catholics and the Word of Bank Faith movement. Catholic priests preach the Gospel, the Good News God ordained for the poor, for the broken hearted, for the unborn, and for the elderly. The prosperity anti-gospel does the exact opposite; we cannot compare the two. Catholic clergy and laity affirm the content of the Gospel while the prosperity anti-gospel movement, they CHANGE the content of the gospel to its very antithesis.

This leads me to reflect on John Wesley’s sermon on 1st Timothy 6:9; now, 1st and 2nd Timothy are not just friendly pastoral letters telling us how we should run our “CHUCH”; no indeed, historically, Paul is confronting rich women who were trying to take over the life of the church by their wealth and power. Theologically reconsidered, Paul’s message to Timothy and his church matches Jesus’ priestly ministry, that God just does not have a heart for the poor, but that they are His very heart, His existence, and, as the song goes, He is the Defender of the Weak, a Comfort to those in need. Our love and solidarity for the poor do not take a backseat to ecclesiology or pastoral authority; rather it is the reverse.

John Wesley preached on thedangers of riches, and greed ruled his day like it does our: “How many thousands do we find at this day, in whom the ruling principle is, the desire to enlarge the pleasure of tasting! Perhaps they do not gratify this desire in a gross manner, so as to incur the imputation of intemperance; much less so as to violate health or impair their understanding by gluttony or drunkenness. But they live in a genteel, regular sensuality; in an elegant epicurism, which does not hurt the body, but only destroys the soul, keeping it at a distance from all true religion.” Of course when you believe in either a hedonistic god like John Piper who only works for His own good please, well, I guess it’s okay to affirm a capitalism where each works for his own good.

Philosophically, John Wesley was a contemporary, and a vocal opponent of the pagan philosopher economist Adam Smith. United Methodist theologian Joerg Rieger notes in his book, NO Rising Tide that it was faithful Christians like John Wesley who first confronted Smith and his unbiblical theories, not any “godless Marxists.” Justice must include covenant, and the New Covenant, just as the First Covenant, gives first priority to the widows, the orphans, the elderly,the exiled, and the unborn over those concerned with the here and now, the middle-class, and those who see themselves in “stable-homes.” This goes against the logic of “satan likes to see a poor preacher’; that’s just bad anti-gospel theology, and misses the whole point about Scripture’s message (and John Wesley’s view) about stewardship.

Are modern-day Protestant clergy here in Amerika superior to the apostles and disciples, that we don’t have to go through persecution, or fellowship with the disabled, or suffer through poverty, chosen or unchosen? I guess according to UTS and Copeland, they are. Maybe Protestants need to start learning from Catholics and start taking Vows of Poverty.

“I am impelled not to squeak like a grateful and frightened mouse but to roar….”

Juliette to Nick, “At least I know who you are.”

Well,  at first this episode fit the profile of the past seven episodes. Oh, btw, **SPOILER ALERT**  Someone gets murdered. The body gets dumped. Nick and Hank meet up with Sergeant Wu to examine the gruesome details of tonight’s mystery creature. Even Nick Burkhart takes a nonchalant attitude to this case, “Sounds like your basic bully.”

Then, all of a sudden, things started to get dark.  First, a person of interest, Marty Burgess claims that Natalie and her boyfriend (the victim we see in the first scene) Leonard Drake were having an argument, that Mr. Drake was a “terrible man” and “had a difficult life to turn out so mean.”  The second person of interest is a lawyer, Mason Snyder heavily involved in the lives of Natalie and Leonard.  Meanwhile, there were a couple of suspicious stalkers spying on Juliette.

Nick visits Monroe, who identifies Mason as a Lausenslange, or an evil snake dude, and Marty as a harmless Maushertz, or mouse guy. Grimm, unfortunately, has no files on a Maushertz because they really keep to themselves (except for their whole cartoon scam they got going). While they were talking, Eddie gets a phone call, a gig to fix a watch in Boston. Monroe is really excited, and has to leave Nick on his own for this case.

Later in the show, we see that a gang of big bad creatures gang up on Monroe for what the audience is left to assume, retaliation for aiding and abetting a Grimm) Monroe is beaten to a bloody pulp, and on his car, it is vandalized with his own blood, with a mysterious symbol- the Reaper that we saw in vaguely mentioned in the first three episodes or so.

Back in Portland, Grimm and Hank are closing in on Marty and Snyder as the primary suspects for Leonard’s murder. Marty warns Snyder to stay away from Natalie (Marty obviously has a crush on her), to which Mason responds, “You will never be anymore than what you already are. A little rodent with a little rodent’s life.”  Marty sees visions of his dad talking down to him and ends up kills Mason.

Marty and Natalie have dinner together, and Marty tells her of his plans to move, “We make our own truth. Don’t let anybody ever tell you what you can’t do.” Of course, Nick and Hank have caught on by now that their man is Marty, and get him in the end.

This episode had more story arc than the previous seven combined, and has given me a glimmer of hope. The final scene, Nick visits Eddie at his home.  Nick sees Monroe, bruised and battered, “Whew. What happened to you?” Monroe, “Funny you should ask. You happened to me.”

Monroe,”You start messing with the status quo, there are gonna be some people who are not necessarily sanguine about that.” Nick offers to not receive any more of Eddie’s help, and Monroe, in his own fashion “I’ve never been a status quo kinda guy.”

I’m glad to see the Reapers are back in the picture. I think we are just getting started folks.

Related articles

• Grimm: The Three Bad Wolves (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Variations on a Theme (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Danse Macabre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Game Ogre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Bears Will Be Bears (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Lonelyhearts (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Let Down Your Hair (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: BEEWARE (politicaljesus.com)

First, I blame Herman Cain, Mr. Pokemon himself:

Then, the President tried to earn his cool card back:

Now, Ole Mitt Romney thinks he can reach Joe Average Voter by singing such benign songs as “Happy Birthday.” See, he isn’t that much of a stiff!

Image via Wikipedia

I am still up in the air when it comes to the apostle Paul and his views on the enslavement of human beings in his letters.  It’s more ambiguous than what either side is telling us, that’s where I stand right now.  In the history of Christianity, just as ambiguous as Paul’s position, “THE CHURCH” has both defended slavery and revolted against it.

Slavery was a fact of life back then, no doubt, so to say something in protest of it would probably draw the ire of social elites as well as your everyday country bumpkin. Recently, Father Ernesto posted on how he learned about the early Eastern Orthodox father’s stance on human bondage with Gregory of Nazianzus, Eustathios of Sebasteia, and later thinkers like Theodore the Studite .

I would highly recommend that Father Ernesto also read Race: A Theology Account by J. Kameron Carter. Carter takes themes in Eastern Orthodox theology and turns them into a cases against racism, while exploring the history of racism in theological studies.

Related articles

• Zilpha Elaw: 19th Century Inerrantist for Abolition and Women’s Ordination (politicaljesus.com)

Cowboys and Aliens.

Cowboys and Aliens was a film recommended to me by some kids at school. I had high time decided it was time to RedBox a film I had meant to see in theaters. In the spirit of Joss Whedon’s Firefly/Serenity, Cowboys And Aliens was a science fiction work set in the Western Frontier, and apparently, word has it from friends on Facebook (they know who they are) it was a politically subversive graphic novel by Fred Van Lente. Similarities to Firefly include: a dead preacher, a prostitute with a heart of gold, a wimpy doctor who can’t fight if his life depended on it, and a femme fatale with paranormal abilities. Oh, yes, and hideous creatures that threaten the existence of humans, minus Firefly’s cannibalism. And that’s about it.

I think that Julie Clawson had it right in her review: the film remains unable to get past negative stereotypes of First Nations people. In fact, it is the slaughtering of Indians that give several characters status. At the beginning of the movies, as poor rancher Roy was bashing his boss, the Colonel, he says, “I don’t care how many Indians the Colonel put under neither.” Later, the Colonel to his Indian worker, “You get it through your thick Indian skull. Those stories weren’t for you.”The more Indian scalps you earn, the more larger than life you are in the Old West. This was exactly the case, as the Colonel and his son Percy have their way with the town. Their violent bullying not only represents hostility towards Native Americans (and our U.S.American history thereof), but also shows a lack of notion for an ethic of hospitality. Cowboys And Aliens promotes White male vigilante justice versus the dark Stranger. Before the last stand scene, Black Knife (the Apache leader) argued with Colonel, which leads Colonel to say, “There’s no reasoning with them [the Apaches].” The disagreement centered around Natives’ belief that the whites had brought the monsters. On the other hand, Colonel says that Black Knife, Apache leader IS the Evil One. Of course, we can’t accuse our beloved Newt Gingrich Colonel a racist, because he has a token Native friend, Nat Colorado, who vouches for him in the end, convincing the Apaches and members of the other tribes follow the Colonel’s military strategy by telling them of the Colonel’s kindness imperial paternalism.

Let me suggest that the community’s reception of the Apaches as well as Jake Lonergan and his gang is symptomatic of their individualistic religious sensibilities. As the aliens are invading, the preacher suspects it was demons; “a bunch of Bible stuff,” in the words of Doc. Doc continues to receive advice from the Preacher, who says that he needs to get a gun and learn how to shoot it (read: adopt rugged individualism and violence as a way of life). While “Reverend” Meacham is teaching Doc to shoot, he says that Doc has to earn God’s presence, recognize it, then act on it (by doing good). Grace is eliminated from the equation. What “Reverend” Meacham says is simply not true, from a Christian perspective. God freely sends God’s presence where God chooses. It is not by our actions that the Triune God is with us, but in the mission of the Incarnate Son and in the sending of the Holy Spirit. Meacham’s worldview reads more like an Enlightenment Deist, which went hand in hand with U.S. American rugged individualism. It is this Enlightment religion that advances a closed notion of the self, where the self works to over come the Other, and closes itself off from Others, to have life, liberty and the pursuit of property, ala John Locke. It is little wonder that an ethic of hospitality and openness is missing in this movie, and in communities that still adhere to such a view.

“Reverend” Meacham’s last words to Jake Lonergan, our protagonist, “God don’t care who you were, son. Only who you are.”

HOW CONVENIENT INDEED!

*Although I was highly critical and ripped this movie’s representation of First Nations peoples a new one, it was highly enjoyable, and I would recommend it, with a few qualifiers.

