Shifting from Exclusion to Embrace

This fall we are featuring three pieces by student writers who are engaging theologically as bi-cultural leaders. We are thrilled to give platform to these up and coming voices who will surely shape the trajectory of the mestizo church. -The Editors

Before I began my PhD program, I had the privilege to live, work, and worship in East Chicago, Indiana, a small city near the Illinois-Indiana border whose racial demographics are almost evenly divided between African American and Latinx communities. I taught seventh-grade English Language Arts at the local middle school for five years while serving as Christian Education Director at my local Latinx Pentecostal church. The main responsibilities of this role included weekly Sunday School programming as well as annual events like Vacation Bible School. However, I became disillusioned by the disconnect between the church and the surrounding community. I would see my students playing outside on the same street as the church and wanted to invite them to participate in church gatherings, but I doubted if the experience would be life-giving. I wanted to keep my students safe as they were already experiencing the violence embedded in the US public school system. Rather than supporting them in their learning and development, school was a space where they were othered; their voices missing from the curriculum; their appearance and behavior surveilled, scrutinized, and ultimately admonished. And the church was not exempt from perpetuating those same logics that criminalize children of color for simply existing. Noticing this overlap, I yearn for a world otherwise, one with an abolitionist orientation where all members of the Beloved Community are allowed to be imperfect but held accountable, joyful, and above all, safe. My hope is that the Church, as an integral community partner, would lead this initiative. If we start here, we can impact other institutions and spaces. 

The otherwise world where children of color are not criminalized for appearance or background depends on a shift from shame and punishment as responses to harm, to an abolitionist orientation. The ways in which we interact and respond to each other in various environments, including school, church, home, and the larger community reveal our values and commitments.

Are we committed to relationship and story or shame and punishment? An abolitionist orientation embraces love, deep community, and accountability. The shift toward relationship is key considering the disproportionate punitive measures experienced by students of color, particularly Black girls, in urban public schools. According to Walker, Green, and Shapiro, “A New York Times analysis of the most recent discipline data from the Education Department found that Black girls are over five times more likely than white girls to be suspended at least once from school, seven times more likely to receive multiple out-of-school suspensions than white girls and three times more likely to receive referrals to law enforcement.” Monique Morris explores this issue more in-depth in her book and subsequent documentary, Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools. In my time as a middle school teacher, I remember seeing students walk through metal detectors and have their bookbags inspected before they could even receive breakfast. If they were considered disruptive or disrespectful, they could receive a lunch detention where they had to eat silently in a room separated from their peers. Multiple incidents often led to in- or out-of-school-suspension where students would be isolated at home for anywhere from 1-5 days.

In many local churches, including the one where I served, the practice of disciplina also indicates an orientation towards punishment via exclusion. When an action was committed that was deemed unfit by the pastor because it went against church norms and/or Christian values, the person on disciplina would be excluded from participation in church activities. Sometimes this also included revoking their titles and positions from leadership. The extent of the isolation during a person’s disciplina was ultimately at the discretion of the pastor, much like how a school administrator determines how long a student is suspended. In both church and school, isolating a community member does more harm than good. Instead, an abolitionist orientation invites accountability through deep community. How are we working together as one body to hold each other accountable while still showing love?

Abbot Elementary is an unexpected example of how to apply an abolitionist mindset to a space tainted by dynamics of punishment and exclusion. For fans of television sitcoms, Abbott Elementary is a refreshing addition to the genre. Following the hilarious and, at times, heartbreaking happenings of an urban public school in Philadelphia, the series deals with issues such as underfunding, integrating technology, surveillance, and building community among students and staff in a “mockumentary” style. As a former public school teacher and an emerging Christian education scholar, the show hits home.

Donate Today

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

Give Now

In the fifth episode of the first season, a student named Courtney is transferred to main character Janine’s (Quinta Brunson) class. Courtney quickly commands control of the classroom by having the other students call her by the teacher’s name and changing the words to the Pledge of Allegiance. In many traditional classrooms, these kinds of behaviors would have resulted in Courtney being disciplined with detention or suspension for being disrespectful and disruptive. After reading Courtney’s file, Janine realizes Courtney is extremely intelligent and acting out of boredom, so Janine disregards the disciplinary advice from a senior colleague who previously had Courtney as a student. Instead, she works with the school admin and the other teachers to find a better placement for Courtney.  While Courtney was doing things that were disruptive to the class, the onus was placed on the teachers to figure out what would be the best learning environment for her and her classmates. This gives an example of turning towards accountability rather than exclusionary punishment, and it was not possible until the teachers took the time to honor the full story of their student.

An abolitionist orientation toward accountability and story aligns with the vision of Beloved Community reflected in the teachings of Jesus.  

He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” Then he took a little child and put it among them, and taking it in his arms he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.”

–Mark 9:35–37 (NRSV)

Jesus is inviting the disciples into a similar shift away from the competitive, cutthroat way of life and into an abolitionist orientation towards accountability and deep community where the most vulnerable are protected and prioritized. In a world of exclusions, I pray that our schools, churches, and other community institutions would be spaces where children of color experience embrace. Bettina Love explains it this way, writing:

The practice of abolitionist teaching [is] rooted in the internal desire we all have for freedom, joy, restorative justice (restoring humanity, not just rules), and to matter to ourselves, our community, our family, and our country with the profound understanding that we must ‘demand the impossible’ by refusing injustice and the disposability of dark children. (Love, 7)

An abolitionist orientation welcomes children of color to be their full selves without fear of punishment and rejection. All members of the mestiza Church, educators and non-educators alike, can participate in the co-creation of this abolitionist world, as directed by the Teacher Himself, who calls all into abundant life.

About Adriana Rivera

Adriana (Dri) Rivera, a lifelong learner of Puerto Rican descent, is a former 7th grade English teacher and lay leader in Christian Education and youth ministry from Northwest Indiana. She studied Secondary English Education at Indiana University Bloomington before earning her MDiv at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. She is currently pursuing a PhD in Christian Education and Congregational Studies at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, IL with concentrations in emancipatory pedagogies and decolonial theologies. By practicing an abolitionist pedagogy, she imagines a world otherwise where all members of the Beloved Community can experience abundant life, sin vergüenza.

Follow Dri on LinkedIn and YouTube.

Footnotes

This article is an adaptation of an unpublished paper for a course at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

Is your Bible Anti-Black? Pt. 2

Editors Note: Throughout this essay, “black” and “white” refers to the colors, while “Black” and “White” refer to historic racialized communities.

שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה בְּנ֖וֹת יְרֽוּשָׁלָ֑יִם כְּאָֽהֳלֵ֣י קֵדָ֔ר

כִּֽירִיע֖וֹת שְׁלֹמֹֽה

אַל־תִּרְאֻ֨נִי֙ שֶֽׁאֲנִ֣י שְׁחַרְחֹ֔רֶת שֶׁשְּׁזָפַ֖תְנִי הַשָּׁ֑מֶשׁ בְּנֵ֧י אִמִּ֣י נִֽחֲרוּ־בִ֗י שָׂמֻ֨נִי֙ נֹֽטֵרָ֣ה אֶת־הַכְּרָמִ֔ים כַּרְמִ֥י שֶׁלִּ֖י לֹ֥א נָטָֽרְתִּי

—Song of Songs 1:5-6

This is essay two of two for the mini-series “Is Your Bible Anti-Black.” In the first essay, I engaged renowned Old Testament scholar Wilda Gafney’s critique of how the King James Version renders Song of Solomon 1:5. Whereas the original Hebrew literally reads “black am I and beautiful,” the KJV’s translators choose to write “I am black, but comely [beautiful].” Reflecting on this glaring difference, Gafney argues that the KJV’s translators “could not see blackness as beautiful, and so their whole identity [as self-identified white men] went into that one conjunction saying, ‘in spite of being Black, she’s all right.’ But that is not what the text said. And so that was the first place where I understood that people make choices when they translate [the Bible], and those choices affect what we hear [from the text].” The KJV’s rendering is wrong, Gafney contends, and layers anti-Black racist ideas onto the biblical page. Accepting Gafney’s argument, I extended her work by detailing the KJV’s cultural and racial context and noting how modern versions compare to it.

In this essay, I return to Song of Solomon to offer an interpretation of verses five and six. I again think with Dra. Gafney, following her lead as I listen to this ancient Song’s textual rhythms. Join us.

Setting the Stage: Song of Solomon 1:1-4

Song of Solomon shocks its readers. Whereas the song never explicitly mentions God, it repeatedly and exuberantly details human love. And this is not the love of mere friends. As Gafney observes, the text focuses on “the love of two people expressed sensuously, sexually.” More specifically, the song celebrates “the love of and between two black bodies—offered as scripture and revelation.”

The first black body the song introduces is the text’s lead woman. She is the focus of our passage and essay. And she immediately makes her romantic desires known.

May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
For your love is sweeter than wine.

Your oils have a pleasing fragrance,
Your name is like purified oil;
Therefore the young women love you.
 Draw me after you and let’s run together!
The king has brought me into his chambers. (NASB, vv. 2-4)

Intoxicating kisses, fragrant oils, an alluring name, romantic flight, and a royal bed chamber—these are the Song’s opening themes.

The beloved declares her ballad publicly. She does not conceal her sensuous love. For immediately after we read her love song, an enthusiastic, supportive chorus enters the text, greeting us and the beloved with a celebration of her imminent sexual union.

We will rejoice in you and be joyful;
We will praise your love more than wine.
Rightly do they love you. (NASB, v. 4)

All are joyful. All rejoice. All celebrate a woman’s sensuality and sexuality. All are elated about the beloved’s foreshadowed lovemaking with her beloved.

