Leave a comment

Nothing New Under the Sun: Racism in America (Again)


The Title of the Valley Forge Display Covering Minorities. (Yes, we found only one display.)

My friend, and fellow MennoNerd, Drew Hart shared a link on Twitter this morning to a piece he wrote in August 2013. The piece speaks to the relationship of 400 years of discrimination from the origins of black slavery through the modern day. While the most recent incident mentioned in the piece is the Trayvon Martin case, his thoughts are just as valid as we look again at the response to the comment attributed to Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. Despite many previous rumors about his bigotry, and more than one lawsuit accusing him directly, many seemed shocked that he might say something like this. How can we still be shocked that there are racist white men in America? Just last week, a right-wing cattle rancher wondered if black’s might not be better off as slaves.

The fact that we continue to act shocked and appalled, and to pretend that white racism is an isolated and rare occurrence, it strains credibility. Centuries of privilege gained on the backs of blacks do not quickly fade from the social systems. Just about a week ago I visited Valley Forge with my family. I asked my children to keep their eyes open for any Native, black, or other minority in any of the displays. It was hard work. Other than one display focused on the “melting pot” which mentioned Native Americans, slaves, Jews, women, and Catholics, there wasn’t much. Everything else showed a wide swath of white/European male faces. The video presented about the encampment barely mentioned some Philadelphia women who supported the army, but no mention of the “melting pot” of diversity that we often like to imagine. Our version of US history is essentially the white version. The sacrifices, usually involuntarily, of minorities is completely absent.

Drew does all of us a service, if we value truth, by reminding us of the impact of this history:

Like clockwork our country cycles through event after event that sparks outrage over issues of race and racism in America. The responses to events like these are predictable, as many fall into their default positions, because people’s perceptions of what took place are equally shaped by race as much as the event itself that triggered the conversation. A slight majority of white Americans will deny and dismiss the outcry and experience of black Americans, claiming that it is emotionalism and an inability to deal with the facts. From their vantage point, only they are seeing things objectively. Their experience tells them that America is generally speaking a good, fair, and equal country. The continual outcry of black Americans, therefore, is a result of media manipulation and race card playing for sympathy. In the end, these White Americans apparently know and understand black experience better than black people themselves know it. Despite the fact that those who deny systemic racism most, are actually more likely to have less racially diverse networks than white Americans who also recognize the racial inequalities in America similar to African Americans (check out Divided by Faith).

And there lies the problem. White intuition and experience (limited by homogeneous networks) is signifying one thing while black experience is claiming an alternative reality. What are people who participate in dominant society to do when their intuition and experience contradict the experiences of oppressed people? It is on that subject that we must gain some historical insights from before we can offer a constructive path forward.

Drew then tracks through some of this embarrassing history of  race relations in the US. He then concludes with a message to those of us who claim the name of Christ:

This call for counterintuitive solidarity and trusting the historically marginalized and oppressed perception above one’s own is not easy. But I believe that Jesus’ own emptying of himself and taking on slave humanity models for us The Way forward. Jesus’ own solidarity performance is a call to discipleship and imitation as a way of being in the world. It is the cure for privileged blinders that leaves people’s own vision impaired and unreliable. The Spirit is pulling all of us to see things “from below” because that is where God has chosen to move, work, and transform the world (1 Cor. 1:18-31).

I encourage you to read all of Drew’s piece, as it can help those of us who are white to reset our own personal blinders to the effects of so many years of learned privilege and practiced ignorance of our position. For minorities, I hesitate to suggest what you might gain, since I have not walked in our shoes, but would suggest that understanding why whites often miss what should be so obvious to us is well explained in the piece. Drew has done and evenhanded job of fairly representing what you will too often have to deal with in dominant white culture.

1 Comment

Hospitality: MennoNerds Synchroblog

Hospitality. Today is the second contribution to the MennoNerds Synchro-Blog on Missional Spirituality. My topic for today is Hospitality. This is mentioned seven times in the New Testament in the NET version. (Acts 28.7, Romans 12.13, 1 Timothy 3.2, 1 Timothy 5.10, Titus 1.8, 1 Peter 4.9) One clear theme is that this trait is expected of those trusted with leadership. What does it mean? What doesn’t it mean?

I look at hospitality as welcoming the “other” into our midst. There are two ways that we might do this that are not, in my view, hospitality. Highlighting these departures may help to illustrate what I think this term should mean to a follower of our Messiah, Jesus.