You can see the entire list here: List of Supporters: SOPA

Nichelle Nichols Met Martin Luther King, Jr. from: the Mary Sue.com

Related articles

• Leave it to Dallas to dishonor #MLKDay (politicaljesus.com)

Let’s go over a few tropes in Grimm so far: There’s a murder at the very beginning of the episode by a creature. Officer Wu is first on the scene. Hank and Nick investigate. Creature sends a message, murders someone else. Nick talks to Monroe. Monroe begrudgingly helps a Grimm. Monroe saves the day. Renard the police chief still behaves suspiciously. The end.

That’s basically how this episode went down once more. Only difference is, we learn a little more about Hank Griffin, how he has a history of being a corrupt police officer. In fact, it was his illegal actions that lead to the 300 year prison sentence of Stark, this week’s baddie, Siegbarste, an Ogre. Stark escapes from jail, murders the Jury Foreman, the Judge who sentenced him, and DA prosecuted him. Hank arrested him, so he is the target. Renard tells Hank to go into protective custody; later on in the episode, Renard and Wu convince Hank to meet with Stark alone in an alley as they nod to each other. Are Renard and Wu plotting against Hank as well? Will the writers reveal the nature of our villains instead of keeping them a secret?

Nick goes back to the trailer to see what his aunt had in it about Ogres. Ogre  guy attacks Nick in his house. Ogre recognizes Nick as a Grimm. Are Grimms creatures? What form does a Grimm take? Juliette saves Nick’s life, and instead of running, she threw scalding water on Stark. Nick lands in the hospital with 3 bruised rib and a mild concussion.

Monroe the Blutbad is called upon (AGAIN- he should just have his own show). Nick is told by Eddie, about Ogres, “These guys carry grudges to the grave. And usually it’s your grave.” Nick sends Monroe to get the poison that can kill Ogres. Eddie sees Marie’s trailer [and really, this should have been a more dramatic moment than it was-- a Blutbat, with the files and histories and weapons of the Grimms].

It seems to me the writers are worried about getting the audience sucked into the story world and introducing a new creature each episode, with no relation to the other. They had the world established after the first two episodes. It’s time to reveal something new about the characters, and their relationship to each other. Grimm is doing just enough to keep me interested. Just enough.

Related articles

• Grimm: Lonelyhearts (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Danse Macabre (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Bears Will Be Bears (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: The Three Bad Wolves (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: Variations on a Theme (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm: BEEWARE (politicaljesus.com)
• Grimm’s bloodiest episode ever is still bloody boring [Tv Recap] (io9.com)
• Grimm: Let Down Your Hair (politicaljesus.com)

“Just a note Joel, I would not press this “trash” that Rod has put up, again this is simply not Christian, and now my wife has seen it, and she will simply go liable, is this is continued! I could care less myself, but then I don’t speak or live by myself. Lets just say she has legal experience. And beware of a woman’s wrath!

*A word, saying I am sorry works wonders with my dear wife. She is Irish, and she is very upset!”

Without further ado,

An Apology to Commenter Tom Finland AkA Father Robert.

NSFW

PICTURE FOUND ON TWITTER.

Wise Ultra Lounge, you guys are an embarassment. That’s all I can say right now.

I can think 0f some many other heroes more deserving than Green Arrow. But hey, if he was popular on Smallville, maybe it could be a good spin-off. Would love to see Chloe Sullivan too. Just imagine all of the liberal-progressive propaganda monologues that will happen in each episode.

This, and the possibility of Booster Gold on Syfy can make 2012 even more excited for geeks everywhere, as long as the networks make sure that these programs do not air at the same time (like Grimm and Supernatural on Fridays).

For more, visit K-Site: Green Arrow Possibly Coming To The CW In Arrow.

Related articles

• GREEN ARROW TV Series Coming to The CW (geektyrant.com)

“I am the Callileache–the Gatekeeper to the spirit world. You have torn the veil between the worlds.” [...] “Tearing the veil between the two worlds has created a new world.”- The Callieleache to Lady Morgana, MERLIN ‘The Darkest Hour, Part 1′

And then consider:

“And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.”- Mark 15:38

“We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.”- Hebrews 6:19-20

Last year, about this time, I posted on Merlin, MLK, and JFK. In last Friday’s season 4 premiere of Merlin, Morgana’s quest for vengeance has reached a climax. Through the first 2 season, we saw Uther trying to suppress magic and the supernatural, executing wizards and warlocks who violated his decree. After a failed coup, Morgana and her half-sister Morgause are introduced to us as exiles in “The Darkest Hour, part 1.” Morgause’s face is disfigured, and we are not told why she expresses like she has experienced a fatal wound. All we know is from season 3 finale, The Coming of Arthur, Merlin badly wounded her. Morgana goes through the struggle of not wanting to sacrifice her sister, if its the choice of vengeance against Uther or her sister’s life, with it’s a difficult one for Morgana. Morgana choose to sacrifice her sister, and castes a spell that tears the veil between the realm of the dead and magic, and the world of the living.

Throughout this episode, we hear the screeching of the Dorocha (the souls of the dead), and I was truly creeped out. I am not really into the horror film genre, but the ghosts in Merlin’s season premiere sent chills up my spine for some reason. The words of the Callileache reminded me of the description that Mark the evangelist wrote in his gospel, about the curtains in the Second Temple tearing as Christ is dying. I would say that the Messiah’s victory in obedience paved the way for the opening of the covenant and direct access to fellowship with YHWH. What believing in a personal God means in terms of politics is a different matter. There is a vocal group of Christians who believe that the existence of a personal deity demands the establishment of a Christian domination system in His Name. On the other end of the spectrum (isn’t there always), there are religious folk who criticize these “dominionists” while in some form or another, affirming an impersonal divinity, a process or force in the universe.

There’s no denying the deep ties between the legend of King Arthur and the civil religious establishment in Great Britain. The myth of Arthur is traditionally understood as King David Redivivus in British and Gaelic garb. Coincidentally, in the Hebrew Bible, King David’s son Solomon is seen as the one responsible for the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, but it is David who gathered the materials. The story of David, like many narratives of the monarchs of the Ancient Near East, puts to question our assumptions about the “separation of church and state” as well as the role of the government.

Read, for example the history of Babylonian temples and religion, and then the oracles of Ezekiel. In the Mesopotamia, emperor’s counted on what were called kalus, or chief-priests to dedicate the temples. The destruction of the temple literally meant that the boundaries between the sacred and profane had been blurred and therefore the difference between human and divine had become lost. In order to reconstruct the temple, the emperor had to choose a kalu priest to preside over the purification process. The sacred society of Camelot is falling apart in Merlin, all is in chaos, just as ancient Judah was. Why? Because Morgana sacrificed her priestess half-sister to make the supernatural and the natural intermixed when Uther had worked so hard to keep these things at a safe distance.

We like to think of the relationship between religion and politics are simple. We could go the Dominionist route, and control god, use His name to lift up our systems and our majorities. Or, we could join some progressives, deny any personality to the divine at all, and try to keep religion at a safe distance in the name of “tolerance.” I think both groups have problematic ideas as they relate to church-state relations, even though I affirm a personal God and still come out as a church-state separationist. I am still working this all out, however.

For more on Ezekiel as the kalu of YHWH, check out:

Launderville, Dale F.. Spirit and Reason: The Embodied Character of Ezekiel’s Symbolic Thinking Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007

For months now, the Bibliobloggers’ own conspirator-in-chief, Joel Whats-His-Name? has sounded the liberal alarm about right-wing dominionists like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.

I have been wondering how their plan for world domination, to bring revival to this country, and restore America’s glory has been going for them.

In the New Hampshire primary, Perry received less than 1% of the vote (.7%) while Michele Bachmann has dropped out of the race.

Fred Thompson, anyone? Anyone?

Related articles

• Dominionists’ Problem with Christus Victor Atonement (politicaljesus.com)
• New Hampshire Primary Results: Live Updates (huffingtonpost.com)
• Ephesians 6 & Dominionists’ Emotional Appeals Defending Slavery #VV11 (politicaljesus.com)

Consider this post along the lines of my post from yesterday on The Acts of the Trinity. As a Baptist from childhood, we have it programmed into our hard-drive that the Letters to Timothy and Titus are the lone authority in determining Baptist ecclesiology, the structure of our churches, and the nature of who our male pastor should look like. If I could set apart the gender issue for a second (because, if you may be well aware I reject the exclusion of women from pulpits), I would like to consider what happens when we put these letters (Scripture) in a closed box, and claim to have the final interpretation on these texts.

Jesus the Messiah is said to be the center of many Christians’ biblical interpretation, yes? If His life, death, and resurrection is the very content of the Gospel, and the Gospel is what the New Testament authors are all about, then would it not be suffice to say that the Pastoral Letters ARE NOT all about us, and how we handle our affairs? The other possible option would be to reject the Letter of Timothy all together, with verses like 1st Timothy 2:12 that have been used to silence women, and 1st Timothy 6:1-2 where human enslavement remains uncontested. As a Christian trying to live faithfully, I remain very skeptical of both of our alternatives here: either the love it and shove it position or just scrapping it does not work for me for a few reasons.

Bible scholar and Liberation theologian Elsa Tamez argues that if we reject 1st Timothy, “it becomes impossible to consider important and interesting aspects of this letter: it’s proclamation of universal salvation (4:10); its critique of riches and wealth (6:17-19); its reference to wealthy women (2:9); and especially its identification of the desire for money as a root of all evils (6:9)” (Global Bible Commentary, page 509). Tamez argues that the author of 1st Timothy is rejecting the Graeco-Roman patronage system, which favored the rich over the poor, within the church. The women “Paul” targets in 1st Timothy 2 may have been well to do women who could afford jewelry and get their hair-braided (2:2). I had to pause after reading this possible take on 1st Timothy 2, because for a few years I have heard egalitarians claim that these women may have been teachers of gnosticism, as if that was the only possibility. Of course, avoiding class considerations would distract us from discussing Timothy as a letter all about us, us us, the church church church rather than Christ, the Son of YHWH, the God of the Widows and Orphans.

If indeed all of Scripture is God-breathed (2nd Timothy 3:16), who does this God desire to give life, and how? Would that not be a more appropriate and concrete question (rather than keeping on with the abstract debate over inerrancy)? I submit that the teaching of the letters to Timothy have less and less to do with our ego-centric apologies for the our demoninations’ existences and have much more to do with who and how God has chosen the poor, elderly widows over the rich, young ones (1st Timothy 5:5-6;9).