A Beautiful Black Woman: Song of Solomon 1:5

This women that the chorus celebrates as rightly loved, what does she look like? Verse five tells us.

I am black and beautiful,
You daughters of Jerusalem,
Like the tents of Kedar,
Like the curtains of Solomon. (NASB, v. 5)

As noted above, the Hebrew text literally reads “black am I and beautiful” (שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה). The order matters. As Gafney writes, the verse “emphasizes [the woman’s] blackness by opening with it.” Gafney makes a related point elsewhere: When describing the woman—the one her beloved declares the “most beautiful among women” (v.8)— “[b]lack is the first word.”

Like her beloved, the Song’s lead woman champions that black is beautiful. “I am black and beautiful.” The word “and” translates the text’s vav conjunction וְֽ at the start of וְֽנָאוָ֔ה. This basic conjunction stresses blackness’s inherent beauty. Indeed, Rabbi Marcia Falk’s translation conveys the text’s tone: “Yes, I am black! And radiant/O city women watching me.”

The Song’s lead women again highlights her blackness in verse five by comparing it to the tents of Kedar, or Qedar, and Solomon’s curtains. This analogy, Gafney notes, reveals that the women’s body “is blacker than your average brown-to-black ancient Afro-Asiatic person.” The reference to Qedar tells readers that the woman “is black as a black-haired goat.” As Gafney explains, the Song’s woman is “as black as the black goats’ hair tents woven from the famed goats of Qedar renowned for their beautiful black coats in antiquity.” Gafney’s use of “renowned” is important. As Old Testament scholar Aubrey Buster notes, the Qedar’s tents and Solomon’s curtains “were considered to be striking and beautiful” in the woman’s culture. Hence, the Song’s lead woman affirms that her blackness is strikingly beautiful, worthy of renown and communal adulation like Qeadar’s tents and Solomon’s curtains. Thus, verse five starts and ends by emphasizing the woman’s beautiful black body.

Many commentators and translators miss verse five’s celebration of blackness. Gafney laments this trend among translators:

[A] myriad of bible translators continuing into modernity persist with “I am black/dark but beautiful/comely/lovely.” Blackness and beauty cannot occupy the same space in the imaginations so they cannot occupy the same space in their translations, no matter what the text actually says. (emphasis added)

Numerous translators render verse five’s opening vav conjunction “but,” not “and.” This interpretive choice injects an aesthetic distance between blackness and beauty. Nothing in verse five requires this distance. Moreover, and more important: the conjunctive-vav’s common “and” meaning and the positive, culturally loaded invocations of beautiful black goats, tents, and curtains provide immediate linguistic and contextual grounds against this disjunctive, distancing reading.

One respected Old Testament scholar overlooks the previous two points. Tremper Longman argues that readers face a choice at verse five: “Should we translate the waw as a conjunctive ‘and’ or a disjunctive ‘but”?” For Longman, the answer is simple. “The context is actually quite clear. She is not happy with her darker-than-normal skin, so the disjunctive makes sense.” The contrast between Longman’s reading and those of Gafney and Falk is striking. So is Longman’s silence about the rest of verse five. He says nothing about Qeadar’s tents and Solomon’s curtains. It’s as if they weren’t there.

Gafney, Buster, and Falk read verse five as celebrating blackness and its beauty. Longman reads it as lamenting “darker-than-normal skin.” If verse five doesn’t’ drive Longman’s interpretive decision and commentary, what does? His reading of verse six.

Sun Gazed: Song of Solomon 1:6

Desire and joy fill verses two through five. A choir praises the woman after her opening declaration of longing to be with her beloved. Then the woman celebrates her blackness. She is black and beautiful like Qeadar’s famous tents and Solomon’s splendid curtains. Given the prevalence of parallelism in Hebrew songs and poetry, we might expect the chorus to support the woman’s celebration of blackness with their own hymn of praise. But the text doesn’t meet this expectation. Instead, it introduces the Song’s first rebuke.

The translation I’ve used throughout renders verse six thus:  

Do not stare at me because I am dark,
For the sun has tanned me.
My mother’s sons were angry with me;
They made me caretaker of the vineyards,
But I have not taken care of my own vineyard. (NASB, emphasis in translation)

This translation doubly obscures verse six’s first sentence. The word translated “dark” carries the connotation of “black” from verse five. Likewise, the sentence contrasts people’s staring/looking with the sun’s staring/looking. The KJV captures both details: “Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me.” Still, the word “stare” better expresses the Hebrew meaning involved in the woman’s rebuke-saturated command to the daughters of Jerusalem. Gafney writes, “It seems the city-women can’t keep their eyes off of her. They keep staring, looking her up and down.” These stares aim to pierce, penetrate, and judge. Again Gafney:

The shout out to the daughters of Jerusalem is an acknowledgement that our bodies are always under scrutiny. We are weighed and measured, consumed and labeled acceptable or defective in a glance. The black beauty Shahorah—we can call her Ebony, Raven, Jet or Onyx—Shahorah says you call me black like that’s an insult. Let me tell you, I am black, as silky-black as the luxurious coat of a Kedari goat, like mink, only blacker.

The Song’s lead woman told the daughters of Jerusalem that she was black and beautiful in verse five. Now she tells them, Gafney writes, “don’t stare at me because my beautiful black skin has gotten even darker while I bask in the sun.”

The sun gazed upon the Song’s black woman and made her darker, gave her a tan. Some modern readers assume that the text’s implied talk of tanning entails that the Song’s lead woman is but a white woman with a tan. This reading projects a white normative gaze onto the text and ignores verse five’s repeated discussion of rich blackness. It also elides the truth that black-skinned people tan. Gafney discusses personally suffering this elision.

I am regularly asked to give an account of my presumptively alternate biology, imagined to be fundamentally different from the interrogator’s own normative experience of being human.

“Can you tan?”

“Do you burn?”

I am expected to answer when questioned. To explain myself and my race. Public access to my body is unquestioned.

And deeply entangled with the notion of otherness is the notion of beauty.

The false assumption that Black people don’t tan which regularly confronts Gafney also occupies a place in study bibles. As Gafney recalls, “Some say...doesn’t verse 6 say that she is sunburned, therefore, she can’t be black – that’s what the notes in my study bible says.” For some readers, “being black and sunburned [is] impossible, as impossible as being black and beautiful” (emphasis in original). Even Tremper Longman joins Gafney in rejecting the assumption that the Song’s lead female is a tanned or sunburned white woman. “The woman was Semitic and likely had a dark complexion to start with. The darkness about which she complains is not her natural skin color but a tan or burn.”

Yet the differences between Longman’s and Gafney’s readings remain sharp. Longman says that the woman “likely had a dark complexion to start with.” Gafney, following verse five’s emphasis on the woman’s blackness, highlights that the woman was black and “revels in the blackness of her skin.” Longman says that the woman “complains” about her “tan or burn.” Though Gafney acknowledges that “the woman in the text ruined her beautiful black Qedari complexion with a sunburn,” Gafney never says that the woman complains about her sunburn. Instead, Gafney says that the woman “embraces the kiss of the sun” while denouncing the Jerusalem women’s glares and how her family treated her. The women’s glares are “reminder[s] that everyone won’t look at [black skinned people] and see the glory that God created.” These glares carry negative class associations with field labor. And her family’s mistreatment of her has left the Song’s lead woman unable to care for her own vineyard—for herself.

Let’s unpack the previous point. Verse six’s second half reads:

My mother’s sons were angry with me;
They made me caretaker of the vineyards,
But I have not taken care of my own vineyard. (NASB)

Though the woman claims her mother, she doesn’t claim her brothers. They are “my mother’s sons.” Similarly, although the woman says her mother’s sons were angry with her, she doesn’t explain why. The text doesn’t say she did anything wrong. It does, however, stress that these sons made her care for the vineyards. The joy of agency is missing; the cruelty of coercion is present instead.   

This is not the only time the Song’s lead woman describes her “brothers” controlling her body. In the Song’s final chapter, we read them saying:

We have a little sister,
And she has no breasts;
What shall we do for our sister
On the day when she is spoken for?

If she is a wall,
We will build on her a battlement of silver;
But if she is a door,
We will barricade her with planks of cedar. (NASB, 8:8-9)

In these verses, men alone speak. We do not hear the Song’s lead woman discussing her body. We do hear the men referring to the woman’s genitals as a “wall” (i.e., premarital chastity) and a “door,” a common Near Eastern image that alluded to a prostitute. As Gafney writes, the “brothers” work “to constrain and confine her.”

And this male coercion returns us to it’s first appearance in the song, verse six. For there we read that the lead woman has not cared for her own vineyard—her own body. Because her “brothers” forced her to labor outdoors, the sun burned her. It harmed her beautiful black body. And in act of resistance, the woman rebukes the Jerusalem’s daughters for trying to inflict similar pain by staring at her. She is black. She is beautiful. She is unashamed of herself and refuses to internalize negative class associations with field labor. And she is tending to her vineyard, she is loving her body and her beloved. “It is time,” Gafney writes, “to tend our own vines and their sweet, luscious, intoxicating fruit.”

Conclusion

Let’s consider one final contrast between Longman’s and Gafney’s readings. Longman argues that “In spite of some ambiguities, [Song of Song 1:5-6] is clear about two matters: (1) the woman considers her dark skin unattractive, and (2) her dark skin is not her natural skin color but rather the result of a tan.” Both claims run afoul of verse five’s celebration of blackness, which verse six never negates. Taken together, Gafney argues, these verses teach that “Black is beautiful. Blackness is beauty. Blackness is worshipful. All blackness is divine. It is the imprint of the holy darkly radiant God in whose image we are created.”

