On Racial Integration

Brad Bellmore's article "Why is the Church so Segregated?" is very thoughtful on the issue of church integration in the United States.

I have read a few books delving into racial justice, including a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. and even (at an international scale) Ghandi's Hind Swaraj . I agree with one commentator of the aforementioned article that the racial discussion is a bit worn out and even now possibly a catalyst for further racist thinking. The term "race" has in itself become a somewhat divisive term. Henceforth, I agree with those who suggest that citizens of the United States ultimately (while not being "color blind") see each other as fellow children of God instead of some variety of "_______ American". Those who follow Jesus must recognize that the Kingdom of YHWH transcends physical borders. I do believe, however, that God intended for there to be diversity across the world. It makes life so much more interesting and dynamic . . . and humbling.

I have wondered whether such terms as "_______ American" are limiting and unhelpful. "African American," for example, or the somewhat more vulger limitation of "black," merely implies skin color. Yet, Africa is a large continent full of its own vast cultural diversity (not to mention a fair amount of European and Middle Eastern cultural roots). Similarily, "Caucasian" is an unhelpful term in also merely indicating skin color. It is vaguer than the term "African American" in its meaning. Caucasian generally implies European origin; however, Europe itself is an equally diverse continent. The same conclusions can be applied to the broad regions of Asia, Central and South America (generally termed Latin America with a number of other "general" word descriptions), as well as the Pacific region. And I do not think I have ever heard anything like "Middle Eastern American". Usually immigrants from the Middle East define themselves as Iranians or Afghans, etc. I think it is most helpful, if identifying your cultural roots is necessary in the conversation or relationship, to be specific. That applies to Americans as well. If someone is American, despite having ethnic Nigerian, Russian, Israeli, Guatemalan, Philippino, Korean, English, German, etc. roots—all of which may be important facets of his or her heritage—yet he or she has been born and raised in the United States, he or she is an American. Simply American. Not "Nigerian American" or "Russian American", just American. The United States was founded on principles of vast diversity. Though surely not practiced anywhere near perfection from the beginning (e.g. the oppression of many Native American tribes; though, even that conflict went both ways), it is something unique—a strange social experiment perhaps. It is a cultural melting pot of sorts, rooted in countless nations of the world. In some sense, the United States is built on principles that anyone can live and progress no matter what cultural or social heritage they have come from. There is something remarkable, though not necessarily fully beneficial (e.g. losing one’s cultural identity: another topic for another time), in such openness.

I do occasionally wonder what it really means to be American, but that is also a subject for another time. Nonetheless, many foreign populations themselves (e.g. Germany) find it difficult to truly identify what makes them as Germans unique in the world. Perhaps the era of strong nationalism and even patriotism is fading with such evident growing globalization and internationalization (greatly rooted in economics—e.g. money: another source of disunity).

However, the most separating factor of late seems to be religious affiliation. It seems the world has circled back to its ancient social sins. I pray that the incredibly oppressive violent so-called religious wars of the past do not repeat themselves. Some seem to have never truly ended as one examines the tribal wars of the world. Perhaps all have never really ended. They merely have shifted to more discrete methods on occasion like social division.

Overall, I find inspiration in the aforementioned article commentator’s call to exceed such diverse and numerous barriers between people, and remember that above all we share something much greater: humanity. Aside from that, and perhaps gender, each person is completely unique from the next. While there is surely academic merit (i.e. for the purposes of social study) in making some cultural generalizations, let us not forget that the only way to truly know someone different than ourselves (i.e. everyone) we must take the time to build relationship with them, to hear their story and live life with them in some form of community. This can only be hoped to achieve through Love, who is Jesus Christ. Love is the foremost call of humanity, from whence other issues (e.g. salvation) can be later addressed. In some sense, I believe all else grows from Love, like the Tree of Life lost after Adam and Eve’s banishment from the Eden. But perhaps it is no longer lost, but has been offered anew to every heart through the atoning work of the Gospel, which is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is surely more complicated than that, but I am more interested in foundational Truth at this point. Such Truth has been difficult enough to practice.

I do not have practical solutions or answers. I leave that to greater minds. Yet, I conclude with this question: Without Love for our neighbor, for our fellow human being, are we not then reducing ourselves to a mere scattering of islands in a endless ocean? Are we not then utterly alone in the world without hope of redemption and reconciliation? We have been shown and given real Love, which is the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, who is Jesus. It is a timeless endeavor, but one that we must nonetheless pursue. It is the pursuit of holiness, of sanctification. It is the pursuit of YHWH.