The Election of the Poor is not by anything that they have done by their own means; it is only through the “one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all.” (1st Timothy 2:5)

AT THE INTERSECTION OF CULTURAL INTERPRETATION AND THEOLOGICAL EXEGESIS

We have all probably sat either in a classroom or church, and hear the teacher or preacher, so smoothly announce that she believes that the Acts of the Apostles should be renamed the Acts of the Holy Spirit. This is a good observation that has quite frankly worn itself out. Of course, I maintain my continuationism, but a focus on pneumatology in Acts causes exegetes and honest Christians to skip Acts 1 and start with Acts 2. I say that if a person begins with Acts 1, she could find a emphasis more on all three persons of the Godhead and their relations to each other. The Risen Christ maintains the Trinitarian distiction between himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit while acknowledging their equality. Jesus informs the 11 apostles and company that the Father alone knows the time that Israel will be restored (Luke 10:22; Acts 1:7) and to wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit that the Father had promised to send in Jesus’ name (Acts 1:4; John 14:16).

Theologically, the mission of the Trinity is important in sending the apostles; the sending of the Son and the Spirit corresponds with the sending of the apostles from Jerusalem and Judah and into the world. In terms of occupying space within the universe, and within the canon itself, one could understand the immanent Trinity to be hidden within the witness of the prophets of Israel and the economic Trinity and its life unfolding (and connected to the mission to the Gentiles) as we see in the pages of the New Testament. This approach, I believe, gives me sufficient reason to avoid so called “Christo-centric” readings of the “Old” Testament, where everything is allegory while the history of the Jewish people is superseded. The Trinity remains the same deity throughout Scripture, just one remains primarily hidden, the other primarily disclosed. At the heart of this possible Trinitarian hermeneutic is an emphasis on the difference between the Economic and Immanent Trinity, something that needs to be maintained contra Karl Rahner and certain conservative evangelical theologians who agree with him.

Now, one space where theological interpretation meets the cultural appropriation of the Acts of the Trinity (the Incarnation) is African American Christian traditions. In early colonial America, Quakers, Baptists and Methodists who were abolitionists tried to teach free blacks Christianity with passages such as Acts 10:34-36–”God is no respecter of persons” and Acts 17:36–”he hath made of one blood all the nations of men [and women].” It was these same passages that [one time] Calvinist 18th century black preacher Lemuel Haynes refuted “the great” Jonathan Edwards’ claims that it was God’s will for blacks to be enslaved. Demetrius K. Williams in his contribution to True To Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary, notes that 19th century preachers such as Bishop Reverdy Ransom found their goals for social justice for the Negro Church from the Acts of The Trinity (page 216). The stories such as the Ethiopian Eunuch (8:26-40) to the Jerusalem Conference (13-14:28) show that there is a movement from the inner life of God to the economic workings of the Trinity to bring the Good News to all of the world. Because of the essential unity of YHWH and the Messiah (the Incarnation, both God and Humanity), the theological can indeed be reconciled with the cultural, without these being mutually exclusive as we have now in biblical studies.

*Edit*: suffice has been changed to sufficient. Thanks for the correction, Joel!

In my world,  Senator David Palmer became the first black president. That’s my story, and I am sticking to it. It’s been a while since I last posted on the series finale of 24. I have some great news: the filming of 24 the movie has started. I am hoping for 6 (4) hour movies to actually to 24 hours. That would be awesome. Check it out:

Jack Bauer is on his way to the big screen.

Related articles

• 24 Movie – Kiefer Sutherland Gives an Update (geektyrant.com)

I found a site that is collecting calls for papers at one location, in the areas of religion and/or philosophy. If you know of a conference that needs paper presenters, please submit to:

Religion and Philosophy Call for Papers

Now, it looks like Keith Olbermann is on his way out at Current TV.

Honestly, I don’t like either creep. I vehemently disagree with most of what they say, and they are both angry bigots who should not have a stage.

You’re welcome.

Related articles

• Keith Olbermann Back On Current TV, But Will It Last? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Pat Buchanan May Be Done At MSNBC: Phil Griffin (huffingtonpost.com)

May I ask you a question? Do you know of any lazy Negroes? Apparently, the Republican Party knows a lot of lazy black people. These people are a hott topic on the campaign trail nowadays. How about Iowa Caucus surprise runner-up Rick Santorum:

“He added: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
“And provide for themselves and their families,” Santorum added, to applause. “The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling again.”

I side completely with Chauncey DeVega on this one:

“First, poverty in America is racialized. The image in the public imagination is of black welfare queens, or illegal aliens birthing “anchor babies” who live off of the government tit, profiting from food stamps and the generosity of the American people. The white poor rarely, if ever, enter the picture. Second, black people are parasites of white people (Santorum’s “someone” else). Here it is implied that black people are also “lazy,” and a dependent class, unable to take care of their families except for the generosity and benevolence of white people.”

Black means poor and lazy and bodily and sexual promiscuous and angry and emotional; white continues to mean pure and virginal and virtuous and hard-working and American and middle-class. It does not matter if historically whites have benefitted from social welfare programs–remember that Social Security was established during legal segregation, and the tax dollars of African Americans were used to pay for the retirement funds for many of their racist oppressors. Who’s the racist? Who’s doing the class warfare? It’s the rich, the privileged, the status quo, that’s who!

If indeed politics is about the creation of imagined communities, as DeVega correctly argues in Iowa and Beyond: for the Tea Party GOP the road is paved by lazy blacks, then the racial imagination is quite essential to politics, particularly to conservative white folk who claim not to see color. The Tea Party and the Rest of the GOP may as well just join the movie, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, “Be Our Guest!”

No matter the contributions by people of color, the message will always be the same: you still owe us whites, therefore, shut up and mop our floors. Right,Newt Gingrich? Even sadly, Ron Paul’s racist rants against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes to show just how perverted the racial imagination of many conservatives are. Now, honestly, I think that liberals and conservatives can be equally racist; political ideology is not the point. My point is that the practices within the conservative movement, the pointing to the poor racial minority as lazy, require a particular racial imagination that is unhealthy; in a word–

RACIST.

Related articles

• Santorum: ‘I Don’t Want To Make Black People’s Lives Better’ Through Welfare (huffingtonpost.com)
• Marc Morial, Urban League president: Santorum ‘black welfare’ comment is ‘racist pandering’ (thegrio.com)

Hilarious. I love when drama plays out this way, just those awkward moments in our infamous legal system.

Hats off to The Washington Times.

Also, I will give a review with as few spoilers as possible of The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.

I also have an interpretation of Octavia Butler’s KINDRED that may feature some aspects of Womanist biblical interpretation.

Outside of science fiction and theology, since this is a Biblioblog, I plan on going through The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora. I do plan on completing my Liberating the Future of Seminary series sometime this month. Research is holding me back.

Readers: I was wondering if there is any topic as it relates to biblical or theological studies that you would be interested in reading? Any book from the Bible? chapter Topic? Name it, and I will give heavy consideration (I promise) to blogging on it. Let me know your thoughts. I am open to suggestions.

Best finish? 2nd place, Whedony Warriors dueled it out until the end. We lost by a few points, even though I started Drew Brees, his Monday night performance last week would not be enough. A Yahoo League.

Also, I came in 3rd place in 2 other leagues: D-Warehouse 13 (DeMarcus Ware+ Warehouse 13, get it?) and the vaunted SyFy Empire. DW13 coulda been in the championship game had I started Steven Jackson over Jackie Battle. Sigh. What coulda been.

I wound up in 4th place in one ESPN League. So close, but just indecisiveness, benching Matt Hasselback and Julio Jones cost me and my team, iGLAD.

Lastly, I ended up in 7th place in the other ESPN league and my team, Your Mom is a Cylon.

It was a good season overall. I need to learn to trust my instincts, especially when it comes to picking defenses. One week, I would pick a defense, surmising they would explode after weeks of being horrific (part of my hunching abilities), and they would actually score 2 tds the following week. Happened 2 weeks in a row during the FFL playoffs, first with Jacksonville Jaguars, then the Buffalo Bills. I just need to go with my own instincts and ignore Yahoo’s and ESPN’s projections. Not trustworthy at all.

Also, Amanda Mac will be hosting the Carnival in February. May the Odds be ever in her favor.

And yes, I can confirm, the rumors are true. On that great month ordained by Caesar Augustus, the Eighth month of the Calendar Year, and what happens to be the best month where only the greatest people are born, I will be hosting the Biblical Studies Carnival on here at Political Jesus in AUGUST 2012.

A Response to Roger Olson‘s Some Thoughts About Christian Feminism

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet several theologians, including Rosemary Ruether, at a small gathering of liberation theologians. One of the most awkward moments at the event while I was there was when I accidently bumped into Ruether in line for breakfast, and her coffee spilled on her shoes. To say the least, a lot of fears were running through my mind, “Would she think that I did it on purpose because I am male? Will I be called a sexist?” It was an extremely awkward moment, and I just didn’t know what to think, fumbling and mumbling in the presence of a great thinker. Fortunately, she said nothing, we gather some napkins, and cleaned up my mess. Recently, on the blogosphere, I have read some rather awkward posts on gender, particularly from egalitarians and their hang ups with feminism.

First of all, I appreciate Roger Olson’s honest and open thoughts on Christianity and feminism. However, that being said, I disagree with the portrayal of Christian feminist theologians, especially Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Rosemary Ruether, and Elizabeth Johnson, S.J. Olson does not deny the existence of sexism and its power in society, just the way that these theologians approach it. While Olson has personally interacted with “Ruether, [the late Letty] Russell and/or [Susan] Thistlethwaite and [...]Johnson, he has qualms about their “gender feminist perspective” as it pertains to “with regard to language about God, the nature of the Bible and Christian tradition (i.e., basic orthodoxy), and contemporary worship.”