Mistake 1: Openness in Name Only

One way that I have seen hospitality interpreted within the Church is to have an “open door” policy. That is, we say that others are certainly welcome, and we would never tell anyone to leave. However, we make no attempt to actually connect with any guests. We don’t ask to hear their story, or attempt to provide context for ours. If a visitor is to come, they are welcomed to fit into our style and practice, but we make it clear in subtle, and not so subtle, ways that we like who we are and how things work around here. If our style doesn’t work for you, we really don’t want to hear about it. We’ll be happy to simply suggest that maybe we aren’t the church for you, and you ought to try out Church X across town where the style, theology, ethnic makeup, or such might be more to your liking and you might fit in better. That is, of course, if we even notice that you aren’t happy here and have a conversation with you about why that might be.

How this might seem to us to be hospitable is a mystery to me. Too often, however, this is what I’ve found among a large number of Christians. Let me provide an example or two from personal experience.

  • I have a friend who is a gay Christian. He would like a church where the words of Christ, and scripture in general are taken seriously. He would also like to be valued as a person within the church he attends. While I disagree with him on some issues of biblical interpretation, he is my brother. Sadly, many of the churches he has contacted that value scripture and the example of Christ have taken the approach to hospitality mentioned here. You are “welcome” to come worship with us, but if you aren’t willing to change to “fit in”, you won’t be truly included as one of us.
  • Another church I am familiar with has taken something of this approach with race. Looking around on a Sunday morning would provide a view of almost entirely white faces. In conversations with staff, a friend of mine was told that of course anyone, of any race, was welcome to worship at this church. However, no space was intentionally made to acknowledge the difference in experience of various racial groups in our culture. In hiring, promoting from within is was valued, and bringing in diverse staff voices to create an atmosphere of true welcome for racial minorities in this congregation didn’t seem to be on their radar.

These churches would have said they were hospitable, but were they? It is my view that hospitality is better judged from the perspective of the other, and how they would feel, rather than how we can justify ourselves as hospitable, yet maintain our comfort. These churches don’t really make the “other” feel welcomed or valued. They may go away thinking that we were nice to them, but they won’t feel like they’ve been included. They will walk away with a clear sense of the “other-ness” to us, and unlikely to want to come back.

Mistake 2: Openness with No Identity

The other extreme is to be so open as to simply accept anyone and anything as able to be included in our family. In this model, we don’t want to offend anyone else who might come into our Church, so we decide to water down any evidence of claim to unique belief or level of certainty. Some might call this “seeker centered”, but I’ve seen evidence of it outside of that particular context. Strong statements of belief will naturally divide, so this type of church tries to avoid that. Mission statements and sermons steer clear of exclusive claims to truth and end up sounding a lot like general “self-help” type advice. How does this look from the other?

  • This is the other extreme that my gay Christian friend has found frustrating. Churches that will happily welcome him, and his partner, into their midst and include them in ministry proved to stand for very little. My friend lamented the lack of challenge he felt when attending these congregations. The messages didn’t challenge him to take the call of Christ seriously. He wasn’t challenged to be more like Christ, more loving, more sacrificial, more devoted to others. He wished for a church that was willing to take scripture seriously, challenge him to live his faith, and be willing to engage on the disagreements that made him “other” to them.
  • Other churches I’ve seen like this can become great at welcoming non-Christians into their midst. They have a coffee-shop in the lobby. Everyone dresses down and comfortably. Things are set up not to present a hindrance to accepting Christ. None of this is bad, in itself. The problem is when this carries over to the message. The message may mention Jesus, but certainly not in a way that makes it seem like you’ll have to sacrifice anything should you choose to accept Him as savior. This phrase is telling, in itself. The emphasis is on what Christ can do for you, never what He might ask you to give up and do for the Kingdom of God. He’ll help you break bad habits, perhaps, but not to give up the habits you like.

These churches would also claim to be hospitable. Are they? I’ve heard from friends who went to churches like these and left thinking “why bother?” If we just accommodate whatever they believe when they come in, what value do we add to their lives? Why take the time to come to church, other than to hang out with friends? Surely there is something we can add between sending them away without ever engaging with them and the opposite pole of welcoming them so openly that we add nothing of value to their lives. In the first case, they might get the impression that our Messiah might not be for them, since they are not one of us. In the second, they may get the impression that they don’t need our Messiah, because He doesn’t really say anything.