---

About Dr. Nathan Luis Cartagena

A son of the US South (Mom) and Puerto Rico (Dad), Dr. Cartagena is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College (IL), where he teaches courses on race, justice, and political philosophy, and is a fellow in The Wheaton Center for Early Christian Studies. He serves as the faculty advisor for Unidad Cristiana, a student group working to enhance Christian unity and celebrate Latina/o cultures, a scholar-in-residence for World Outspoken, and a co-host for the forthcoming podcast From the Underside. He’s also writing a book on Critical Race Theory with IVP Academic.

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you.

Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

Living in my Memory: Pastor Rich Perez on “In the Heights”

This article was first published by Rich Perez on his personal blog and can be read at here.

In the Heights, Warner Brothers 2021

Like everyone else, we were excited. Beaming with pride that any semblance of our story — our neighborhood story was being told on the silver screen. We were especially proud because our son, who has been acting for 6 years now, was able to land an on-screen background role in the movie. So, no matter what suspicions or reluctance some of us had about which story would be told, “In The Heights” had us all waiting with eager expectation.

And it delivered…kind of. Well, it’s complicated. Within a few days of its long anticipated premier, social media and news outlets like The Root exploded with criticism mainly about the movie’s misrepresentation of Washington Heights, a neighborhood that recently was canonized as “Little Dominican Republic” to pay homage to the many Dominican residents that call it home.

And that may be the source of the rub.

There are much smarter people than me talking about the nuances of Latinx identity. I won’t attempt to be scholarly about that. These are my reflections, most of which are birthed out of my experiences as someone deeply shaped by Uptown culture. The only other motivator here are my kids, who I feel the exciting responsibility to pass on the legacy of my identity so that they could discover who they are.

Art will always be complex

No matter how deeply a piece of art is connected to a real moment in history, place or person, its expression will always be at the mercy of the artist. As enjoyers of art, there will always be room to insert your observations or interpretations of the piece, but ultimately the artist decides — even if subconsciously — what the pen writes, what the brush strokes, what the camera captures. Lin-Manuel is the architect; he’s the artist. In The Heights was shaped by his experiences of Uptown (mainly Inwood, or Dyckman for us natives, which is the northern most part of the neighborhood. how that difference shapes his storytelling is also important, but for another time). For those of us that took to the theaters in celebration of what could be, we watched a movie about a neighborhood that existed in his imagination. and we didn’t leave with the level of satisfaction we had hoped for. Why? Because we don’t live in his imagination. Not as main characters, at least.

Art will always be complex, because art is birthed out of us. And we are complex beings who are shaped by nuanced experiences, privileges or lack thereof. We’re shaped by our desires and preferences — spoken or unspoken. As the architect Lin created what he imagined, a “mosaic.” But therein lies a fundamental obstacle. Washington Heights is not a mosaic. While it may be home to a variety of Latinx identities, Washington Heights is demonstrably Dominican; Afro-Dominican.

There have been so many Mexicans, Cubans, even Brazilians declaring their praise for In The Heights because they felt seen. And rightfully so, their flags and accents were in the movie. They felt seen because they were on screen. The movie’s effort to celebrate Latinidad (I don’t want any of the smoke that comes with this word) was beautiful but it minimized the Dominican story that lives in the very air of this community. Now, this is dicey, because I’d hate for this to be interpreted as a campaign to not celebrate those cultures. This is not that. We should celebrate them.

This is, however, an effort to show that Latinx expression varies across the different Latinx ethnicities, and this movie was an opportunity to put that on display.

Beyond the tasks of filmmaking

Casting, as much as the wardrobe, the script, the director, or any other department on the set of a movie, is not so much a task, but an opportunity. Better yet, it’s a responsibility to build the world of the film. And in the case of a movie about a neighborhood with such a unique expression, it is difficult to see the right cast in the backdrop of the wrong setting. It’s also devastating to see (on the big screen no less) our streets, our bodegas, our corners, our stoops with strangers occupying them. Even more — what the cast wears, how they sound, their accent, their syntax, their references, their isms, their music, their skin color, the smells of the movie, el sabor of the movie. All of those are special and important to the telling of our story. All of those serve as bricks in the construction of the world that the movie promised simply by virtue of its name. Oh, how i wished there was a perico ripia’o or a number with una bachatica ensendi’a!

But this is not In The Heights through my eyes, nor your eyes. It’s through the eyes of two Puertoriqueños, one of whose relationship to the Heights could perhaps be understood as periphery having grown up in West Philly. This may be the reason for a heavy presence of salsa music and a dominant Puerto Rican cast. Even if they played the role of Dominicans. This may explain why the beloved piraguero cooled los vecinos from the sweltering heat with piraguas and not frio frios. ¡Dame uno de chinola!… not parcha. When you know the artists, you better understand the art.

And as for the visual direction, well, that was in the hands of an Asian man and a white woman. Jon Chu and Alice Brooks are responsible for what, and more importantly, who, is captured by the camera. And listen, this is no indictment on them for those things. I could never. And I wouldn’t want to. But it is a call to awareness that they are the source of this art. And the truth is that perhaps for some of them, this wasn’t their story to tell.

Casting directors and other executive roles in the film-making journey are like the visual managers at retail stores. It’s their vision that decides which mannequins and outfits are considered most attractive for the windows that face the street. Yes, we got to see Latinos on the screen in ways that we never have, yet there still remains glass ceilings to be shattered for the Afro-Latinx community. Perhaps much of the frustration is coming from the expectations we had on this movie to deliver some of that shattering.

Nonetheless, as a Dominicano from Uptown, Lin-Manuel has given me sufficient reasons to be proud of my Latinx identity — no matter how nuanced it may be. But we shouldn’t make the conclusion that critique means that we hate the project and can’t appreciate it generally. I think Lin knows that. He’s also just an artist navigating all the heat his work is receiving. That’s no easy place to be in. I get that, too.

I won’t beat a dead horse. Afro-Latinos were desperately absent in the foreground of this story, and thus, in the present imagination of its creators. But it’s important to share that I won’t condemn anyone for not highlighting me in their imagination. None of us can, I suppose. We can only hope to inspire imagination, stretch it with truthful criticism — whether it spills out of us harshly or not. Though we hope it wouldn’t.

It’s a big deal to have this movie in Hollywood. And I’m thankful for that. There is nothing like In The Heights that has been memorialized into cinema history. That should be celebrated. As big, however, is the missed opportunity to tell the story more truthfully. Again, I think Lin gets that. His humility and active listening is a hopeful sign for great future projects and advocacy of the stories some of us felt fell short here.

If anything I’ve gotten from the loving relationship in my life is that mature love leads with celebration while holding space for growth, transformation, correction.

In the Heights, Warner Brothers 2021

The Gift of Becoming Yourself

Yes, Hollywood is watching us have our disagreements, but I want to strongly encourage us to reframe the way we have these discussions. It’s important that we don’t frame those bringing critique as “hating” on the movie and damaging our perception to Hollywood. And on that note — big production companies, like Warner Bros., with their white dollars, are not the only way to have our stories told. The film-making industry is like any other industry, I imagine. There are enough creators, writers, producers, actors, directors, DP’s of color telling our stories without the help of big wig executives. I’m hopeful for the stories In The Heights will give birth to, but I’m wary of adjusting ourselves to mass appeal. I know it produces dollars, but it dwarfs our stories into something foreign. The road to getting Hollywood to see the value in our stories is long and arduous. Surely, there are other ways.

Perhaps the next best thing that we can do is more simple than we imagine: create. Tell your story. Tell your ancestor’s story. Tell your block’s story as you know it; as you experienced it. Tell it truthfully. Don’t be held hostage by mass appeal. It’s one of the pitfalls we’ve inherited from the social media age. If you drink from the cup of mass appeal you risk the integrity of your story because you decide that what others think is more valuable than the deepest truth of your experience.

There’s no question that this movie has poured gas onto the on-going conversation about Latinx identity. And for that I’m thankful. Our Latinx identity is nuanced and complex, with Afro-desendencia and Indigeno-descendencia. Learn your story. Climb your family tree. Saca tu abuela del closet. With all its twists, painful turns and pleasant surprises, there is no journey more important than the one where you become yourself, as you’ve been made. To share both that journey and what you discover is a gift to the world. To experience that in your art, your stories, your movies is to construct a bridge that allows me; that allows us, the opportunity to enter your story. The only catch is that it must be done truthfully. No hiding the mess. Not forgetting a chapter. And not making anyone invisible.

Living in my memories

My teen years were all about basketball at Dyckman park, bread runs to Kenny’s bakery, and parties at Incarnation Catholic School’s gym on 175th and St. Nicholas. For over a decade I lived in Dyckman with my wife and two kids as a faith and community leader. In 2017 I debuted my memoir about what it meant for me to love this place that had changed so much over the years. I’ve had a number of non-native New York friends message me after watching the film: “Wow, I feel like I understand your story more” or some version of that sentiment. If I’m honest, these reflections are in large part to ensure that those unfamiliar with the place that shaped so much of me wouldn’t conclude that this film captured all what that place is.

If your conscience makes room for it, go buy a ticket. Watch this movie. Take with you what you can from this story. And trust me, you can. There’s plenty there for you. There’s plenty there for us. Beauty does not evade this movie. El fuego Caribeño wasn’t a stranger. To see the hydrants open, the streets flooded with kids, and the struggle to find our place in society — that was still especially beautiful and compelling.

About Rich Perez

Rich is the author of Mi Casa Uptown: Learning to Love Again, a memoir of his experiences growing up in the inner city of Nueva York and the intersection of faith, family, identity and the significance of place. Founder and pastor of 10 years at Christ Crucified Fellowship in NYC before transitioning to Atlanta, GA with his wife, Anna, and their kids, Josiah and Hayden.