Notice something that Olson leaves out; the tradition that Ruether and Johnson come from is Catholicism. What is deemed orthodox from Olson’s perspective is going to differ from what Ruether’s and Johnson’s religious peers are going to say is orthodox. Take for example, Olson’s critique of feminist theology:

“First, it is not clear to me at all that there original revelation (e.g., scripture) is normative. It seems to me that something called “women’s experience” and “feminist consciousness” is elevated to that level. The result is that “anything goes” so long as it is liberating and culturally relevant (i.e., speaks to and promotes the feminist political agenda). ”

If I am not mistaken, is not Sola Scriptura a Protestant doctrine? So why should we expect feminist theologians who are professing Catholics, to accept this view? It seems to be something that Olson has overlooked. I am not a Catholic myself, I am just trying to state the obvious differences in the starting points for theology of evangelicalism and Catholicism. At no point in the U.S. Bishops Report on Elizabeth Johnson’s work, Quest for the Living God, did they question her for not being biblical enough. It was a debate about whether Johnson’s text was consistent with Catholic tradition.

Olson goes on to accuse feminist Christian theologians of denying divine power in the Death of Christ; Feminists “do not think his crucifixion was a divine act. Instead it was a martyrdom that unmasks the evil of patriarchy. The cross and redemption theology in general tends to take a back seat (if not in the trunk!) to creation and re-creation theology. In this I find it often less distinctively Christian than pagan.”

Any serious reader of Christian feminist theology would not make this accusation, at least of mainstream feminist theology. God’s divinity is not found in forcing HIS SON to die a gory and bloody death; God, rather, manifests God’s power in suffering love, identifying with the victims of history, and then in turn, rebuking all forms of violence in the Resurrection.

Unfortunately, Roger Olson does go on to commit a “Hitlerum Ad Reductio”; painting feminists as Nazis, which is so easy to do on the Interwebs. And I quote:

“Revising imagery of God to suit our own needs (one feminist theologian said she needs a “God who looks like” her) seems dangerous to me. Pretty soon we leave biblical imagery of God behind and use imagery we have invented for our own purposes. As Donald Bloesch used to point out, this is exactly what the so-called “German Christians” did in the 1930s. (I am NOT comparing feminism with Naziism! I am pointing out a danger in moving away from biblical imagery in favor of culturally preferred “relevant” imagery. Where does it stop? What limits it?)”

Why bring up Nazi Germany in the first place but to push the old old label of Feminazis? This was a rather unfortunate occurrence, and I do hope Olson resists using this fallacy.

Olson’s case against inclusive language sounds more like men who play victim since they accuse feminists of being aggressors. This post, reflects, I fear, what Hugo Schwyzer rightly diagnosed about much of men’s anti-feminism:

“All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive, wrathful, “man-bashers.” The painful thing about all this, of course, is that no man is in any real physical danger on the internet— or even in real life — from feminists. Women are regularly beaten and raped — even on college campuses — but I know of no instance where a man found himself a victim of violence for making a sexist remark in a feminist setting! “Male-bashing” doesn’t literally happen, in other words, at least not as a result of arguments over feminism. But that doesn’t stop men from using (in jest or no) their own exaggerated fear of physical violence to make a subtle point about feminists.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Related articles

• “The Johnson Case”: How Do We Receive Revelation? (womenintheology.org)

Here is the description:

“Nuestro vino de plátano, y si es agrio, es nuestro vino.” – José Martí
(Let us make our wine out of plantains, and if it comes out sour, it is still our wine)

“Although a space has been carved out for scholars of color, the scholarship taking place within that space continues to be ignored; and because there are numerous sessions and groups during Academic conferences – so many of our sessions are forced to conflict with each other, seldom providing the opportunity for scholars of color to cross-pollinate. We must ask if we inadvertently constructed impressive exclusive cul-de-sacs from which to master our particular disciplines. Like a four-leaf clover, our separate cul-de-sacs operate side-by-side with few of us ever venturing into the adjoining communities. Solidarity may occur from time to time, but it usually happens with little intellectual engagement. If we rile against most Euroamericans for not engaging our scholarship, then in all honesty, we must also hold ourselves accountable, for few of us, in our numerous books and articles, actually quote or dialogue with other communities of color.
Many of us are content to remain within our own academic niche. Others, because of the numerous sessions at academic conferences, are unable to ever visit the neighboring cul-de-sac. More disturbing is when scholars of color are oblivious to how they and their communities are locked into structures that cause oppression to other communities of color. Where do we explore how our separate marginalized communities remain complicit with disenfranchising other groups, whether those groups are marginalized due to darker skin pigmentation, language, gender, sexual orientation, economic class or different religious traditions?
To this end, we (Stacey Floyd-Thomas, Anthony Pinn, Miguel A. De La Torre) propose creating The Society of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion (SRER). The purpose of this multi-discipline Society is to create a space where communities of color can gather to discuss among themselves so as to advance their scholarship though the power of synergism – a space where we can engage, learn, and be challenged from communities of color other than our own. Please note we are not the leaders of the Society, just coordinating the first meeting. At our first meeting we hope a leadership council is established representing a male and female representative from each community of color
WHEN: April 26-28, 2013 (tentatively)
WHERE: Chicago (tentatively)
WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU
1) Forward this email to scholars of color you believe would be interested
2) Become a member of SRER by sending a $100 membership check to:
Society of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion
c/o Miguel A. De La Torre
Iliff School of Theology
2201 University Blvd
Denver, CO 80210
Send the check my March 15, 2012 so that you can be listed as a Founding Member of the Society; and we can have a head count so that when we travel to Chicago in late March 2012, we know how many people are really interested and can make appropriate reservations for accommodations. Include with your check a) Your name, b) Institution, c) Email, d) Phone numbers, and e) if you plan to attend the first meeting
3) Get involved, we need people who have legal experience that can incorporate us; have CPA experience who can file our 501(c)3; have grant writing experience who can help find monies for getting the Society off the ground and provide scholarship for students to attend; and can help us set up a webpage/blog where members can discuss and help plan that first meeting.
4) When we have our first conference, space would be created to organize ourselves more efficiently. Meanwhile, our first task is to discover how many colleagues of color are truly interested (measured by membership) and then, actually meet.”

I just wanted to inform my new followers and subscribers about the series. On Amazon, there has only been 2 reviews so far, the second one coming after I was informed of a review that was more of a personal attack versus McGrath. Criticism is always acceptable, but never personal attacks.

Overall, the volume should be seen as an excellent addition to the emerging discipline of reading science fiction texts/films and religious texts together.

If you do take up my recommendation to read Religion and Science Fiction, please review it on Amazon, without the personal attacks, please.

Related articles

• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 4 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction: Introduction (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction: Chapter 1 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction: Chapter 3 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 5 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 8 (politicaljesus.com)
• James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 7 (politicaljesus.com)
• In Life and in Science Fiction, Allegory Is Everything: A Response to James McGrath (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)

So last year Rod did his predictions for 2011.  He’ll probably have predictions for 2012.  I thought I would offer my own predictions.

Warning: I do not claim to have the gift of prophecy, or specific predictions creds.  I’m just a person who reads a lot and has a penchant for snarky commentary (thank you Fark.com)

Entertainment:

Grimm will be canceled (sorry Rod).  The writers will fail to develop the ‘hero’ and the only intriguing character will be Eddie Monroe.  The show will be put on hiatus, canceled, and then redeveloped as Blutbad with a Heart.

The Avengers will be a huge success, catapulting Whedon to stardom, and networks will give him free reign to do a long-term series (just not on Fox).

Technology:

RIM will go bankrupt.  Bye-bye Blackberry brand.

Apple will release it’s first major product post-Jobs, and it will be wildly successful, proving that Apple was more than one person’s genius.

Politics:

Increase in third party votes in US election.  Obama will still win because the Republicans won’t get their act together.

Ontario’s minority government will not survive beyond the summer.  Ontarians will go back to the polls in the fall.

Evangelicalism:

The gender wars will hit a fevered pitch this fall with the release of Rachel Held Evan’s book on biblical womanhood.  Egalitarians will be called heretical and unbiblical.  There will be no ‘dialogue’ but rather those on the comp side will dig in their heels, and those on the egal side will dig in their heels.

Rod has called Patheos the Borg.  Patheos will swallow up several religion blogs, become as generic as belief.net and several prominent bloggers will jump ship to become independent bloggers.  They will the “Hugh”s, disconnected from the collective and able to find their own voice.

POLITICS (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE MAYAN CALENDAR)

#1: The world will end in 2012. Just not in December. The Apocalypse will happen on Election Day 2012, Tuesday, November 6th. On that day, both the Tea Party and Democrats will experience misery as they never have before. The Mainstream Media will continue it’s uncritical praise of President Obama, and it will cost them in the short future.

#2: The GOP will take back the Senate, by a small majority, perhaps 2-3 seats.

#3: The GOP will continue to make gains on the state level, taking more state legislatures.

#4: Because of the corporate driven nature of national electoral politics, Occupy Wall Street will take a step back. The MSM will become even more close minded in order to shut up the opposition.

#5: What will happen to the Tea Party? See #4.

#6: Unfortunately, education reform will continue to grow as a movement. More states and cities will adopt voucher programs, charter schools, standardized testing as well as harder lines versus teacher unions.

#7: The economy will get slightly better, because of the census, as well as the extension on the payroll tax cut that will happen AFTER February.

#8: The War on Immigrants will get to the back of the bus. Serious study into the issue will tell people what we already know about xenophobia and laws already on the books: it’s the Federal government’s job, plain and simple.

#9: The march towards the U.S.A. having a valid Third party will happen by summer/late fall of next year. There will be a lot of discontent no matter the outcome of the Presidential election.

#10: Don’t throw stones at me for this one. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will make a comeback.

#11: Because of the rise of Newt Gingrich (dear gods!), Hillary Clinton will also make a comeback in terms of prominence, especially since this is her last year in President Obama’s administration. She’ll either return to politics, or to her origin, doing children’s/education advocacy. Can I have all of the above?

RELIGION

#1: Due to the back lash of Lowe’s having ads during All American Muslim, there shall be an all out blitz by cable news networks and the MSM to show positive portraits of Muslims (as if that shouldn’t already have been happening?), but none of these entities will deal with the historic prejudices of empire and Orientalism, or Occidentalism for that matter.

#2: New Age spirituality in North America will go out of style. It reached its peak with the movie Eat Pray Love and Deepak Chopra, and now it will go the way of Transcendentalism and the USSR. Of course, something has to take it’s place.