A Better Way: Christ-like Hospitality

A see the example of Christ as a model for us. Somehow he lived in a way that welcomed the “tax collectors and sinners” without ever compromising the difficulty of the message He was sharing and the sacrifice to which He called His followers. How can we look at this model and take a message for the Church? What we see is that Jesus clearly loved people, even those He disagreed with. No, He didn’t water down His message, and even told people at times not to come unless they had fully counted the cost. Somehow, despite this focus on the cost of joining the Kingdom effort, Jesus drew the “other” to Himself. Even those who disagreed couldn’t resist engaging Him in debate and conversation. While they were often shut down by Jesus, they kept coming back. What can we learn?

We need to make space to hear the “other”. By default, we as hosts have the power and authority. A truly Christian approach makes space to say welcome by inviting the other to have space to share. Yes, we can offer background on who we are and have been, but it is more work (and more important) that we make space for the voices of others to be heard. This is risky business. We might actually learn from them, and find we need to change. This challenge is healthy, and I would claim necessary. True hospitality involves vulnerability. If we are not willing to listen and learn, we have not really opened up anything to our guest.

However, this is not intended to say that we should predetermine that we will change to accommodate the other, regardless of view. We should suppose that we might have something to offer the other, just as they may have something to offer us. True hospitality is to offer the other the chance to teach and change us as we offer them the chance to be changed by us. Notice, these are offers. We must not use our power as host to insist that the other must change to accommodate to us, any more than we tell them that we will blindly accommodate them.

Defining Other

This applies to all sorts of “others”, not just race or sexuality.

  • Do we make space to listen to women, not just men? I’ve experienced too many churches where only male perspectives are given the stamp of authority. We as men need to learn from feminine perspectives if we are truly to understand the fullness of the image of God that is found in both male and female.
  • Do we value the input of all generations? Some value the old at the expense of the young, while others reverse this. It ought to be true that anyone can share and teach the rest of us. I need to hear from the experienced voices in our congregation, but I also need to learn from younger adults, and even teens and young children. One of the times of greatest growth in my faith was when “leading” a youth small group of guys. The guys in my group taught me at least as much as I taught them. Receiving communion from one of these teens in our main worship service one Sunday was meaningful on many levels for me, as it reminded me of all this young man, and others in our group, had taught me before he even graduated from high school.
  • Do we value those who are single? Those who are single, whether never married or single again because of divorce or death, are often given the impression that they are less valued in their singleness than they would be married. This can be subtle, but it is still insidious. I’ve seen churches that will not allow a single adult to minister to youth, as if their singleness makes them more likely to be tempted to inappropriate behavior. In a previous church I sat in on discussions of what we were looking for in a new pastor, and it was clearly assumed that the pastor would be male and married. This was never directly mentioned, but all of the comments were about what “his family” would expect of us and what we wanted him and his family to be like. Childless couples are often not much better off after the first few years of marriage or if they have made it clear they do not intend to have children. Many churches naturally favor families. It is as if we believe that a married pastor can speak to anyone, but a single adult can only minister to other singles. I believe this is a lie of the enemy to keep us from learning from and valuing these brothers and sisters.
  • Do we who are the racial majority in this country realize how little we understand about being a minority in the US? We need to provide space to truly listen and learn from minority voices. Jesus was not white. He may have been in the majority in his area, but His race was not in power. The white, European Romans were in charge, and Jesus was a member of a group that was oppressed and controlled by others. How are we making room in our white churches to hear from racial minorities?
  • Do we make space in our comfortable middle-class and above churches to hear from the poor? Jesus wasn’t wealthy, by any account. He didn’t often hang out with the wealthy, and often warned of the dangers of wealth. Still, my experience is that it is easy to view the poor either as at fault for their own condition, or as a charity case to be given handouts. Neither of these value the poor as a person, or give them the impression that “us” could include “them”. (The racial minority and poor groups overlap way too much to be coincidence in the US.)
  • Do we realize that those with differing views on sexuality may still read and value scripture? Are we willing to engage in dialog to understand them and their views? Too often, we are not. My own experience thankfully gave me the opportunity to do this with the friend I mentioned above. We say down to talk statistics one night (we both hold PhDs in the field), and the conversation somehow (I think it was God who helped us get there) turned to faith and his sexuality. He opened up about his experience and his struggles. I listened. I learned a lot. While we still disagree on many things with regard to faith and practice, he is my brother in the family of God, and I needed to hear from him. I’m sure we will talk again and I want to learn more from him. I pray that he will find a congregation which will allow him to learn from them and will be willing to learn from him.
  • Do we welcome those with disabilities and insure that they have full access to participation in our community life? I’ve seen too many churches who use their old buildings as an excuse to allow those with physical disabilities to feel unvalued. Can we create ways for them to function fully in ministry and life within our church? What about mental disabilities? Are those with mental delays allowed to minister to others or simply looked at as someone to be ministered to? We ought to value and respect these people. Whether the disability is physical or mental, there is much those of us who are “abled” can and should learn from these brothers and sisters. When we allow our ability to prevent us from learning from others, we disable ourselves.
  • Do we welcome those whose views on origins, predestination, peace, etc. make them an “other” in our church? In my church, my openness to evolutionary science is a minority view. While I am accepted and included, I do not bring it up much because I have felt at times like this would result in a fracture of my relationship with certain other members of the congregation. I’m sure that there are those who would disagree without a break in relationship, but I also know that is not universally true. I also know that while we as a church do not believe in predestination (also known as Calvinism or Reformed Theology), there are those who worship with us, and have for a long time, who would at least endorse parts of that theology. Peace theology can be a harder line to walk. How do you invite those in law enforcement or the military into your midst if your congregation feels compelled by the peace teaching of Christ? A tough question, but a necessary one. Hopefully, one that can be answered without changing or hiding the stance on issues of correct practice, but also without losing the ethic of love that would still make the “other” in this case feel welcomed and valued in spite of the difference in opinion about the choice of career. Other issues would similarly need to walk the line of balancing faithfulness to our beliefs with flexibility to work with those in the family of God with whom we disagree.
  • One last area I will mention, but not discuss: Do those of us in churches where the congregation is mostly from the same minority group in the larger culture extend this hospitality to someone from the majority group joining them? I can’t speak to this much, since I don’t have the experience of being a minority or having attended such a church. I am looking forward to reading Christena Cleveland’s Disunity in Christ, in which I believe that she addresses this issue. It is near the top of my to-read list.