Jesus and John Wayne Review

White Masculinity and Theology

It was in graduate school that I first heard the phrase “contextual theologies.” I was intrigued since context - both cultural and historical - is crucial to understanding theology. While reading the assignment, I realized that contextual theologies are essentially theologies with an adjective placed in front: feminist theology, womanist theology, latinx theology, LGBTQ+ theology, liberation theology, black liberation theology, etc. You may notice (as I did) a couple of categories that are missing from these “adjectival” theologies: white theology and masculine theology. The reason is that these are assumed - the “mythical norm” of theologies, as it were.[1]

Since white, masculine voices have been privileged in the field of theology for centuries (or since voices were assumed to be white and male, regardless of the truth of that assumption), any attempt to equally privilege latinx, black, female, LGBTQ+, Asian, Indigenous, or any other perspective alongside those voices is often resisted. “Those'' voices, it is argued, are too influenced by their own subjective viewpoints and focus too much on one or two aspects of theology to be taken as seriously as the other (white and masculine) voices that have dominated for centuries. As if these white, masculine voices are not equally subjective and focused on particular issues.

What Kristin Kobes du Mez accomplished in Jesus and John Wayne is tracing a history of American white, masculine, evangelical theology and to identify the historical, cultural, and political forces that influenced, guided, and focused its theological emphases for decades. In the book, Kobes du Mez draws back the curtain on the assumption that American evangelicalism has developed its theological emphases and ecclesial ethics in some sort of vacuum outside of cultural influence - that it is not just as “adjectival” as any other sort of contextual theology. Kobes du Mez argues that the guiding force behind white evangelicalism for the last 50-some years has been a “militant white masculinity.”[2]

In a fascinating study that follows, Kobes du Mez traces the history of how “militant white masculinity” has always been the guiding force behind American evangelicalism and how it was shaped by and utilized symbols such as John Wayne, William Wallace, and other “rugged, masculine figures,” the Republican party, consumerism, and even the American military as an ideal force for good in the world.[3] Kobes Du Mez takes her readers on a dizzying journey through historical periods of evangelicalism that, despite its comprehensive nature, can only really scratch the surface of white evangelical subculture and all its manifestations. Beginning her history as far back as the 1890s, when the Victorian “model of manly restraint had begun to falter” and the new economy of the early twentieth century demanded a different type of “softer” work than toiling in fields or factories (and as women began to attend college with more regularity), Kobes du Mez records that a call for a new type of more aggressive masculinity emerged.[4]  

Christianity as White, Militant, and Masculine 

Kobes du Mez’s primary argument in Jesus and John Wayne is that this “militant white masculinity” has been the guiding force behind evangelicalism for decades. In so doing, she highlights more effectively than any theology textbook I’ve ever read just how contextual white masculine theology is. Perhaps one of the most devastating moments in her book is when she outlines how white evangelicalism was used to perpetrate segregation through church polity, Christian private education, and through both its constituents’ silence about and active railing against the Civil Rights movement. She does point out that “evangelicals’ response to civil rights varied, particularly in the early stages of the movement.”[5] Kobes du Mez uses Billy Graham as a prime example of one such evangelical leader who even personally removed ropes between white people and black people at his crusades and invited Martin Luther King, Jr. to pray at his 1957 New York City Crusade.[6] However, she also points out that he distanced himself from backing activists when they began to engage in civil disobedience, and that many white evangelicals responded similarly, finding it “hard to accept that the sin of racism ran deep through the nation’s history.”[7]

She argues that this lack of willingness among white evangelicals to continue standing by civil rights activists coupled with their silence about the demand for continued segregationist policies among their fellow white evangelicals had devastating effects. One of these was using private Christian schools to continue segregation and revealing that ultimately, white evangelicalism was more concerned with continuing its own political purposes than fighting for its black brothers and sisters. Kobes du Mez states, “Although blatant defenses of segregation and racial inequality would be rare, many southern evangelicals and fundamentalists who persisted in their unreconstructed views of race would find common cause with more ‘tolerant’ evangelicals on issues like social welfare policy and ‘law and order’ politics that would carry clear racial undertones.”[8]

Millennials from white evangelical spaces will recognize that similar patterns emerged in the genesis of the Black Lives Matter movement. Refusal to support that statement - “Black Lives Matter” - was defended by many white evangelicals because they claimed that the movement had ties to a more liberal political agenda and that the civil rights activists within the movement were anti-police. This movement drew fault lines across white evangelicalism that, for some, resulted in splitting away from the evangelical church due to its refusal to support what they viewed as a basic civil rights issue. These divisions only became more pronounced when Donald Trump was elected as the Republican party’s candidate for the 2016 election. What was not widely recognized, however, was that these patterns had been present in white evangelicalism from its very start. The widespread reception of Jesus and John Wayne by those of us who grew up (or are still part of) white evangelicalism has been a resounding agreement that the book puts its finger on exactly what felt off as we grew up, particularly surrounding issues of race, “family values” voting, and the strong connection to the U.S. military (which is brilliantly outlined in Chapter 12, entitled, “Pilgrim’s Progress in Camo”).[9] 

Where are the Women?  

For me, one of the most eye-opening chapters of Kobes du Mez’s book was Chapter 11, provocatively entitled, “Holy Balls.” While some readers may be drawn to other chapters, this chapter described the period of my life when my faith was becoming my own. I found my heart feeling twisted as I realized how whole-heartedly I had swallowed certain parts of toxic masculinity because I truly believed Scripture demanded that I did, and because much of the Christian culture around me absolutely encouraged me to do so. Kobes du Mez begins the chapter with some less common examples of militant masculinity, such as churches hosting MMA viewing parties and Christian mixed-martial arts groups, but speaks to the heart of what was happening at the time by saying, “As militant masculinity took hold across evangelicalism, it helped bind together those on the fringes of the movement with those closer to the center, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish the margins from the mainstream.”[10]

A poignant example of this collapsing of the margins into the mainstream is the support New Calvinism gave to two “fringe” voices in the early 2000’s: Mark Driscoll and Doug Wilson. Kobes du Mez writes more in-depth about these two men and the way that they were given platforms and endorsements by the leaders of New Calvinism despite many of them expressing discomfort with their crass talk, sometimes violent focus, and even, in one case, denial that American slaves had been treated with brutality.[11] This, to me, was the gut-punch of the chapter. These two men were endorsed by other men who were at the heart of founding various church-planting networks and conferences that were wildly popular among me and my peers during college specifically, and their endorsements meant a great deal. While these organizations and coalitions claimed to hold the gospel message as the most important thing, Kobes du Mez points out that the unifying factor among many of these very doctrine-conscious men was not solely the simple gospel message, but “gender and authority.”[12]

“It was both disheartening and a reminder to me of where my place was at all times - out of the pulpit and out of any leadership that was not solely over women or children. Knowing that I wasn’t going to seek pastoral leadership was far more important to these men than my love for Christ, desire to serve the Church, and my passion for theology, and that oft-repeated question made it painfully clear.””

These two examples most brutally highlight her point about gender and authority trumping simple gospel messaging within white evangelical alliances, but so does the lack of female leadership in many churches that ascribe to this New Calvinism. Sure, there are shining exceptions, but the question I was most often asked when I stepped into a new church in the early aughts is most illustrative - “Why do you want to study theology?” which was code for “Do you want to be a pastor?” It was both disheartening and a reminder to me of where my place was at all times - out of the pulpit and out of any leadership that was not solely over women or children. Knowing that I wasn’t going to seek pastoral leadership was far more important to these men than my love for Christ, desire to serve the Church, and my passion for theology, and that oft-repeated question made it painfully clear.

One area of critique that I have for Jesus and John Wayne is the book’s claim to analyze how white evangelicals got to where they are today, while women are conspicuously absent from many of the chapters as perpetrators of this “militant white masculinity” that Kobes Du Mez describes. It was not simply men advocating for patriarchal norms in churches, nor was it only men leading the “family values” Christian Right, but women were crucial in the formation of and enforcement of this “militant white masculinity,” and one place the book falls short is in fully demonstrating that. A notable exception is Chapter Two (entitled “God’s Gift to Man”), in which Kobes Du Mez highlights women such as Marabel Morgan and her The Total Woman course, Anita Bryant, Elisabeth Elliot, and Phyllis Schlafly. Kobes du Mez continually documents Schlafly’s influence among white evangelicals (particularly politically) throughout the book, which is utterly engrossing for anyone (like me) who had not known much about this woman before. However, Schlafly appears to be the sole woman whose contribution to “militant white masculinity” is traced throughout the entire book. While I think it is important to include white women’s culpability in the propagation of “militant white masculinity,” Kobes du Mez has recently announced that she will be publishing a new book about evangelical women called Live, Laugh, Love, and I believe she intends to address much of what she left out in Jesus and John Wayne within that book. I, for one, look forward to reading it. 

Christianity, Consumerism, and a Dangerous “Culture-Making”

One poignant observation Kobes du Mez makes in Jesus and John Wayne is the way that white evangelicals harnessed consumerism to propagate their cultural message.[13] By doing so, they created their own culture and provided a weapons store for the culture war that consumed much of their recent history. This culture was created through celebrity culture (particularly as pertained to pastors, radio stars, and motivational speakers), radio ministry, Christian television shows, the Christian music industry, Christian films, the Christian book publishing business, and Christian bookstores.