#3: New Age spiritualists will instead opt to take sides, whether it’s Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, agnosticism, atheism, what have you

#4: In Christianity, two mainline denominations will split over the issue of LGBTQ ordination. Perhaps a third will more closer in that direction. When it comes to marriage and ordination, both sides will become, if not already firmly entrenched, and more interdenominational debates will start to happen between the parties.

#5: Without Christopher Hitchens, the New Atheists will find new voices to represent their cause.

#6: John Piper and Mark Driscoll will write another 15 books.

#7: The Emergent/Emerging church will finally be declared kibbutz! Farewell! Wait, has that already happened?

POP CULTURE

#1: Science Fiction and Nerd Culture will make even greater strides in taking over this country. Yah, we’re taking our country back! Comic movies will make a huge splash.

#2: Twilight and True Blood will experience their last gasps. The new T.V. show on Syfy, Lost Girl, as well as the second season of Being Human (USA) will move us from the dark ages of the vampire genre and into the light. Game of Thrones will continue to impress everyone but me.

#3: In music, Justin Bieber will record another 5 albums. Coincidently, he’ll try his hand at reggae as well.

#4: The media will hype the comeback of Chris Brown and everyone will sip the kool-aid but me.

#5: The cartoon, The Boondocks will comeback with a bang, taking aim at Herman Cain, the Tea Party, and glory to goodness, Tyler Perry once more. Aaron McGruder will take his rightful place among the black intellectual elite. Just as soon as he joins twitter and/or facebook.

#6: Marginalized racial minorities in Hollywood will get mad, and will start talking about what to do about their exclusion, without actually doing anything. But talking is a start, right?

SPORTS

#1: Because of they are playing fewer games, the USA men’s basketball should win the Gold Medal due to the NBA’s shortened season. Common sense would tell you that the NBA season should be shortened during an Olympic year anyway, from 82 to 50 games. Congress should do something about that. No, I am being serious.

#2: Junior Hockey leagues will grow in popularity in the U.S. at an alarming rate. Canada, get ready, get ready!

#3: Soccer will decrease in popularity here in the USA. Not apologizing for that one.

#4: By late summer of 2012, the NCAA will be having serious talks about changing the Bowl Championship Series to avoid another SEC versus SEC matchup. They will likely go with a Plus One over a playoff.

From Optymystic Chad:

A Generous Heresy: Rejecting Chalcedon

My Experience With Occupy Dallas

From Amanda Mac

By Way of Introduction

Interacting with God of the Oppressed 1: Working Through the Prefaces

From Rod of Alexandria

Firefly and Theology: Captain Mal Reynolds and Serenity

Sex in the Trinity: Willialm Paul Young’s The Shack part 1

Related articles

• Apparently Chad Thinks of Me as One of the Great Church Fathers (politicaljesus.com)
• My Oracles for 2011: A Wrap Up (politicaljesus.com)
• Sex In the Trinity: Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack p5/6 (politicaljesus.com)
• Sex In the Trinity: Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack p 6/6 (politicaljesus.com)
• Coming Soon: Official Mal Reynolds pistol from Firefly (winextra.com)

In 2011, I had rather a tame year; on several occasions there were ample opportunities for me to call out other bloggers for being wrong, and I was just like, whatever, I’ll read your B.S. in apathy.

2012. It’s gonna be a different story. First up, Patheos.

For those of you all that haven’t heard, Patheos has become the Borg of religious blogging; (with a few notable exceptions) with their posts in sounding alike, even their more conservative evangelical sites are quite non-controversial. I didn’t know we lived in a world where all Christians believe in relationality, networking, and theological education…. oh wait….

What’s the big deal about religious understanding? (Peace yes, but under whose terms?- my continual harping at hegemony). I side with David Sehat in this regard, on religious freedom. The USA changed from a country where Protestants were free to establish hegemony to a nation that is free to engage in nonviolent legal, political religious conflict (the culture wars, we call them), where our difference are out in the open, where no one denies them. A free and open space which should resist any form of hegemony, public or free market.

So, I am joining Joel Watts in aiming to misbehave in 2012. There is no amount of money that could lead me to accept an invitation from Belief.Net (yeah, good luck trying to keep commenters there) or Patheos for that matter. The purpose of Political Jesus is for persons to have free access to information and opinions that our audience is interested in. It always has been that way, and always will. It is this principled stand for academic freedom, which includes freedom from corporate influence that causes China to ban PJ from its citizenry. Its okay China, I’ve already called you out as the next great empire, and you’re just threatened.

Joel has invited others to join his squad of Browncoats:

“Well, why not become a contributor here…

I don’t censor, except for profanity and vulgarity (unless you are talking about the Song of Solomon, of course… or Ruth or Esther…).

First and foremost, I really would like to open up the floor to women. Their voices need to be heard on the blogosphere, especially as it relates to biblical and religious studies.

Also, really looking for people who can focus on science and religion.

Maybe someone to bring a different political spin… or one with more developed political spin…

And maybe an actual Reformed Christian….

Do you have a blog? Well, you can fold it into this one…

Want a wider readership? Well, join this one.

Stop the signal (Patheos)…. Join us…”

Related articles

• Hemant Mehta Declares WAR on Freethought Blogs! (freethoughtblogs.com)
• The Story Behind Patheos (patheos.com)

“1. The beginning of the Decade of Anger: 2010 marks the end of the decade of awkwardness. My prediction is that citizens, inspired by the Tea Party and the student protests in the United Kingdom will start to look for the smallest thing to get upset over, especially the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell isn’t an issue any more, so, I guess we will have to go back to square one, with the struggle between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Abortion seems to mobilize liberals and conservatives like no other issue. Sex drives the world. As a Chad said today, it will be the decade of the angry GenX all over again.”

Was I right on this one? Were there multiple displays of Anger in politics? Did anyone get angry this year and NOT protest? Let’s see Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, the USA, among others; then there was the Occupy Wallstreet movement that I posted on before it caught on.

NEXT!

“2. There will be an increase in comic book movies and t.v. shows: Due to the lack of knowledge of history (in general) that teenagers have these days, as well as Science Fiction becoming more mainstream, I think that in order to pacify temporarily the enraged masses, the entertainment industry will substitute revolutionary violence with the fantasy violence of pop culture.”

Well, even with Smallville and Batman:Brave and Bold coming to an end, Booster Gold is going to be given a try on Syfy. In addition, there were appearances of Green Lanterns appearing in public schools for some reason. Why was that Optymyst? Also, the comic book movies for this year did fairly well, and everyone is excited about next 2012.

Next!

“3. A Disgusting Amount of Television Coverage for 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates: This is already happening with Fox News & C-Span, but eventually, MSNBC and CNN will catch up. CNN has cozied up with the Tea Party Express for one GOP debate.”

Ummm, did you all read any of my posts on the GOP debates, like majority of the 20 billion debates, right?

Next!

“4. The Downfall of Christian Pop Culture as a Valid Alternative: Given the fact that the Christian music and book industries continue to spiral into irrelevancy, Nashville will no longer be the center of Christian or Gospel music. Instead, more underground artists and writers will slip through the cracks of Christendom and either remain independent or sign with “secular” labels or publishing companies.”

That’s still up for debate, we still have the rest of the decade to determine this. Hey, you hear about two famous pastors using secular publishers to talk about marriage? Yah, odd, huh?

Next!

“5. SyFy channel will break someone’s heart: Of course, the always love-to-hate them SyFy network people will cancel a very popular show, adding to a rage fueled by government inaction.”

Answer: Eureka; Sorry Joel!

Last, but certainly not least:

“6. Before the decade is through, a third “undeclared” war: U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan until a least 2018, with military advisers scheduled to stay until a few years afterward. Pakistan or North Korea will become our new Iraq. It is only a matter of time. Since candidate Obama did promise us this.”

Well, that was easy to answer: Libya

A week or so ago, I had mentioned that Celucien Joseph, Phillip Luke Sinitiere, and I are scheduled to do a panel on Black Religions and the Harlem Renaissance at the 2012 Southwest Commission on Religious Studies. Lou’s focus will be on Langston Hughes, Phillip’s will be the Negro Church’s and Movement’s influence on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and mine will be a comparative study on the science fiction literature provided by Samuel I. Brooks and C.S. Lewis.

A good scholar/independent researcher is always looking forward, moving on to a new topic. Celucien plans to move on to the religion of Zora Neale Hurston; in particular, Lou’s investigating “her religious vision through the American tradition of pragmatic religious naturalism.”

Anyone who could like to help out Lou with any recommendations, please visit his blog, and comment here.

The second project dealing with Zora Neale Hurston and theology actually is a paper proposal that has been fueling in my mind for a year or so. But, last week on Twitter, I found a way to articulate that idea. So, here goes. On Labor Day of this year, I did a reflection What Happened to Moses? I noticed that several Patristic theologians wrote entire books on the Life of Moses, including a missing text by Clement of Alexandria (if only, if only). In addition, I have observed that in the slave spirituals that Moses is brought up a lot as a part of the African American religious pantheon, and that persons such as Booker T Washington were referred to as the Negro Moses. So I have decided that I would like to do a paper dealing with the Patristics rendering of Moses and read those alongside Jewish theologians and a post-colonial theological interpretation Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain. If you have any recommendations for reading for my proposed project, please comment here or share with me on Twitter. I would very much appreciate it.

Related articles

• What Happened to Moses?: Thoughts on Labor Day, Unions, and Theology (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)

“It would be nice for a biblical or New Testament scholar in particular to explore how the Quest  for the Historical Jesus as an intellectual movement in the West has contributed to what Carter  has phrased “Race: A Theological Account.”  In other words, how have NT scholars of the Historical Jesus Movement in Western countries  participated–of course in the intellectual sense—in the theological narrative of race (about Jesus of Nazareth) and modernity’s racialist discourse and definition.  Anyone who has been following the debase closely since the time of Renan, Schweitzer and others would find this topic both  exciting–at least, it is exciting to me!– and useful to write a monograph on that subject.”