I’ll stop there, though there are many others I could mention. I have already added more than the two or three examples I had planned, simply because it is so easy to think of people I’ve seen slighted by churches.

In short, we do not want to be so rigid in our confidence in our theology that we exclude others with whom we differ. Nor do we desire to simply accept all with no call to commitment and acknowledgement of the cost and necessity of discipleship. We must walk the walk, but with love, so that we may attract those who are to us “other”, and build relationships. This must value the “other”, without devaluing ourselves. We must see the value in relationship with others outside our own church if the body of Christ is to be built up through the hospitality that we see modeled by our Lord.


I’d love to turn this into a dialog with my readers. Feel free to use the comments to respond to the following questions:

  • Have ideas that have helped your congregation practice hospitality? I’d love to hear them in the comments!
  • Have experiences where your congregation has learned from doing something wrong? I’d love to hear that as well so we can learn from each other.
  • For those who have been the “other”, where has the church gotten it right? Where have we gotten it wrong? Where do you resonate with my points above, or what have I missed or overstated?

Comments from those who have not commented before will be delayed briefly until they are approved, but I assure you that I will only filter inappropriate/hateful comments and spam. Honest reflections on the question, even in disagreement with my themes, will be approved and appear as soon as I can clear them through.


This article is part of a MennoNerds Synchro-Blog on Missional Spirituality for the month of February.  MennoNerds is exploring through this event Spirituality through an Anabaptist lens and what it means concerning participation in the mission of God. My previous contribution on Family can be found here.

Leave a comment

A Mathematical Love Story

Here is the obligatory love post on Valentines Day. It is a bit ironic that this day is named after a celibate man who was beheaded for his faith. I’ll leave that alone, and share this “love story” with a mathematical flare. If you make it through to the end, there is a math pun in it for you. Enjoy!


For more serious posts, keep tracking with the cool stuff going on over at MennoNerds.com, especially with our Missional Spirituality series!


So What Is an Anabaptist?

Click to learn about Scot McKnight

Scot McKnight (from Jesus Creed)

I have clearly identified myself as an Anabaptist on this blog, most recently on Monday as I posted a blog in the MennoNerds Synchro-blog series on Missional Spirituality in the Anabaptist tradition. That might lead some to ask what an Anabaptist is. I found an interesting answer today from Scot McKnight at his Jesus Creed blog. He gives some background on the development of Anabaptism, and how the tradition has benefited even those outside this strand of Christianity. Then he gives three basic traits, which I’ll copy here in his words. He bases his work on Harold Bender’s The Anabaptist Vision.