Andy Crouch has written much about culture and culture making. In For the Beauty of the Church: Casting a Vision for the Arts, he describes how Genesis informs our understanding of culture making by demonstrating how God was the first culture maker and cultivator - planting a garden, which Crouch calls “nature plus culture.”[14] He describes the call of those in the Church to create good and beautiful art and other such cultural contributions. Crouch speaks of culture making as a creative, positive endeavor that the Church ought to participate in joyfully, creating art in and for the Church as well as for the world. Through the creation story, he highlights that the problem with culture making occurs when Adam and Eve no longer wait on and partner with God, but “...take and eat, and set in motion the process by which everything that God had originally given as a gift, a sign of relationship and dependence, will be twisted into a right, something grasped from a world presumed to be threatened and threatening, something that insulates us from needing relationship or dependence.”[15]

“Culture making, in the form that Kobes Du Mez documents, is dangerous, homogenizing, and used as a battering ram against anyone who stands in its way or disagrees with its narrative. It also robs white evangelicals of the incredible gift of listening to the voices of their many siblings in Christ who could expand, correct, lead, and joyfully participate in culture making alongside them had the culture wars they participated in not eradicated that focus on relationship and dependence.”

In this description of the Fall, Crouch illustrates precisely what Kobes du Mez identifies as problematic with white evangelicalism’s attempt at culture making. White evangelicals took the gift of cultural creation given by God and twisted it into a utilitarian tool used to fight a culture war - usually shouting about rights rather than gifts (whether second amendment rights, rights to gather around a flagpole at a school and pray, rights to not have to pay taxes to support people “on welfare,”, rights to defend “traditional family and cultural values,” etc.). By taking that gift of cultural creation and fashioning it into a weapon, white evangelicalism lost sight of the gift of relationship and dependence on other Christians. The reverberations of their culture war drowned out the voices of brothers and sisters who had something to contribute to the conversation about culture, and their warring cost them the opportunity to participate in culture-making alongside them.

This was not the only negative effect; when white evangelicals invited siblings of color into their spaces, they acted as gatekeepers to the culture making of that space. While siblings of color were invited to contribute to the worship teams, lead the youth groups, and act as outreach coordinators, rarely were they given roles of actual leadership to set the priorities of churches and organizations. If they stepped outside of white evangelicalism’s priorities for culture making, they were instructed to “get in line” or get out. Many chose the latter after years of being silenced and abandoned by those in leadership. Culture making, in the form that Kobes Du Mez documents, is dangerous, homogenizing, and used as a battering ram against anyone who stands in its way or disagrees with its narrative. It also robs white evangelicals of the incredible gift of listening to the voices of their many siblings in Christ who could expand, correct, lead, and joyfully participate in culture making alongside them had the culture wars they participated in not eradicated that focus on relationship and dependence.

So, What Now?

Jesus and John Wayne provided for me the context of what was happening backstage during my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. The reason the book resonates so strongly with so many (particularly white) evangelicals is that it gives answers to questions we never knew how to ask. It also articulates what our young minds may not have yet had the maturity to say about the culture wars we lived through, and in many cases, were even used as agents in.

Kobes du Mez successfully articulated a succinct, utterly readable account of the last 50-some years of white American evangelicalism, and whether you agree with her thesis or not, the book’s already astounding cultural impact will force you to grapple with it in your churches, schools, and institutions. And this is a very good thing, because so many of the historical and recent events that she brings to light have needed to be wrestled with for a very long time in a way that accounts for the historical context surrounding them and without making apologies for being bold enough to articulate what was wrong about those events.

Kobes du Mez’s historical account of white evangelicalism and how we got to where we are succeeds in highlighting a theological point: all theologies are contextual theologies. Even (and especially) white masculine evangelical theology, though the way it is often taught in many university, seminary, and Sunday school classrooms over the years may argue otherwise. Just as feminist, black liberation, womanist, latinx, or any other “contextual” theology has a cultural and historical context, so does white theology and masculine theology. More than any theology textbook I’ve read, Kobes du Mez demonstrates the danger of prioritizing one viewpoint as normative, simply by laying out the history.

So, is there hope for white evangelicalism? Kobes du Mez seems to think so, ending her book by saying, “What was once done might be undone.”[16] It all depends on us. If we as white evangelicals and former white evangelicals react to her description and critique of how we got here with defensiveness and a plugging of our ears, we are only doing more of the same. However, if we begin to consider Crouch’s culture making and what Makoto Fujimara has called culture care, perhaps we can find a way forward. Any way forward must involve focusing on relationship and dependence once more - not just including diverse voices at our tables in minor roles, but in submitting to those voices humbly (even if they no longer trust our tables and have built their own). It must also involve putting in the long hard work to earn back trust, and eventually, culture-making together again, joyfully participating in creation with one another and with the God we serve together.

---

About Luci Frerichs Parrish

Luci Frerichs Parrish is a Midwestern native living in the South. She lived on the South Side of Chicago for seven years, working in various non-profit and church ministries. She has an M.A. in Theology from Wheaton College Graduate School with an emphasis in Systematic Theology. Her current areas of study include systematic theology, theological aesthetics, and ecclesiology. She is a coffee enthusiast, independent bookstore fanatic, and Pittsburgh Penguins fan. She is passionate about doing theology to serve the local and global church.

---

Footnotes

[1] Audre Lorde defines the “mythical norm” as “white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, Christian, and financially secure.” Audre Lorde, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” in Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press, 1984), 116.

[2] Kristin Kobes du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (New York, NY: Liveright Publishing, 2020), 4.

[3] See Ted Cruz’s now-infamous quotation of William Wallace at CPAC 2021 for a relevant current example of this exact point. See also Kobes du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (New York, NY: Liveright Publishing, 2020), 4.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 37.

[6] Ibid., 37-38.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, 39.

[9] Ibid, 205.

[10] Ibid, 187-188.

[11] Ibid, 202.

[12] Ibid, 204.

[13] Though white evangelicals are certainly not the only American Protestants to do so!

[14] Andy Crouch, “The Gospel: How Is Art a Gift, a Calling, and an Obedience?” in For the Beauty of the Church: Casting a Vision for the Arts, ed. W. David Taylor (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2010), 32.

[15] Ibid, 34.

[16] Kobes du Mez, 304.

Are Black Bodies Cursed? Dominican Racial Identity and the Life of Oscar Wao

“The family claims the first sign was that Abelard’s third and final daughter… was born black. And not just any kind of black. But black black – kongoblack, shangoblack, kaliblack, zapoteblack, rekhablack – and no amount of fancy Dominican racial legerdemain was going to obscure the fact. That’s the kind of culture I belong to: people took their child’s black complexion as an ill omen.””

— Junot Díaz, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, 248

During the early stages of this project on Afro-Latin@s, I had a conversation with my cousin about Dominican racial identity. My cousin worked at a bank and often perplexed Dominican clients when she asked them to mark their race. “Dominican,” they’d respond. “No, your race.” The confused client would look at the list in front of them for a moment, read past the more common designations: White… Black, and self-identify as “Indio.” Not Black. Not White. Indio.

I recently had a similar conflict filling out the U.S. Census for me and my son. After looking over the list for far too long, I circled “other” and wrote “Hispanic/Dominican.” Dominican, and especially Dominican-American racialization is a complex subject mixed with a variety of understandings and histories.[i] Ginetta E.B. Candelario notes that “for much of Dominican history, the national body has been defined as not-black, even as black ancestry has been grudgingly acknowledged. In the place of blackness, officially identity discourses and displays have held that Dominicans are racially Indian and culturally Hispanic.”[ii]

To many observers, this racial identification is a denial of what is visually undeniable (“Dominicans are Black”) and proves that Dominican histories, social hierarchies, and political policies have and continue to contribute to Dominican anti-Black sentiment - see Haitian immigration and citizenship in the Dominican Republic. Historians, sociologists and ethnographers have substantiated this claim to one degree or another. Literature also provides a unique lens to examine Dominican racial identity and its role in establishing anti-negritud (anti-Blackness) in our people. This article will consider the topic in conversation with the Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscao Wao by Dominican-American author, Junot Díaz.[1]

The novel tells the story of Oscar de León, an overweight Dominican nerd living in Patterson, New Jersey. The novel goes to great lengths to explain that Oscar was not a “normal Dominican.” And yet his story unfolds within the landscape of the Dominican experience. Though he is the protagonist of the story, his story is told alongside the stories of his sister Lola, his mother Beli, and his abuelo Abelard Luis Cabral. Our characters are set in New Jersey, then in Dominican Republic and back again. And because this is a Dominican story, Rafael Trujillo and el Trujillato (The Era of Trujillo) shape the lives of our primary characters. But this isn’t typical historical fiction. This story is a Fukú story.

The Fukú: A Curse on Black Bodies

The narrator of the story is Yunior, a “proto-typical” Dominican who ends up dating Lola and rooming with Oscar in college. Yunior provides commentary throughout the story. In the first chapter he explains the prevailing belief in Fukú in Dominican culture. “Fukú americanus, or more colloquially, fukú – generally a curse or a doom of some kind; specifically the Curse and the Doom of the New World.”[iii] The Curse came from Africa, but to Dominicans, Rafael Trujillo is its high priest. Yunior helpfully notes, “It was believed, even in educated circles, that anyone who plotted against Trujillo would incur a fukú most powerful, down to the seventh generation and beyond.”[iv] So this is a story about a family that crossed Trujillo so badly, they had incurred a Fukú for at least three generations. Given our limited space, our focus will be on the curse itself rather than Abelard’s offense against Trujillo.

Throughout the novel, two realities are linked together. Our primary characters have black skin, and the unfolding of their lives suggests that a generational curse has in fact been placed over their lives. With the exception of Abelard and La Inca, attention is given to each of our primary characters’ black complexion. In school, Beli’s black complexion is noted by a classmate. “You black, [a classmate said], fingering Beli’s thin forearm. Black-black.”[v] Lola observes that she has her mother’s complexion which means “[she] is dark.” In D.R., a boyfriend calls her “his morena.” Oscar too is notably of dark complexion. His afro, along with his other “non-Dominican traits” confuse those around him and they question whether he actually is Dominican or not. Alone, these descriptions might seem insignificant: evidence of family resemblance. But they serve a more significant role in the novel and its examination of Dominican racial identity.