“Love is not against the law.” (Derek Webb)

Darkness Cannot Drive Out Darkness

I have noticed over the years a trend, and below are some initial thoughts in response. The trend is that in film it seems that a majority of protagonists are becoming increasingly antiheroic. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an antihero as “a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities.” Contrarily, a hero is “a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability; an illustrious warrior; a man or woman admired for his or her achievements and noble qualities; or one that shows great courage.” The origin of the antihero is seemingly debatable in literature; however, there is no doubt that he or she has become the forefront as the hero of modern narratives. Or should I say post-modern narratives? Post-modernism has certainly influenced this development, as it is in part deemed to be a rejection of traditional values. Much of post-modernism’s disillusionment is said to be rooted in the nature of World War II and the recent Nuclear Age. Overall, antiheroes are marked by an increasingly complex morality, usually recognizable by their lack of self-identity and motivation. Wikipedia states that

It has been argued that the continuing popularity of the antihero in modern literature and popular culture may be based on the recognition that a person is fraught with human frailties, unlike the archetypes of the white-hatted cowboy and the noble warrior, and is therefore more accessible to readers and viewers . . . In the postmodern era, traditionally heroic qualities, akin to the classic ‘knight in shinning armor’ type, have given way to the ‘gritty truth’ of life, and authority in general is being questioned. The brooding vigilante or ‘noble criminal’ archetype . . . is slowly becoming part of the popular conception of heroic valor rather than being characteristics that are deemed un-heroic.

An approaching film, “The Watchmen”, based on the 1980’s Hugo-award winning graphic novel by Alan Moore (writer) and Dave Gibbons (illustrator), is probably the best example of this development. Another recent example could be the character of Bruce Wayne (a.k.a. Batman) in the two recent Christopher Nolan films. In general, antiheroes follow pulp fiction and film noir narratives, a response to the traditional comic book heroes of the early war years (e.g. Superman). But they have certainly extended into other arenas as well. An example of what seems to be the most morally detrimental expression of this is the game series “Grand Theft Auto.”

I wonder whether this extensive reach is healthy for our culture; especially the younger male generation who often consciously or subconsciously includes such heroes in their moral maturation. When I was growing up, at least, fictional heroes played a significant role in not only me and my friends play, but also our worldview. Most antiheroes, fortunately, seem to be contained within more mature films (whether the children’s’ parents let them seem such films is another matter entirely). Perhaps the younger generation only really becomes aware of the antihero when it comes to mid to late adolescence. There are likely more in-depth sociological studies on this topic.


Nonetheless, I sense an increasingly nihilistic worldview attached to antiheroes. In many cases a sense of hope in good has been removed—hope, namely, in something beyond or greater than society. The primary example of this for me is the presentation of spirituality. In films such as “Constantine” or “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” there seems to be an incredible lack of a strong realm of good to counter the clearly-presented realm of evil. The battle is usually between humanity and evil. Yet, as humanity is inherently flawed, it appears to be a battle between a greater evil and a lesser evil. Naturally, not all art forms demonstrate this trend, but it does seem to be on the rise.

 

Justice is still a societal value, but a festering lack of confidence and faith in the government has definitely led to a search for hope elsewhere. With that said, I think that while there is greater appeal in antiheroes, society is still looking for true heroism. I think Nolan’s recent Batman films walk brilliantly along this line. In my opinion “The Dark Knight” is the greatest antihero film ever created, for it challenges the balance of heroism and anitheroism (e.g. Bruce Wayne’s internal struggle in how far he must go, i.e. whether he must break his one rule, to defeat the Joker). On the other hand films such as “The Lord of the Rings” are refreshing in their triumphant hope in greater power (e.g. Gandalf, or in the book Tom Bombadil), honor (e.g. Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, etc.), and innocence (e.g. Bilbo, Frodo, and especially Samwise Gamgee). The hobbits are unlikely heroes, another popular hero form; yet, even Tolkien recognized the powerful influence of an antihero in the character of Smeagol. I believe antiheroes are necessary and critical for this era. Some antiheroes allow us to identify with their struggles and to even find hope that they have overcome. But there is definitely a balance needed: a line between struggling against the enemy within—but ultimately resisting and conquering it—and succumbing to that evil voice.

Thinking of the latter, there are numerous recent film antiheroes who resort to incredible violence in the name of justice (e.g. “The Punisher”). A quote by the character Aereon from the film “The Chronicles of Riddick” offers another example of a potential shift to unbalance in its narrative:

If we are to survive, a new balance must be found. In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil.

Is this true? Individuals, human and flawed, can be inspiring models of heroism. But overall I believe they must not take that power and irresponsibly to freely define their own moral action. This, in part, is the battle against extreme post-modernism. For uncompromised hope and victory, there must be a power greater than the fallible antiheroes including even national authorities. The only steadfast answer is God, the lord of creation. Though I will not delve into discussing it further now, one should note how Jesus offers a stark contrast in heroism to the common world hero. In his crucifixion, Jesus was a lion in sheep’s clothing. He fought injustice with the sword of his Word, against human sin nature and against the prince of the world (i.e. Lucifer). Only in this is the world’s search for hope satisfied. It is hope in divine justice and judgment, in grace and provision. It is hope in Love.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness,” Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed, “only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

AMEN.