1. The essence of Christianity, or the Christian life, is discipleship — a committed following of Christ in all areas of life. The word on the street in the 16th Century, and this word repeated often enough by bitter enemies of the Anabaptists, was that they were consistent and devout Christians. If Luther’s word was “faith,” the word for the Anabaptists was “follow.” The inner conversion was to lead to external transformation.

2. A new conception of the church as a brotherhood of fellowship. The ruling image of a church among the Catholics and Reformers was more national and institutional and sacramental, while the ruling image for the Anabaptists was fellowship or family. Joining was voluntary; the requirement was conversion; the commitment was to holy living and fellowship with one another. Thus, the Anabaptist separated from the “world” to form a society of the faithful. This view of the church led to economic availability and liability for one another.

3. A new ethic of love and peaceful nonresistance. Apart from rare exceptions like Balthasar Hubmaier and the nutcases around Thomas Müntzer, the Anabaptists lived a life shaped by love and nonviolence. They refused to coerce anyone.

Surely there are others who would define Anabaptism differently, or at least highlight different aspects of the tradition. I think that this, at least for me, well defines the main aspects of Anabaptism. I have increasingly realized the importance of these concepts in Scripture, and thus they have become crucial to my own walk with God.

Fellow Anabaptists, which do you think is most important to the tradition? What would you add to McKnight’s list? Do you think one of his three are not as important to the tradition as he claims? To those from outside the Anabaptist stream, what do you think of these? How are these represented in your faith tradition? For things that are not in your tradition, why do you think that your tradition doesn’t value these?



The Three Oldest Wilcock Kids (Youngest to Oldest)

The Three Oldest Wilcock Kids (Youngest to Oldest)

Family. What comes to mind when you hear this word and contemplate what it means? For me, as I assume is true with most of my readers, there are multiple layers of meaning. Of course, I first think of my wife and our kids. I then think back and remember growing up with my parents and my sister. My mind also expands to my extended family: aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. Now this includes in-laws, both my wife’s family and my sister’s in-laws.

In 2009 we added another layer to this mental image. We (my wife, daughter Abby, and myself) adopted two children into our family. For us, this has gone further than “just” adding two more children. Our children came to live with us in the summer of 2008 as foster children. During the 15 months that they lived with us, we grew to know some members of their birth family. This relationship has continued, and now means that we include some of these members as a part of our image of family. Legally, they are not related to us, or our kids. Biologically and emotionally, they are a part of the story that led two of our children into our home. I cannot imagine the process without them, and all that they added in helping us adjust and understand the two young children we were suddenly trying to parent. Ironically, I could not have imagined life with a third set of “grandparents” for our kids before this process. We did not go into the adoption process planning to long-term foster first, or hoping for the added complexity of dealing with a birth-family. Still, that complexity has led to real beauty as well.

There is another layer to family, our family of close friends. Our best friends often take on something of true brother-hood (or sister-hood) in our lives. I have several friends who I look at as true brothers and sisters. I don’t mean this simply in the sense that we sometimes use as Christians (more on that later), but in the sense that I know that they are there for me no matter what the situation and whether we’ve just had an argument about some area of disagreement. I know full well that some of my friends would drop everything to be there for my family if there were a need, just as my parents and in-laws would be.

In the larger context of the Church, we are supposed to be just that kind of family. In fact, whether we feel the connection or not, we are brothers and sisters. In a story captured by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus radically redefines His own family. His mother and brothers come to see Him but cannot get to Him. He is informed that they are present and looking to speak with Him. He turns to those within the sound of His voice and says “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (using Luke’s gospel from the NET translation) Here Jesus radically redefines a family based on faith, not blood; a family based on the Spirit, not the flesh.

This idea of a “family of faith” is also found in the epistles. Paul writes to the Galatians: “So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith.” (Galatians 6.10 NET) So we do good to all, but “especially” those in the broad Church. Also, Peter writes: “Honor all people, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (1 Peter 2:17 NET) Both of these apostles use the term family to refer to believers, or those in the faith. This predates denominations and the schism common in the time of the reformation and beyond, but I think that we should read this to include all those who call Jesus their Messiah and King.