To family members, Beli’s dark complexion was evidence that the family had been cursed. Shortly after her birth, her mother stepped in front of a moving truck and her two sisters each died under unusual circumstances. Beli was left an orphan. “She was so dark [that] no one on Abelard’s side of the family would take her… and no one outside the family wanted the darkchild to live.”[vi] Beli was eventually sold to strangers to work as a servant girl. She’s eventually rescued by La Inca, a cousin of her father who discovers that the girl is alive and being kept in a chicken coop after she is burned by hot oil for “skipping out on work to attend classes.”[vii]

A few years later, Beli falls for Dionisio who is married to none other than Trujillo’s sister. When la hermana Trujillo discovers the affair, she has Beli taken out to a sugar cane field where she is nearly beaten to death. Yunior reports that “they beat her like she was a slave. Like she was a dog.”[viii] While laying there she slides into a deep lonliness “[where] she would dwell forever, alone, black, fea.”

These descriptions are not accidental. The author intends for us to recall the slaves who worked the sugar cane fields during early Spanish Colonialism. During the Spanish conflicts with France and England, the economy of the Island of Hispanola collapsed. Eventually many Spanish Whites left the island. In their place descendants of White men and Indigenous and African women “ascended the social ladder.” Together with freed Blacks they became the “blancos de la tierra.” The term black “came to be used in Santo Domingo only in reference to those who were still enslaved.” Beli and later Oscar, in his final moments, become stand-ins for the the histories of Blacks who received violence in Sugar Cane fields on this island.[ix]  

The lives of these primary characters seem to confirm a sinister truth: our Black protagonists were under the fukú; they were cursed. It isn’t always clear whether their Blackness was the Curse itself or the evidence of their being cursed, but the problem remained. They were Black, and black bodies in the Dominican Republic have often been subjected to marginalization, violence, and trauma.

The novel also demonstrates another side of the Dominican racial imaginary: the identification as non-Black and more importantly non-Haitian. Throughout the novel, to be Haitian is viewed as an insult. When Oscar returns from his first trip to Santo Domingo, his uncle greets him, “Great… now you look Haitian.” Later, on his return trip to the Island, Oscar notices a group of peddlers on the street. “So dark,” he noticed, and his mother said, dismissively, “Maldito haitianos.”[x] On that same trip, Lola and Beli have an interesting exchange at a restaurant. The waiters look at their group strangely, Lola teases her mother and says “Watch out Mom… they probably think you’re Haitian.” In response her mother retorts, “La única haitiana aquí eres tú, mi amor.”[xi] Anti-Haitian rhetoric was a strategy implemented throughout Dominican Republic’s history, especially during Trujillo’s reign. Haitians were Black, not so Dominicans.

Fukú vs Zafa

Yunior began the story by framing it as a fukú story. But at the end of the first chapter he introduces a second folk word: the zafa, or the counter spell. The novel, as a whole, is tragic. Upon first reading, one is left with the impression that the fukú will remain over this family for generations to come. But when Lola’s daughter is introduced in the final pages of the novel, Yunior hints at the possibility of a more powerful magic: a zafa of sorts. Lola’s daughter is dark like her mother, uncle and grandmother before her. But on her neck she wears three pendants: “the one that Oscar wore as a baby, the one that Lola wore as a baby, and the one that Beli was given by La Inca… powerful elder magic.” Yunior is not completely convinced it will work. He imagines eventually she will hear the word fukú. Maybe then, he imagines, she will come to see him and he will bring out old photographs and papers. Yunior doesn’t name it, but I suspect behind this little dream of his, is the counter spell itself. In those photographs and the pendants is connection and memory.

Together the opening and close of the novel suggests a way out from under the Curse of the New World. The Curse isn’t Blackness. It is the racialization that we’ve experienced and participated in throughout our histories. The Curse is the trauma and the silence of a people who experienced violence and marginalization under Trujillo and then again in the Diaspora. The Curse finds expression in our loss of memory and our erasure of all of our history, especially our African history.

Junot Díaz has often noted that his life and writings have been shaped in large part by silence caused by trauma.[xii] Throughout the novel, his characters are also made silent. Beli never says a word about her childhood trauma. She never tells her children about Dionisio, nor about the night she was almost beaten to death. Oscar doesn’t get the chance to finish his own story. His last correspondence to Yunior and Lola are lost. So what is the counter spell? The counter spell is connection and memory. Yunior is right when he suspects that the book is his own sort of counterspell. The act of storytelling, when it is honest and embracing of the good and the bad parts, can become our counterspell.

Our racial histories are complex. How can they not be when we are the fruit of the “new world?” How can they not be when we are the heirs of Trujillos’s Santo Domingo? How can they not be when we are the Diaspora, seeds planted in United States and all over the rest of the world? We cannot deny our afrodescendencia. Nor can we deny our own complicity in anti-negritud. So we must speak the counter curse. We must break the silence of our past traumas and our own acts of violence and tell our full history.

About Kerwin A. Rodriguez

Kerwin A. Rodriguez is an Assistant Professor of Pastoral Studies at Moody Bible Institute. He teaches in the areas of preaching, cultural dynamics, spiritual formation, and Bible interpretation. He is currently a PhD in Preaching student at Baylor University’s Truett Seminary. His doctoral research will be on Caribbean Latin@ preaching with a particular focus on the Dominican Republic. Kerwin and his wife, Meredith live in the Humboldt Park neighborhood in Chicago with their son Ezra Joél, where they serve in their local church, Good News Bible Church.

---

Footnotes

[1] Note: It should be acknowledge that in May 2018 Junot Díaz was accused of sexual misconduct and verbal abuse by multiple women. In a statement made to the New York Times, Díaz stated, “I take responsibility for my past.” He later amended his statement and told the Boston Globe, “There is a line between being a bad boyfriend and having a lot of regret, and predatory behavior.” This article is not the place to give extensive commentary on the serious allegations made about Junot Díaz’s conduct. It should be noted that shortly before the allegations were made public he wrote about his own experience as a victim of sexual abuse, and a prominent theme throughout his writings is the relationship between sexuality and trauma.

[i] Milagros Ricourt, The Dominican Racial Imaginary: Surveying the Landscape of Race and Nation in Hispaniola (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2016).

[ii] Ginetta E. B. Candelario, Black behind the Ears: Dominican Racial Identity from Museums to Beauty Shops (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), 18.

[iii] Díaz, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, 1.

[iv] Díaz, 3.

[v] Díaz, 84.

[vi] Díaz, 252.

[vii] Díaz, 255.

[viii] Díaz, 147.

[ix] Ashley Kunsa, “History, Hair, and Reimagining Racial Categories in Junot Diáz’s The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao,” Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction 54, no. 2 (2013): 211–24.

[x] Díaz, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, 273.

[xi] Díaz, 276.

[xii] Junot Díaz, “Junot Díaz: The Legacy of Childhood Trauma,” The New Yorker, accessed October 12, 2020, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/16/the-silence-the-legacy-of-childhood-trauma.

Racism: A Discipleship Problem?

Just prior to the death of George Floyd and a fresh wave of civil rights demonstrations taking hold of the US, InterVarsity Press released David W. Swanson’s Rediscipling the White Church: From Cheap Diversity to True Solidarity. A white man and ministry leader, Swanson pastors New Community Covenant Church, a multi-cultural congregation in the Bronzeville neighborhood of Chicago. Encouraged by his friends of color to speak to the topics of racism and whiteness in America, Swanson wrote Rediscipling in an effort to address a historic issue from this place in time. Many white Christians want to better understand the realities of systemic racism; they want to be better allies to their black and brown family. Swanson comes alongside these white believers, and the white church as a whole, with a historical, theological, biblical, and a deeply personal analysis of whiteness. Thoughtfully written and formed through the practical experience of pastoring, Swanson’s Rediscipling is a balanced resource for the ministry leader entering the hard work of racial reconciliation.

A Method Unquestioned

While Swanson’s Rediscipling is about whiteness, he begins in an unlikely place—the American church model of discipleship. The choice to begin here is an interesting one. For me, it proved successful in disarming my assumptions of the conversation. By starting with ministry method, not historical construct, Swanson reframes the topic at hand and captures the heart of the ministry leader. Swanson then employs philosopher Charles Taylor’s concept of social imaginaries. Taylor’s concept explains how our view of the world is shaped by what we expect from it.[1]  Drawing on discipleship methodology, Swanson shows how white Christians have been discipled into racism by culture and the world in which we live, leading us to conceptualize people of color biasedly. Swanson states: “White Christianity has been blind to the powerful racial discipleship that has formed the imaginations of white Christians.”[2]

It is interesting to reflect on the many ways in which the white church has rightly identified ways the culture and values of the world lead believers away from the gospel and holy living. We are quick to identity pornography as a sexual distortion and critique our culture for promoting its creation and consumption. Sadly, our whiteness has not allowed us to see how our world has enculturated us away from the reconciling gospel of God on issues of race. Rather, we have been enculturated towards viewing the world through a lens of racial difference. Swanson rightly asks, what should Christians be discipled into? How do the values of God’s Kingdom speak to race, racism, and ethnic or cultural divides? Swanson argues biblically and theologically that our white church discipleship has not produced Christians who mirror the God who desires to reconcile all things to himself: Jew, Roman, male, female, regardless of socio-economic status or color of skin. Rather we have been discipled by our world when it comes to matters of racial division. Swanson explains: “We can think of the narrative of racial difference as invisibly polluted air or contaminated water; the fact that we don’t recognize it doesn’t dull its impact on our way of moving through the world.”[3] How did we get to this place of being discipled into what Swanson calls racial difference? This is where the turn to history is important.