For more, see Celucien Joseph, J Kameron Carter: ON the theological problem of whiteness and the inadequacy of black liberation theology

Related articles

• Race: A Theological Account by @JKameronCarter (politicaljesus.com)
• Upcoming Panel Presentation for Regional AAR 2012 (politicaljesus.com)
• On Alcohol: Jarena Lee, Moderation and @ScotMcKnight (politicaljesus.com)

A thanks to The Mary Sue.com

“what do you call an educated negro with a B.A. or an M.A., with a B.S., or a PhD?” The answer? “You call him a nigger, because that is what the white man calls him, a nigger.”- Malcolm X

“However, it is not wrong, in my view, to believe that some races generally excel others in some particular respects. One coach at a midwestern college was fired because he asserted that black athletes are, on the average, better sprinters and jumpers than whites. His superiors claimed that his remarks were racist. In my view that was an injustice. The coach’s views, in this case, were very probably true, and he should have had freedom to express them.”- Reformed theologian John Frame

“But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration”- Thomas Jefferson

“In music [blacks] are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time”- Thomas Jefferson

“[The blacks'] inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. . . .” -Thomas Jefferon

Jefferson quotes taken from his Notes to Virginia

I am willing to bet that you have heard the argument that Black people are better than white people at sports. Some of you in certain parts of the U.S. have even learned from family members or friends that Blacks are better than whites at sports. Without question, the vast majority of professional athletes in the National Football League and National Basketball Association are of African descent. So logically, wouldn’t it make sense to affirm what we have always believed about the races, that blacks are biologically predestined to be good at somethings, and other races, at other things, oh, like math (Asians), organizing/governing/leading society (whites), or being close to nature (Native Americans)?  The idea that African Americans excel at being sensual and entertainers did not die with Thomas Jefferson. When I was in high school, one of my heroes was the late Reverend Reggie White, the football player. Imagine my disappointment, even back then, when I read in his autobiography, In The Trenches, that he believed that through biology and divine predestination that the races were received different gifts. For blacks? You got it, it’s worship and sports. And whites? Running society! This from an African American from Tennessee, too.

Frantz Fanon argued that what sustained colonialism and U.S. American apartheid the idea that the Negro was “the predestined depository” of all things aggressive, emotional, and bodily (Black Skin, White Masks). “The white man wants the world; he wants it for himself alone. He finds himself predestined master of the this world. He enslaves it. (BS, WM)” When people argue that blacks are good at singing and sports, imagine what would happen if someone just replied with a simple question, “And what do you believe white people are good at?” See, the logic behind “black people are fine athletes and singers” is that there has to be a flip side, there has to be a white side to go with the black, right? The racist logic behind biological determinism and Jungian archetypes (see Fanon for his case against Carl Jung too, against the idea that our racial stereotypes are biologically inherited) may seem like people are giving a compliment, when in reality, they are passing on the same racist myths that Thomas Jefferson held. In Fanon’s survey to overall 500 persons, one of the words associated with “Negro” was athlete, which, along with the prevalence of reality tv shows of their wives, is evidence enough to show that the black athletes are still being, in Fanon’s words, “singularly eroticized.”

This tone-deaf non-athletic black intellectual has enough evidence in his own right to prove that not all black persons are gifted in sports or worship. I join Chauncey DeVega in asking “If the best and brightest of Black America are just felons and drug users in the eyes of populist conservatives [I would add mainstream liberals too], what of the legions of working class, hard working, regular folks?” Of course, there are always reminders for Blacks about their place in the world, like the case of Tim Tebow. Someone who I personally root for as an underdog, but no black quarterback will be portrayed as having the odds stacked against him, except for if he went to prison like Michael Vick.

The quarterback is a position of status the QB is, ideally supposed to be the most rational and the person most capable of leading the team on the field. Black quarterbacks from the time they entire college and then are drafted, always hear whispers of position changes (like this year’s Heisman Trophy Winner Robert Griffin III). In other words, the opportunity to be seen as a leader, to grab the national spotlight is always a position coach’s decision away for the black quarterback, since blacks are only supposed to be good at singing and entertaining.

In reality, as long as good well-meaning people remain committed to “the blacks as natural athletes myth,” the odds will always be stacked against racial minorities.

Related articles

• White Skin, Black Masks: Sammy Sosa, Beyonce, Fanon & Beauty (politicaljesus.com)

Right around Christmas time, we Protestant Christians like to rush right through the Incarnation, spit on the idea that YHWH arrived here on Earth as a baby, and start talking about Easter. It happens in Protestant pulpits, and you know it! One of the common talking points in all of the Crucifixion talk is the idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, as Eve 2.0. Now, for people who continue to affirm Original Sin as something that is biologically inherited, this allegorical interpretation of the text fits quite nicely. For others, such as myself, who do not affirm Original Sin as something transmitted through our bodies, this view remains a problem in that women remain the scapegoat for human wickedness on a large scale.

The thing about allegorical interpretation is that it is not absolute, and there can be other paradigms used within reason (I would say measured by the Canon and Tradition). In some forms of Judaism, there are four types of interpretation, and one of the being REMEZ, that uses “patterns and models [that] allude to all experiences […] of the past, and intimate the gamut of possibilities of the future.” (Mihaly, Eugene. The Passover Haggadah as PaRaDiSe. page 18). Many historians have noted that in the Medieval Ages, Scripture (alluding to the image of Ezekiel’s Chariot) was seen as having four senses of interpretation. Among these are the literal sense, the moral sense, the anagogical sense (the hope for the future), and the allegorical sense. I believe that this was the Scriptural project taken up by Gregory the Great (I am going by memory here). Now, there is no mistaken that there are some forms of allegorical interpretation that are harmful (one can look no further than Augustine’s terrible readings of Judges 6 and Romans 8-9). Augustine’s allegorical reading of Judges 6 is an example of why it is important to take the original context of Scripture seriously; interpretation is no light task. The only way that Judges 6 could be used as an anti-Judaic text is if the interpreter himself has a vendetta against Judaism (I.e., Augustine).

Being a fanboy of the Alexandrian school of theology (including it’s High Christology, Mariology, and preference for allegorical interpretation ) in Early Christian history, I am also well aware of some of it’s blind spots. I see no reason why conservative Christians like Joel want to have “Mary as Eve 2.0″ be the final interpretation for Mary as Theoktos. No one argues that Joseph is Adam 2.0, I mean, why not? Adam was married to Eve, makes logical sense, yes? There is no allusion of a garden in the Nativity story, no forbidden fruits or trees.

Mary as Noah 2.0

I would suggest that, through the use of the Synoptic Gospels (specifically Luke & Mark), the stories of Mary & Joseph, as well as Elizabeth & Zechariah could be read allegorically as a Noah story 2.0. That is, to clarify, that Mary and Elizabeth inhabit the Noahide prophetic tradition. An typological understanding of Revelation 11:19-12:17, primarily Catholic in origin, understands Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. Like Hannah in 1st Samuel 1 & 2, Mary is living in the midst of religious and political crisis. Just as the story of the prophet Samuel involves the movement of the Ark of the Covenant, so does Mary’s story. Noah’s Ark is an Ark of Covenant (Genesis 6:18), that God covenants with Noah before and after (Genesis 8:20-22). At this point of the narrative, it is obvious that the author of Genesis 6-8 is very familiar with the sacrificial system put in place during the days of Moses (thus the allusion to clean and unclean animals).

Typologically speaking, I would like to suggest that Jesus is the Ark of the Covenant (since Peter does recognize the Ark as an early vision of baptism–1st Peter 3:18-22). Just as the oppressive Philistines forced the Ark of the Covenant into Exile, so does the Roman government in Mary’s day force Joseph and Mary into Exile in Egypt. Noahide imagery appears in Mark’s introduction of John the Immerser and Jesus. Jesus is left in the wilderness with animals (Mark 1:13), while John is clothed with animal skins (Mark 1:6). The Immersion into water of Jesus by John the Immerser is an inversing of the flood; water and animals are being used to save human beings rather than displaying YHWH’s wrath towards their sinfulness. The image of the dove (the idea that the Holy Spirit anoints Christ) has some covenantal significance, for in Genesis 8, Noah sends out a dove to see whether what God has spoken is true (the flood ending after 40 days or so); in Luke, Mary and Joseph are so poor they can only offer a dove or pigeon according to the Law of the Covenant (Leviticus 5 & 12, Luke 2:24).

If this be this case, then I submit that the Virgin Mary and her cousin Elizabeth fit the role of Noah/Hannah, as prophets of righteousness (2nd Peter 2:5), who remind us of God’s magnificence and our limitations in our creatureliness (see the Magnificats: 1st Samuel 2:1-10/Luke 1:46-56).

“The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”– 1st Samuel 2:7-9, NRSV

Let Heav’n and Nature Sing!

DISCLAIMER #1: The following blog post is NOT theological criticism or a heresy-head hunting game by any stretch of Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack. I am more sympathetic with open & process theisms, so there is no need for this author to scan The Shack for doctrinal errors.

DISCLAIMER #2: Be aware that what I share are from a 2010 joint-presentation I and my friend Adam DJ Brett, a PhD entering his first year of work at Syracuse this fall. Post 5 of this 6 part series will be mostly his research, and his intellectual property. If you wish to use this information, please cite him as the source. Also, given that this setting is a blog, I do not assume that everyone is familiar with the concepts I shall place forth, so, unlike the paper and hopefully forthcoming journal article, I will be making available definitions and sources if need be.

Towards a Negative (thea/theo/thee) -logical anthropology

The problem with much of Christian fiction (film and novels included) is that white privilege goes utterly ignored. So thus, every film that is dipped in Jesus sauce gets to be called speaking for all Christians, when it reality, they do not. The Passion of the Christ? It is one voice of  many who identify with Vatican I Catholicism. Fireproof? White Conservative evangelicals of the married and employed persuasion– the perfect movie for Tither-Driven churches. Jumping The Broom? Conservative upper-class black Christians worried about the state of the “Black family”–whatever black may mean, right?

William P. Young’s The Shack reveals liberal Protestant Christianity’s blindspot to racist histories, and I would say that anyone that embraces the racial Others in The Shack uncritically is guilty of the same thing; this is not pointing the finger at every fan of The Shack, but I would say ideas such as The Shack Bible Project would be culpable in this regard. It seemed to me in my and Adam’s endeavor here that we encountered a number of arguments (i.e., emotional appeals seeing this as an attack on Young’s person) that verified for us the accuracy of our findings.

What Christians need to do in their fiction pieces is to start talking about what human beings are NOT meant to be, in other words, a negative thea/eo/ee-logical anthropology. This should involve input from communities that have been historically discriminated against, and ignored as legitimate voices in “The Church.” I would suggest that instead of using The Shack to talk about g*d, why not race relations? There isn’t a textbook about how to go about racial reconciliation, so why not use The Shack as a conversation starter, in exposing how our oppressive gazes interfere with the lives of Asian, Black, Latin@, and Jewish friends alike.