How does this impact life as a follower of Jesus? I think it has some major implications that are often overlooked. I have explored some of these themes before, but not specifically with this motivation. I think it comes down to a question of allegiance and who we are most bound to support and defend. If my primary focus is on family based on biology, I will likely align with nations based on geography and ethnicity. This is so common in many Evangelical circles that we see a close alignment of groups like the Religious Right, the Moral Majority and the like. The mainline churches tend to align with the left side of the political divide. Both sides have bought into the lie, I believe, that family is defined for us the way the Powers would want us to define it: according to the flesh or the physical world.

Our Messiah calls us to a different, higher, definition. We are to define our family according to the Spirit. This means that a believer in China, Burkina Faso, France, or Brazil is a member of my family in a way that is more real than anyone outside the faith who lives on my block. Thus, when I see my earthly country of residence making decisions that hurt my brothers or sisters in other parts of this world, I should be grieved. When the United States bombs civilians in a Muslim country, and claims to be a Christian nation, I grieve. This gives the impression that Jesus would bomb them, and makes life so much worse for whatever Christians may be present in that country. The plight of Christians in Iraq since the war that removed Saddam Hussein from power has been horrific. My family members in Iraq have suffered greatly because of the actions of the US. Which side should I support? For too many Christians down through history, this question has been easy to answer, but for the wrong reasons. We have assumed that since our country is largely populated by people who identify themselves with Jesus, God must be on the side of our country and thus our actions are probably right. There may be some sentiment to feel bad for the Christians in Iraq, and to offer them asylum within our borders, but there is not much real remorse for the effects on these sisters and brothers of ours.

I submit that this is a sign of not being aligned with our King. While I applaud the good that the US, or any other country, may do in the name of Jesus, I cannot blindly endorse any activity. The struggle between nations is not my primary focus. These struggles, and the debates among Christians in how to wage them, often miss the real point. The true battle is between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world which scripture refers to as the Powers, or principalities of the air. We are a part of a Kingdom based on family, the Kingdom of God. All of the members are family, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. This is the image to which we are called. I pray that as we follow Christ in His self-sacrificial love and refusal to stoop to the use of violence which comes so easily to us, we will rediscover how to be family with all of those fellow believers.

This has other implications on a more interpersonal level. Within any family there will likely be squabbles. Unfortunately, those sometimes happen in public. While we can at times air our differences, we should be careful of our tone when we do this. I may disagree publicly with you, but I must be careful to make sure that anyone who hears about the difference, also knows that I still consider you family. I am an Anabaptist. If you follow Christ and disagree, I think you are wrong, but you are still a member of my family. I disagree strongly with much of Calvinist theology on many points, but still count Calvinists as members of my family. I’m not Catholic, but if you are, you are still my brother or sister. Hearing and doing the will of God is the key, according to Jesus. If you are endeavoring to follow the way of our Messiah as best you can understand right now, I count you as one of “mine”. We are a part of each other, like it or not. Now, let’s be family together and start working together to accomplish our Father’s mission. Along the way we’ll talk, and probably disagree, but together we are God’s workers to change the world and awaken people to His love for them and invite them into the family.

Coming full circle, that’s what God’s family is all about. Adoption into the family, just as it was for our family, is life changing. There is no such thing as an adoption where no one is changed. Our adoption changed life for my wife, for our biological daughter, and for me. It also changed life for two precious children who were without parents to guide them and help them grow. Adoption is complicated, messy, and life-altering. It is also life-giving, both to the adopted and the adopters. This is especially true as we recall that we are also adopted. We love because He first loved us.


For more on our adoption and my thoughts about adoption, check out posts tagged foster/adoption or  categorized as adoption. For my previous discussions of allegiance, you can check out this post.


This article is part of a MennoNerds Synchro-Blog on Missional Spirituality for the month of February.  MennoNerds is exploring through this event Spirituality through an Anabaptist lens and what it means concerning participation in the mission of God.

1 Comment

A Day to Listen

As I recover from a busy late summer and fall, I expect to be back to blogging regularly in February. Today, I wanted to take some time as we as a country, and Messiah College as a campus, stop to remember the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to provide space for those of us who are part of the dominant white culture to listen to and learn from minority voices. I’ve decided to highlight three pieces today that I think provide food for thought.