A History Unheard

If historical evidence has fallen on deaf ears in discussions of race, Swanson utilized it successfully. By approaching the conversation of whiteness first as a discipleship and cultural issue, Swanson interweaves the historical underpinnings for why American history and culture has discipled white Christians into white privilege. Swanson’s use of history spans the entirety of his book but comes heavily into play in the chapter, “Wounded by Race.” The conversation gets challenging here for the white believer, as Swanson unpacks the tragedy and evils of whiteness as a racial construct and white privilege, at length. He addresses this honestly: “We prefer not to linger. Yet the discipleship journey to redirect our desires toward the reconciled kingdom of God cannot be rushed.”[4] Many discussions of whiteness begin with the historical construct, using it as evidence to prove systemic racism. These evidences are not always well received by white believers as they present a new, unfamiliar, uncomfortable view of history. However, having already established the validity to the issues of race and whiteness, Swanson uses history well as explanation, not proof, for why these issues exist in America as they do. History becomes hard truth spoken to those who are ready to journey with Swanson through these tough realities. Swanson is not hurried, but he also speaks freely of the white Christian’s historical complicity to racism, segregation, and sin against their colored brothers and sisters. If you are willing to take this journey of learning with Swanson, you will make it to part two of Rediscipling, which paints the vision of the “reconciled kingdom of God.”[5]

A Vision Unseen

The second part of Swanson’s Rediscipling excites and provides hope for the ministry leader who wants practical steps forward for the internal soul work this book initiates. In each chapter, Swanson looks at a piece of congregational or fellowship life, analyzes it, and proposes ways these areas can be changed to allow believers to be re-discipled into racial reconciliation. Looking at children’s ministry, communion, liturgies, and potlucks, Swanson’s years of pastoral ministry shine through as he presents tangible ways in which white Christians can take their current practices and traditions and allow them to be informed by the reconciling gospel of Christ. Most significant is Swanson’s emphasis that re-orienting our hearts, lives, and congregations away from racial difference is possible even for believers in monolithic communities and congregations. Swanson explains that the goal of this re-imagined discipleship is to bring believers into true solidarity with the whole of the Body of Christ.[6]

This emphasis on solidarity rather than diversity, which has been championed in the race conversation at other points, allows for all to participate. Swanson explains: “The second reason for making solidarity our goal is that every expression of white Christianity can pursue gospel reconciliation immediately. Rather than outsourcing this essential Christian vocation to multiracial churches or to congregations in urban or racially diverse regions, every white congregation can contribute to the unity of the body of Christ across lines of cultural division.”[7] This vision of reconciliation, accessible even to believers in rural or suburban white communities, is a fresh vision for what must and can happen in the US church.

A Vision for All

While Swanson creatively and thoughtfully takes the reader on a journey to consider whiteness and reimagine discipleship, his target is ministry leaders. After finishing the book, I longed for a simplified and abbreviated version to hand off to my family and friends. Swanson writes as a practical theologian and pastor to those who have influence over church life. But this leaves me wondering if this critical conversation will get stuck at the leadership level, when so many lay persons are craving resources to take steps towards racial reconciliation. This brings us back to Swanson’s guiding ministry methodology—discipleship. Be it through worship, conversation, communion, the preaching of the word, or a chat over coffee, the flourishing we long to see in our church communities and our world is only made possible through the original biblical mandate—to make disciples. While this discussion of whiteness is a bit heady to make it into the layperson’s evening reading, the essential information and journey that Swanson unfolds for the ministry leader is replicable in the lives of those we disciple and lead.

A Higher Vision

The margin note that will stick with me in my personal copy of Rediscipling is this: “He cast something in my mind I have not yet fully seen.” All theologians, from the pew to the pulpit to the academy, wrestle with the “already, not yet” of our faith. Nearly ever doctrine is touched with an incompleteness that calls our hearts home to the Father and a future completeness found only in the Son, Jesus Christ. Why should it be surprising to my soul that Swanson prompted this holy discontent through his discussion of whiteness and the American church. Swanson sees, not naively, a vision of what God intends for His Body—a reconciliation of all people to Himself within His one Body, the Church. For Swanson, we can work towards that now.

We can see a glimpse of the New Earth John spoke of in Revelation in our churches today. We can make ministry choices that change the trajectory of the American church—a trajectory that has been shaped by racial difference more than by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I saw a glimpse of this vision through reading and reflecting on Rediscipling. While my vision is incomplete, and there is so much growth to be done in my own heart, mind, and actions, I am convinced there is a way forward. There is, to quote the old hymn, “a higher plane” than we have previously found. And so my prayer for all of us is to say, “Lord, plant our feet on higher ground.”

About Emily C. Alexander

A first generation college graduate of a rural working class family, Emily C. Alexander recently completed her undergraduate degree in Ministry to Women at the Moody Bible Institute. Emily lives in Chicago where she enjoys long walks admiring architecture and pondering theological and sociological issues. Her hope is to impact the lives of women and the flourishing of the church through thoughtful theological engagement.

---

Footnotes

[1] 18-21

[2] 20

[3] 21

[4] 45

[5] 53

[6][6] 60

[7] 61

Should It Stay or Should It Go?

As humans, our history is marked by wounds of the past. We fight one another. We exploit one another. We kill one another. Our history is shaped by human injury; so, it makes sense that in a retelling of this history we would perpetuate injury. Injury begets injury. History-telling always runs the risk of aggrandizing someone’s story at the expense of another’s. That is the tension that exists between history and injury. This tension can even find its home in tangible spaces. Today, that tension found a home at the sites of many U.S. monuments. One of these homes is in Brandenburg, KY.

“On April 29, 2016, Louisville announced the removal of the Confederate monument, but attorneys stopped the city by filing a temporary injunction to stop demolition, and a lawsuit.”

– “New Monument History” Plaque in front of “Our Confederate Dead” statue in Brandenburg, KY.

“Our Confederate Dead” monument, which once stood in Louisville next to the Ohio River, is now situated about 45 miles south of the river in Brandenburg. The plaque, quoted above, stands in complement to two others. The one mentioned has a heading that reads, “New Monument History,” which tells the story of the new placement of the old monument. The second contributes a haunting echo of history by commemorating a quote from Basil Duke, a Confederate General Officer, on the folly of forgetting history. And the third, a plaque titled “Southern Causes for the Civil War,” offers a 248-word proof of the South’s motivation for entering the Civil War. In the shadow of that monument, all three plaques—not yet 5 years rusted—make clear that we are still fighting remnants of a war that ended 151 years ago. As the third plaque alludes, the Civil War was a war of sentiment.

I still remember my first time hearing the history of the Civil War explained to me by someone not from the South. It was like being told of a new war, one that was completely different from the Civil War that I had learned about. Having grown up in Florida, under the careful tutelage of southern evangelical curricula, my understanding of the Civil War was that it was a war of rights and not of slavery. Slavery was a footnote to the overall question: Who gets to enforce the rights of a man—God himself or man’s governing body? In fact, when reading the “Southern causes for the Civil War” plaque, it was like being reintroduced to an old memory. The plaque reads,

“Northern abolition movements with a goal to end slavery threatened to undermine the entire southern economy and culture free from northern interference, the south under pressure from the aristocratic plantation owners, seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.”

According to the South, the North has painted over (or overwritten) the true economic and political issues behind the war with a manipulative picture of an evil slave state. The sentiment of the South is that they and their confederate kin are misunderstood, and the story of their fight is unfairly eclipsed by a history of slavery. Granted, it is quite hard to fit all that on one plaque, but this sentiment cannot be overlooked. Here is a history marked by injury. However, this injury is multi-faceted. What is not portrayed on this small plaque, is the exploitive reality of a South built on the backs of slaves. This an obtuse and glaring omission, which explains the contention of the very existence of the monument. For understandable reasons, the African American communities in the South want this monument torn down. Which brings us to our question: Should monuments like “Our Confederate Dead” stay or go?

Ghosts of the Past

Before we venture into the ethics of monuments, perhaps it is best to first ask: What are monuments? Why do we build them? What is their significance?

The monuments in our parks that we tend to overlook are not unassuming artifacts. Monuments capture history that we believe merit our remembrance in a significant, permanent way. Presumably, we create monuments to share memories with the generations that follow us. Built in stone, iron, or some other precious element that we believe can stand the test of time, we erect our monuments with the intent to provide a witness to history, but not just any history: our history, our nation’s history, our land’s history. Or at least, that is what we could hope for in our monuments. Through monuments, we attempt to speak beyond the grave. In a way, our statues surround us like ghosts begging to tell us a story.

We fashion our monuments with respectable facades, all so that we can bring resolve to the actions of our ancestors and expound their sentiments in hopes that they will still be relevant in the future. That is what I hear in the whispers of Southern Confederate statues, a plea to remember them in a perspective that regards their own inclinations and their own sentiments. I hear a cry of a people who never had the chance to publicly mourn the loss of their dead. The fallen confederate soldier wants to be remembered as having died a death that had purpose. This is indicative of a South that argues that it fought a war righteously regardless of its accused sins.

I think it is difficult for the South to dismantle its monuments because she has not yet grappled with her loss, both the loss of her dead and the loss of her conviction. Herein lies the problem; The South remains in limbo. She has not nursed her wounds. She continues to replay them over and over again like a trauma not processed. To nurse wounds would be to recognize them, and she has not quite reached that level of awareness because the world moved on after simply indicting her of her sins and leaving her destitute. While the work force she had was obtained by exploitive means, once the South lost the war, she had not a penny to her name and no means in which to gain it back. The South had nothing left but injury and history. So, she built monuments, erected legends, created myths to make it bearable to move forward in a new world.