Here Is The Series IN IT’s Entirety for reference:

Sex in the Trinity part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

DISCLAIMER #1: The following blog post is NOT theological criticism or a heresy-head hunting game by any stretch of Wm. Paul Young’s The Shack. I am more sympathetic with open & process theisms, so there is no need for this author to scan The Shack for doctrinal errors.

DISCLAIMER #2: Be aware that what I share are from a 2010 joint-presentation I and my friend Adam DJ Brett, a PhD entering his first year of work at Syracuse this fall. Post 5 of this 6 part series will be mostly his research, and his intellectual property. If you wish to use this information, please cite him as the source. Also, given that this setting is a blog, I do not assume that everyone is familiar with the concepts I shall place forth, so, unlike the paper and hopefully forthcoming journal article, I will be making available definitions and sources if need be.

Ain’t That A Drag?

Today’s piece is primarily the work of Adam DJ Brett, a PhD student a Syracuse, who focuses on continental philosophy, theology, and interfaith dialogue. If you would like to contact Adam about his work, do so at this link.

Growing up, I often heard the words, “Imitation is the best form of flattery.” The hell it is! In today’s world, parody can go both ways, either as a tribute, as in a sign of respect (such as tv knockoffs of hit movies like The Hangover) or as insults, even when they star Jesus himself with Tim Tebow. In the history of the United States, white people doing black face has always been a national past time. The Black is the symbol of evil and everything not American, not white, and not male.

The latest version of black face comedy comes to us from Canada (I know, right?) with a Chuck Knipp who has as an act, a black woman named Shirley Q. Liquor. You can find a number of Shirley’s videos on Youtube, but the gist is to basically have a white male version of Madea (don’t get me started on Tyler Perry). What ends up happening is that Mr. Knipp is still abusing his white male body privilege to promote racist stereotypes by capitalizing off of racist histories in the U.S. and Europe. You don’t think blackface is an issue anymore? Go ask the Dutch about Zwarte Peter at Christmas time?

Wait, Rod, you say, what does this have to do with William P. Young’s The Shack? I now bring to the floor, Adam Brett’s case:

Papa as Parody
Papa is not the feminine personification of God, but instead is a parody. God ‘the Father’ imitates the feminine as Papa. Parody is imitation, like wearing a mask, or painting one’s face. Parody is linguistic mimicry using satirical language. Parody is comedic performance for the sake of performance and therefore is not subversive.
Judith Butler deconstructs parody, using drag as a way of explaining and dealing with the socially constructed nature of gender. Drag has two main components: the first is linguistics and the second is theatrical performance. Within the linguistic theatrical nature of drag there are three elements at play: 1) anatomical sex 2) gender identity and 3) gender performativity. Drag points out that something we believe to be fixed and natural, such as gender, is not indeed fixed, but instead it is a performance. Drag is a double inversion that points out “appearance is an illusion.” The linguistic theatrical nature of drag destabilizes the rigidity of gender perceived as “gender reality.” In order for Young’s character Papa to be a form of drag, the whole parody needs to be seamless, exhibiting no rupture between the linguistic and theatrical performance of gender. [Parody as lacking a linguistic dimension and drag as seamless performance}
Young establishes God as a white male. From the beginning of The Shack, the essence of Papa is white and male. The masculine name Papa subsumes the Feminine nature of God. Young uses The masculine pronoun “he,” whenever referring to the divine notions of Papa. Papa only becomes “she” sparingly, when performing human tasks –stereotypically those performed by women. At the end of the book Papa’s true form is revealed. Papa is, in fact, a white male who conforms to Mack’s expectations for the divine. Young does not linguistically destabilize God as male, but instead ‘Father’ God performs as a woman. Papa only retains a partial female identity until the character Mack is ready to experience God as male –not just linguistically but also physically. The Shack defines masculine as “normal” and feminine as “abnormal” through Butler’s “linguistic hegemony.” The presentation of the divine feminine with a masculine name and a female body only reinforces the notion that language is phallogocentric. Linguistic absence characterizes the feminine once again in contradistinction to masculinity. Papa is caricature: a white male God in black face wearing a dress and parroting black southern dialect. Linguistically, God is paternalistic. Every single masculine pronoun and noun Young uses affirms the phallogocentric notion of God.
Drag is an art form that requires and demands a seamless performance between linguistic and theatrical representation. Drag critiques gender identity and performance in such a way that the actor’s biology fades into the background. Butler’s notion of parody and of drag reveals Papa as white male pastiche in the form of a black woman’s minstrel show.

Sources cited: Madan Sarup, An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, 2nd ed. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993). and Judith Butler, Gender Trouble : Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge Classics (New York: Routledge, 2006) and

Young’s Papa, by book’s end, represents a racist queering of the godhead.

Related articles

• #Warehouse13, Science Fiction & Sexism: When Inclusion Become Oppressive (politicaljesus.com)

THIS IS MY DECEMBER- BY LINKIN PARK

My goal is to finish a couple of series this year I have yet to conclude, the “Sex in the Trinity: my review of William P. Young’s The Shack” as well as Liberating the Future of Seminary this week, starting with SITT tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Oh, and that Firefly and Theology thing, I will keep working on it. Promise. I’ll finish it someday.

Image via Wikipedia

Just sickening and disgusting on every level.

In response to my last post, on the prosperity gospel, Joel has come out swinging since I took aim at his beloved cemetary I mean seminary. Poor Joel Watts, so deceived. May the Triune God rest his soul.

“In a post which Rodney, at my request, abused the privileged of posting on my blog by linking to a blog post on his blog, he noted that United Theological Seminary had partnered with Kenneth Copeland Ministries. This was a few years ago, so it’s old news, Rodney, and you should be ashamed. But, at least you didn’t note that Copeland is going to give a feature sermon to DMin students this coming January. That would have been embarrassing.”

 

To read more, See: Rodney has no business attacking UTS’s partnership with Kenneth Copeland Ministries

New Thought positivism is nothing new. In fact, it has been around for a while, since the mid 19th century in the United States. Americans in the early twentieth century witnessed a rise in new religious movements that all clung to the notion of the impeccability of the human mind. According to theologian Stephanie Mitchem, “Many religious movements influenced the American public, including African American. […] In the 1840s, inventor Phineas Quimby began the New Thought movement, which involved the use of the mind to cure the body. Mary Baker Eddy, one of Quimby’s students, added a spiritual component and began the Christian Science organization, “that tuning into God’s inner-dwelling presence and achieving oneness with his spirit restored health and well being” (Mitchem, 52). Mitchem goes on to note that the religious movements in the northeast United States, including Mesmerism, Spiritualism, and Transcendentalism made a profound impact on the religious lives of African Americans who were just beginning to migrate northwards.

Today, New Thought philosophy has been mixed in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles to become the Word of Faith movement: If you believe it, you receive it. This country is going through a recession, and despite the immense poverty and joblessness people are experiencing, prosperity preachers refuse to acknowledge the pain people are feeling while asking for laypeople’s “seeds of faith.” In some circles, the prosperity gospel is a message for the rich. Church life, no matter if the church is mainline or evangelical, center around the wallets of the monied, and their interests. Want to make changes to worship? No, we can’t, silver hair donors will stop giving. Want to reach out to the married couples in our neighborhood? Ask why is that important. Because, the church wants more tithers for more programming to reach more tithers! Does your youth minister make a group of steady tithers in church feel uncomfortable? Put her on the hot seat! A candidate needs a few votes to get over the top? Let him say a few words during the service.

The church’s life already centers around the wealthy and those with influence, those at the center on our society. Seminaries that cooperate with prosperity ministries remain complicit in working against the spirit of Christmas. Christmas, the Holidays, Thanksgiving, these are not just times to be giving charity. Charity is the last thing on Luke’s and Matthew’s mind when they told the birth story of Yeshua the Messiah. In Luke @, when our Jewish Savior was presented at the temple, his family was so poor, Mary and Joseph had to give two doves or pigeons, according to the law of Moses (Luke 2:24). The author of Luke had in mind Leviticus 5:7 (NIV): “Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.” Mary and Joseph could not even afford one of the lambs that was probably in the manger with them the night Mary the Theoktos gave birth to our LORD.

What does this all mean? It means that God Incarnate refutes the logic of Prosperity gospel, New Thought heresy, and even Tither-Driven churches. The Incarnation of the Word de-centers the existences of the wealthy as the masters of our world and elects the poor as God’s missionaries in the world. It is this very election of the poor, the Tiny Tims in this life that the spirit of Christmas is all about; our theological education institutions and churches should respond likewise, by denouncing the heretics who preach the Prosperity non-Gospel, and declaring that little Baby in a manger as LORD.

Works cited:

Mitchem, Stephanie Y. Name It and Claim It?: Prosperity Preaching in the Black Church. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2007.

White, Male, and Harvard educated Bible scholar Douglas Stuart views exegesis as a scientific process where exegetes divorce themselves from all cultural and theological biases in order to get to the original text’s meaning: “The exegete must analyze the passage under review, in the original, to determine if any grammatical ambiguities exist.” [ see Douglas Stuart. “Exegesis” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary II. (New York:Doubleday, 1992), 685-686] He argues that words can be utilized with fluidity. “The exegete must strive to avoid such common faults as illegitimate totality transfer (thinking that all or any potential meanings of a word apply to that word in any passage where it occurs), excessive reliance on etymology (thinking that the original or “root” meaning of a word stays with that word and is part of its meaning in every place it is used), and extracontextualism (finding a meaning for the given term in some usage far removed in time, circumstance, or ethos from the passage at hand and assuming that such a meaning “fits” the term’s use in the passage.” Stuart’s approach has a couple of problems. While I agree with him that the Bible is the word of God, exactly WHO God is differs from person to person and thus, Stuart’s approach naively presumes that an exegete can recover the original meaning of the biblical text apart from one’s biases. While we can gather some idea about the world behind the text, our knowledge in that regard is very limited.