Drew Hart
(image from article linked here)

First, my friend Drew Hart offers a reminder that King’s legacy has been co-opted by both sides of the political debates, and that this has cost us much and poisoned our ability to really understand his prophetic voice, which still has much to speak with us today. A taste (read the whole thing here):

“Our” Dr. King that we celebrate each year has been completely co-opted by the right and the left to further the shallow partisan ideological work in American society. Dr. King’s legacy has been thoroughly domesticated, like a house cat after being de-clawed and neutered. He is now safe. Safe to mold into our projections of who we want him to be. Dr. King is no longer a radical prophetic voice of a Christian preacher crying out in the wilderness. Instead, after he died, we built him a monument to adore, after our liking, and gave it a seat at the emperor’s table. However, the prophet never sits and fellowships at the table with an imperial ruler. The prophet is not accepted by the social order it speaks life into because he is always seen as a threat.

Dr. King, in actuality, was a great threat. As a devout Christian leader shaped by a prophetic imagination and the life and teachings of Jesus, he dared to speak untimely truths that were always seen as a nuisance. …

While it is not easy to hear what Drew has to say about the role that even northern whites played in the demonizing of Dr. King, it is a reminder to those of us who like to hide behind being on the “right side” of the Mason Dixon Line. While slavery died here first, racism has not died, even here.

Blog Gravatar of “h00die R”
(image from article linked here)

Next I would like to point to another voice minority voice calling out to all of us to remember what Dr. King’s call was, and to not be so quick to assume that a minority president means that King’s “I Have a Dream” speech has been fulfilled. Once again, I offer a taste, but you should read the whole piece here.

In a recent lecture and subsequent q & a session with students at the University of Rochester, political studies professor and MSNBC analyst Melissa Harris-Perry talked about how a more human, less divinized, messier approach to King Jr.’s legacy should be the key to winning a more progressive future. Ideas are what matters, they are what last and change the world.

MLK Jr. wasn’t shot down for his beliefs. MLK Jr.’s and the women, the other adult men, and children who marched with him, their bodies were not tortured because of their abstract notions of equality, their patriotic love for the U.S. Constitution, or their religious fervor. Bodily encounters are what change the world through praxis. Liberating Praxis changes things. Battles of ideas are waged through the mediation of human anatomy.

In the full piece, Rod reminds us that Dr. King’s, and indeed the main thrust of the civil rights movement, practice involved nonviolence. This was a core value and commitment that was woven throughout the movement.

Bishop Woodie W. White
(image from original post, Courtesy of Emory University)

Finally, I want to point my readers to a letter written from one of King’s friends and allies in the civil rights movement. Each year, United Methodist Bishop Woodie W. White writes a letter to his friend Dr. King about the progress, or lack thereof, in the fight for equality. This years letter reflects poignantly the mixed feelings Rev. White has about the year just past. Again, I’ll share a bit here, but you should read the whole piece.

Dear Martin:

I write this year with mixed emotions. I am mostly saddened by the number of public acts of racial bigotry in the United States and a seeming numbing of racial sensitivity and commitment to continue a journey toward equal justice for all. I have been utterly disappointed by political efforts to disenfranchise African-American voters and others by many state legislatures and the lack of outrage by the citizenry in general and the media in particular. Further, Martin, there is the emergence of what author Michelle Alexander calls The New Jim Crow. (I call it the last plantation in America.) Her book reveals the consequences of what she describes as “mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.” It is a growing national shame, largely ignored!

These and other events mar our landscape of racial progress and promise. They have pushed me from my usual hope and optimism to unusual discouragement.

I hope that this will draw out attention today to the real Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The version of King that we are shown through the media and our social networking feeds is too often a distorted view that doesn’t sound anything like the real man. I would suggest that after listening to the modern voices I’ve offered here, we should make time to periodically listen to the voice of the man himself, in his own words. Fortunately, many recordings of King’s speeches exist, and can be found for purchase or borrowed from your local library’s collection. Please take the time to get to know this modern day prophet. After taking some time last summer to do so for myself, I am convinced that King still has much to say to us … if only we will listen.


Leave a comment

Was 4 July Really Independence Day?

Did this document bring independence to all in the United States of America?

Set aside for a second when the Declaration was first drafted (2 July), when it was signed (August, I believe) or when it was finalized (reportedly as late as November). None of these have anything to do with the question in the title. The question is about the word independence, but not whether the United States really became independent that day, or with the Declaration at all. My bigger issue is the fact that we are expected to celebrate an independence that certainly wasn’t for everyone.

Set aside for now the fact that true freedom from the tyranny of all governments can only come from abandoning them for the Kingdom of God (see previous posts about the Kingdom vs. nationalism). My issue is that even if you believe that the independence that eventually came to these United States was important and just*, the independence won in the war didn’t even apply to most of the people who lived in the United States at that time.

To begin, if you were a Native American, sorry. Yeah, really, you were here first, and the colonists for the most part swindled you out of your land, killed you for it, or just waited for you to move on and squatted on your land. After all, the King of England (or some other country) had given them the rights to your land. (No one seems to have been greatly concerned that it wasn’t theirs to give.) This new independence didn’t really pertain to you. You were “free” to keep moving west until we wanted that land as well. Congrats, you can vote now, but we’ve done so much damage to your ways of life and your heritage as a people that you are unlikely to ever recover without a miracle, which I pray God grants you.

Moving on, if you were a slave, this independence really didn’t help you either. Maybe it helped your owner, but I doubt you would have noticed a difference. You were property, and made his way of life economically profitable. Thanks, but it would be almost one hundred years before another war would be fought over whether states had the right to decide whether it was legal to own other people. Even after that, we Americans were pretty reluctant to give you votes, and actually act like “all men are created equal” applied to men with colored skin. This hits close to home for me. Two of my children are bi-racial with an African-American father. I doubt either of them would have benefited from the independence of our country.

While we’re talking about my kids, my girls, white or mixed, wouldn’t have been helped much either. Sure, all white men are created equal, but women? Well, not really. Sure, a white woman’s way of life might have been affected by the war and its results, but mostly through their husband. If your husband supported the English, good luck! Did he die in the war? Hope you remarried well and thanks for his sacrifice, but I’m pretty sure life would have gotten much, much harder. If your husband survived and returned healthy, he might have benefited from the result which would make your life a bit better, perhaps. All in all, though, the lot of the women predominantly fell with how the men fared. They were no “freer” after the war than before in any real sense unless they indirectly benefitted.

What about white men? At least all of them benefitted, right? Well, those who owned land, perhaps. They now had a say in the government, but I suspect that many of the poor who rented land or worked for others still found life hard and saw little real benefit from the new government established on a democracy that favored those who could read, write, and vote. Instead of being ruled by a relatively benign government they rarely saw and governors in their state, they were now ruled by a government elected from among their own neighbors, but generally the ones with land and assets, and the most interest in protecting people like themselves, rather than the poor renters or laborers.

All in all, I think it is fair to say that the Declaration of Independence really brought little freedom of any sort to the vast majority of the people. Even today, many people are lacking any real sense of freedom. Many work in jobs they can only justify because of the paycheck. The work itself is not rewarding or interesting to them. Many of us find ourselves in mountains of debt wondering if we’ll be able to make it to the next paycheck without sacrificing the lifestyle we are accustomed to. Minorities of all types face discrimination and racism every day, while many of us in the white majority don’t even see how the system is rigged against their success. (Having biracial kids has been a real eye opener for me, and made me more aware of my own advantages.) Women still fight for the same opportunities as men. This is sadly true as much in churches as anywhere else. Immigrants, legal and illegal, often find challenges from those of us who easily forget that all but the Native Americans had ancestors who once were immigrants here. There are real issues here, I understand, but do we approach these issues as those whose families once chose to come here for one reason or another?

In short, it is easy to celebrate as if we all have experienced this same “independence”, but the reality is that only in Christ is there true freedom, and only in His Kingdom are we empowered to live the truth that all of mankind is really created equal, as Paul states that in Christ there is no longer slave or free, Jew or Greek, male or female. These are no longer the qualifiers for admission to the Kingdom. All of the socio-economic, racial and ethnic, and gender differences don’t help you to get into the Kingdom. In fact, those differences add to the beauty of the Kingdom.

This week I am reminded and saddened by a celebration that seems to me to pretend that something had been accomplished. The truth is that only in the Kingdom will the ideal be worked out. Perhaps it is time to live out our prayer that God’s Kingdom would come (from the poorly named The Lord’s Prayer), and start to do our part to bring about that Kingdom, first in our own churches, and then in the world around us as we live our lives. It seems to me that the Kingdom can and should be made real here! Let’s get started, shall we?

*Don’t get me started, but I honestly don’t see any reasonable way to argue that the American Revolution could be justified even if I believed in Just War Theory.