I agree somewhat with Stuart’s approach in that exegetes should ideally have at least a minimum familiarity with the original language that the canon was recorded. As clergy, we should learn to appreciate the cultures that the biblical narrative describes; in order to properly do this, we must attempt to learn the languages from which the stories of the Christian tradition depend. We cannot, however, sever the way God’s story unfolds in our lives from the story we find in Scripture. The Bible is not some text to be lorded over; God’s word is for us to eat and take in for our daily nutrition just as God’s word was for Ezekiel.

I agree with Eugene Peterson; exegesis is vital to spiritual formation and spiritual formation should be the purpose of exegesis. We should make God’s story the central focus for the way we tell and perform our stories. Stuart limits exegesis to the task of scholars. There should not be this division between our head, our heart, and our bodies Scholars are part of the Church Universal but exegesis is also for every Christian who chooses to use the Christian canon. The biblical text, according to Peterson, “[is] constantly becoming overlaid with personal preferences, cultural assumptions, sin distortions, and ignorant guesses that pollute the text.” Exegesis is necessary so that we can live cleaner spiritual lives. See Eugene Peterson’s EAT THIS BOOK, or you can see this link, reviewing and citing the book at Calvin College: Eugene Peterson: On God’s Standing Invitation: Eat This Book

That being said, I exhort all Christians to learn to do exegesis, and not simply rely on what they are told from the pulpit. This may mean a change in the way that Christian Education. Yes, I know what I am saying, but we should stop looking down on laypeople or those who have not had theological education as idiots. You would be surprised how much laity and clergy want to learn about Scripture. If you are going to eat something, you need to fix and prepare the meal properly, yes? In the same way, would suggest a couple of things to pave the way for more and more lay exegesis:

1. More curriculum authored by scholars and less and less by Christian publishers. Perhaps some collaboration should start happening.

2. Second, I would say for individual laypersons to find communities to read the Bible with, because that is the way that the Scriptures are to be learned, in a community.

3. Third, I would suggest to go to your local library, and perhaps read up a little on the world history. Part of the problem with U.S. American Christians is that we love to just think about U.S. American history, and nothing else really. That has to change to.

Critics on the Calvinist side say that these theologies are the same, as do some relational theologies themselves. This is understandable, since both Open and Process theologians affirm:

1. Libertarian Free Will

2. God’s omnipresence within creation rather than misguided views of transcendence that completely separate God from creation. And therefore, God has real relationships with the world.

3. God is affected by the world and responds to events within creation. God is able to suffer with humanity (passible).

4. Both models work as a critique against classical theism, whether it is Arminian, Calvinist, or Molinist in nature.

That being said, a close investigation into the differences between Open theism and Process theologies means that any honest thinker should take these particularities as real and by no means inconveniences.

1st Difference– Revelation

1. Through my reading of both process and Open theisms one key difference is the centrality of revelation, that is Special Revelation as a category for Open Theists. Perhaps this is due in large part because of Open Theism’s evangelical roots, which places a heavy emphasis on scripture. But what defines an evangelical Christian, well, all Christians, is the importance of the life of Christ Jesus, the 2nd century Jewish carpenter from Nazareth. Know Jesus, know who God is. It is this strain of God’s disclosure to creation and history (time, place, and space) and the particularity thereof that remains of the utmost crucial importance for Open Theist’s understanding of the divine.

In stark contrast, (and know, just as not every Open Theist believes the same things, that there is diversity among process theists) process thinkers such as Marjorie Suchockie and and Robert Mesle. Both represent two different forms of process theism, one (Mesle) process naturalism, and the other theistic process thought. However, creation vis-a-vis science is viewed as the form of revelation which we know God. There is nothing wrong with Natural theology/Natural revelation, but this is approach means a real difference in the conclusions we reach about God. In both Mesle’s and Suchockie’s texts, as well as other texts in process theology that I have encountered, the writers encourage their readers to discard with the differentiation between natural and special revelation.

This does not happen in Open Theist texts generally; our encounter with Special revelation shapes the way we engage Natural/general revelation.

2nd Difference– God as Personal Divinity

2. What does it mean for God to be Personal? How does one contrast an impersonal divinity from a personal one? It is not a matter of Jesus becoming our Privatized Savior for the sake of the few who get to keep all the profits, I mean get to heaven. The category of personhood for God is a very controversial one these days, especially since people like to invoke ideas that God is on their side, no matter how horrible their ideas are. The category of a personal God comes from both biblical precedent and philosophy. In the United States of America, in the latter half of the 19th century was a school of thought called the Boston Personalism, since it was first systematized by Methodist thinkers who were philosophers at Boston University. Personalism first and foremost, affirms unique subjectivity in the life of the Divine. makes a distinction between God’s experiences and our experiences (meaning, they are not the same, God’s tears are NOT our tears), and the idea that God freely chooses to limit God’s self.

What does belief in an impersonal God consist of? From process texts, God is limited INvoluntarily, God’s experiences are our experiences, and God as simply the name of the natural process that sustains creation, or creativity.

3rd Difference–Histories of Communities

3. Each theological community in Christianity has a history and backdrop from which it comes forth. If the Neo-Calvinism that has arisen today sees itself in the context of (after an honest look) of historical white conservative evangelical churches and preachers such as Jonathan Edwards, this must be the case for Process and Open theology camps. Process theologies have a better awareness of their own histories and sources, coming from mainline churches and seminaries such as Charles Harthshorne. Unfortunately, because of the shape that the debate has taken place over issues such as free will, Open Theists are still trying to find their history. Perhaps a possible way forward would be to look at sources and historical thinkers outside of white Christianities, Major J. Jones would be one example. And still another, Kazoh Kitamori. Although not specifically evangelical, their theological projects do have more in common with relational/open theologies.

For more information regarding this topic, please see Thomas Oord’s contribution to The Handbook of Process Theology, “Evangelical Theologies” and the 3 volume set by Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology (the parts on Personalism).

For his strong performance in Team America: World Police!

Check here for a youtube clip of what should have won this guy an Oscar.

Here was the proposal abstract:

“Black Religion(s) and the Harlem Renaissance

Chair/Comments: Keri Day, Brite Divinity School
Participants: Rodney A. Thomas, Jr., Celucien L. Joseph, Phillip Luke Sinitiere

For nearly a century now, scholars and writers have grappled with the social, political, cultural, and economic impacts of the Harlem Renaissance. Some work examines the forging of identities amidst the racial regime of Jim Crow that fostered artistic expressions of historical longing through the art of Aaron Douglas, for instance, and inspired the creative, imaginative writing of Zora Neale Hurston. Additional critical study documents that the era of the New Negro, complicated by its impact across class lines, sometimes fractured into competing camps based on conflicting approaches to the question of civil rights. While there are a few studies of black religion during the Harlem Renaissance era (e.g., Jon Michael Spencer, Randall Burkett, Jill Watts, Juan Floyd-Thomas, and Curtis Evans) the bulk of scholarship on this period tends to overlook the importance of black religion(s) during the era of the New Negro. This panel aims to contribute to the ongoing conversation about the role of religion in the Harlem Renaissance.
Building on the work of theologians Monica Coleman and James McGrath to consider
the history of black male speculative fiction and its relationship to black religion, Rodney A.
Thomas, Jr.’s “Dystopia & Dehumanization: A Comparative Study of the Theological Ethics in the Science Fiction of C.S. Lewis and Samuel I. Brooks (George Schuyler) in the 1930s” compares Schuyler’s views on race and religion during the era of the New Negro with the speculative fiction genre produced in Great Britain during the same decade of the 1930s by evaluating C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy.
Examining poetry and shorter writings Celucien L. Joseph’s “Langston Hughes’s Perspective on Religion and the Failure of American Christianity” considers Hughes’s work as the articulation of the condition of black America and as an expression of their culture, suffering, fears, hopes, and their spirituality or religion. Joseph’s paper explores Hughes’s critique of white Christianity and how he articulated his own perspective about faith.
Phillip Luke Sinitiere’s paper, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Crosses the Color Line,” reads Bonhoeffer’s historic years at Union Seminary (1930-31, 1939) in the context of the New Negro Movement. Analysis of Bonhoeffer’s letters, essays, and sermons in conjunction with the Harlem Renaissance writers he encountered (including publications by the NAACP), the expressive modes of faith he witnessed at Abyssinian Baptist Church, and the social gospel activism he observed at Union Seminary, this paper considers the New Negro sources through which he gained understanding of black religion and from which he would develop a constructive theological response to the injustice of racism.”

A more detailed abstract of my contribution to the panel:

“Presentation Title- Dystopia & Dehumanization: A Comparative Study of the theological ethics in the science fiction works of Clives Staples Lewis and Samuel I. Brooks in the 1930’s.

Proposal synopsis-

Womanist theologian Monica Coleman, in her Making A Way Out of No Way, argues that black women’s science fiction literature provides “imaginative models of creative transformation.” According to Coleman, speculative fiction written by black women, is utopian in nature, with critiques of society and a ‘definition of genuine justice.’ These works of fiction “are interested in freedom, justice, and ethics for the entire community,” and present offerings of alternative futures. In stark contrast to black women’s science fiction, I contend that black men’s science fiction writings are dystopian in nature, filled with satire, as they grapple with the problem of race and masculinity. According to New Testament scholar James McGrath, “science fiction scenarios often imagine the future of technology, and thus provide a wonderful starting point for ethical discussions.” While studies between the intersection of theological studies and the genre of science fiction are relatively new, the history of black male speculative fiction and its relationship to black religion has been relatively ignored.

In this paper, I propose to compare texts by black science fiction writer and Harlem Renaissance thinker Samuel I. Brooks (George S. Schuyler) and a British contemporary, Clives Staples Lewis. Toward this end, I will engage in a theological interpretation of Schuyler’s racial dystopic work, Black No More and another piece of speculative fiction Africa, Black Empire. For this portion of the presentation, I will explore Schuyler’s views on race and religion in his New Negro movement context. In addition, this author plans to compare historic black male science fiction with the speculative fiction genre produced in Great Britain during the same decade of the 1930s, evaluating the Space Trilogy of C.S. Lewis, his notion of a dystopian society as well as his attitude towards science fiction. I conclude that what makes a social nightmare in black men’s science fiction is distinct from the white British version because each of these sub-genres exist for differing purposes. It is this difference, I would argue, that make for competing visions of alternative futures.”

The session where it will take place is the Saturday of the SWCRS, March 9th, 6:30pm, for the Arts, Literature, and Religion session. For more information, visit the Southwest Commission on Religious Studies website.