This is history marked by a wound that was never dealt with, and now the buried grief resurfaces as generations pass and questions begin to be asked. There are other parts of the South’s history, not just the Confederacy’s, that have not been dealt with. Drowned out by the pleas of the dead proud confederate, is the forgotten cry of disenfranchised black slaves.

There must be a better way to build monuments that honors all of our histories and allows all of us to grieve the loss and the injury perpetuated on our kin.

Rest in Peace

In Washington DC, there is a memorial dedicated to the Veterans of the Vietnam War, which is arguably one of the most controversial wars of our modern day. The erection of a Vietnam Memorial caused a public outcry, and to add to the controversy, the architect chosen to design the memorial was an Asian-American.[1] Maya Lin, who was at that time 21-years old and unknown, created a stir in DC as she designed a memorial to look like what many could only describe as a wound in the earth.[2] Lin was attentive to everything from the material (black granite with a polished finish), to the way the names were displayed (chronologically by the deaths of the veterans and not alphabetically), to the way the memorial stood (sunk below the ground). She did all this so that we as a country could be attentive to the wound of that war. On the 35th anniversary of the memorial, then acting President Obama said this of the memorial:

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial has changed the way we think about monuments, but also about how we think about sacrifice, and patriotism, and ourselves. Maya’s pieces have changed the landscape of our country and influenced the dialogue of our society, never more profoundly than with her tribute to the Americans who fell in Vietnam by cutting a wound into the Earth to create a sacred place of healing in our Nation’s capital.

I am a daughter of immigrants. This land I grew up in does not know my family line. My family’s history in the United States is young. When I look up at most monuments in this country, I have no ancestral blood tied to it. There are, however, some monuments that do hold more weight to me as an Asian-American. The Vietnam Memorial is one such monument. A monument dedicated to a country’s fallen for a war of interference in a land nearer to mine echoes the sentiment of the third plaque from the statue of “Our Confederate Dead. The difference is that Lin’s monument, with all its raw ugliness, brings into greater focus the pain of warring sentiments and the human loss we create by our sins against one another. She allows the dead to truly rest by making us, the living, contend with the past. To her, monuments are more analogous to scars, in that they should be reminders of a past injury that have healed but forever marks us.

I believe that what Maya Lin’s monument provides for us is a better way forward. Her monument is a reminder that wounds can only heal if allowed to be exposed to air and sunlight. Moreover, it is strong proof that it is important to allow all parties of conflict and injury to have their say in the way we portray history. Imagine what the monuments in the South could look like if we had both Confederate descendants and African American kindred in open dialogue and empathetic construction. I think, if we employed both collaborative imagination and gracious sympathy more often and more earnestly, the monuments in our country could look much different.

It is time to restore our US monuments in a way that honors all parties. A collaborative restoration. Perhaps it is audacious, but I believe that in our world there is enough physical space for all of our dead to rest in peace, but only if the living are willing to fight for it.

“The absence of a narrative in which people of color are recognized for the contribution to society is dangerous because it leaves unquestioned the dominance of white people of the planet today, thus tacitly endorsing the notion of white superiority. People of color receive no credit for being an essential, although coerced, part of the development of the modern world.” ”

— Carl Anthony, Earth-City, 2017

About Jelyn Leyva

A Second-generation Filipina born in Tampa, FL, Jelyn Leyva graduated Moody Bible Institute in Chicago on May 2017 with a Bachelor’s degree in Women in Ministry and an Interdisciplinary in Theology. She is currently in Los Angeles, CA pursuing an MDiv at Fuller Theological Seminary with her emphasis in Christian Ethics. Having lived in various places in the US, Jelyn’s interest lie in the complex history and multi-ethnic life of the Protestant Church in the US. Her hope is to serve this church and its many colors with the consideration of traditional and contemporary theological scholarship.

---

Foootnotes

[1] https://www.biography.com/news/maya-lin-vietnam-veterans-memorial

[2] http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/photos/maya-lin-ceremony-marks-35th-anniversary-vietnam-memorials-healing-power/

Too Soon To Talk About Modesty

I was a little surprised when the believer’s relationship to clothing came directly in the cross hairs of conversation following the Super Bowl Half-Time show in February. Issues of Latin culture, pop culture, sensuality, sexual purity, and modesty contributed to a charged conversation. World Outspoken’s Emanuel Padilla chimed in with an article addressing many of these issues, raising important questions about the Christian’s perspective of modesty in relation to culture. Initially, I believed my surprise was rooted in a Christian modesty ethic which framed my thinking to expect “the world” to have a different relationship with clothing than my own. Then I read Lauren F. Winner’s Wearing God and realized my relationship to clothing had shifted—no longer primarily formed by a cultural modesty ethic (Christian or otherwise) but something more.   

Modesty conversations are not new to the church and arise frequently when believers make an effort to draw distinctions between Kingdom culture and ungodly elements of world cultures. This theology of “worldliness” is found frequently in fundamentalist church circles, with James 1:27 cited as a supporting text for a believer’s physical, tangible distinctness from the world.  A helpful example of this is found in Anabaptist denominations, such as the conservative Mennonite or Brethren. These believers hold to standards of dress which set them apart from broader society, choosing sex differentiated clothing (skirts and dresses for women, pants for men) and clothing that is either homemade or what is considered the most modest of what is available. In choosing to dress in a way that is distinct from world cultures, clothing becomes a marker of identity and a communicator of holiness.

The Super Bowl discussion and the Anabaptist modesty ethic seem to be outliers from the average believer’s wardrobe considerations. Nonetheless, the Church through time has wrestled with its relationship to clothing as a cultural artifact—forming, at best, a muddled conversation. When it comes to clothing, believers may have missed a step on the way to correct practice. We have constructed our “correct belief” based on culture, forgetting that for the believer, clothing is not first a cultural artifact at all. Clothing is first and foremost a person—the person of Jesus Christ.

In her book Wearing God: Clothing, Laughter, Fire, and Other Overlooked Ways of Meeting God, Dr. Lauren F. Winner presents several metaphors for God frequently neglected in Christian thought. Winner proposes that some scriptural metaphors (e.g. shepherd, light) have become the sole ways in which believers imagine God, leaving the Church with a “truncated relationship” with her multi-faceted, unfathomable Lord.[1] One of these forgotten metaphors is clothing. Drawing from a robust biblical and historical-cultural theology, Winner brings newness to Paul’s declaration to the churches of Galatia: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”[2] Beginning in Genesis and concluding in the epistles, Winner points out that God clothes us, God is our clothing, and God invites us into clothing others.[3]  

God Clothes Us

Clothing is both identity shaping and communicative. As an identity shaping artifact, clothing acts upon its wearer, forming him or her to its likeness. Winner explains that “fashion” is not only a noun, but also a verb, meaning to mold or to shape.[4] When choosing a variety of clothing one can “play at being a different kind of self,” because the clothing we choose fashions us into different people.[5] I am reminded of this when co-workers do not recognize me in the gym. I am molded by my fitness attire to a different me, an athletic, possibly trendier version of my typical simply dressed self. My gym clothes act upon me, shaping my identity. Clothing also shapes communal identity. Winner uses a classic example of children’s school uniforms, which define community through the elimination of differences.[6] Common clothing sustains a common identity.

As God tenderly dressed Adam and Eve with clothing of skins before they left the garden, we as believers have been dressed by God with Christ. How then is our identity, our very self, being shaped by the Person we wear each day? How does Christ act upon us in such a way that fashions both our personal and communal identities? As Winner candidly states: “I let my Talbot suits and my vintage shirts remake me in their image. I want to let Jesus do the same.”[7] Church culture aptly reminds me of the ability which clothing as a cultural artifact has to shape my identity away from holiness. Yet it frequently neglects to lay proper emphasis on my original clothing—the person of Jesus Christ, who daily shapes my identity, personally to Himself, and communally to the image of His Bride.

God is our Clothing

Clothing is also communicative. Winner looks back to mourning clothes, commonly worn by widows just decades ago. A widow of the 1920’s would wear mourning clothes for months after the loss of her husband. This black dress, Winner explains, would convey to the woman’s community her state of mourning.[8] The clothing did not cause the woman’s mourning, but rather communicated her state, prompting an appropriate response (careful attention and kindness) from those with whom she interacted.

Women in particular are warned to consider the communicative power of clothing. As a Christian woman, slut shaming takes its own vicious form as women criticize women of leveraging sex appeal in their wardrobe choices. Men also are criticized, often for appearing effeminate. Gender-norms and sexuality aside, clothing also communicates economics, status, and ethnic culture. The very nature of clothing to maintain communal identity also works to construct boundaries and communicate division.[9]

Lost in this discussion is the person of Christ bound daily to the very being of believers. Winner brings this again to the forefront, discussing the communicative nature of God-as-clothing. She states: “What we are asking for, of course, is not clothing that is more articulate, but that our disposition—which is indeed on display, often to a greater extent than we wish—would be more congruent with the Jesus whom we wear.”[10] Both identity shaping and communicative, the person of Christ acts upon His children, shaping them to His image and conveying through them His personhood. Jesus is our primary clothing, eclipsing any cultural artifact we may pull out of the closet on a Monday morning.

God Invites us to Clothe Others

Contrary to most clothing discussions, Winner lands her argument in the openness of the gospel and our mandate to clothe others. Winner suggests we are involving ourselves in a “choreography of divine action” when we follow God’s act of providing physical clothing[11] Citing Mathew 25 and James 2, Winner explains that Jesus holds up clothing others as a “basic norm, a test even, for discipleship and hospitality.”[12] This theology of clothing that Winner suggests does not separate us from those who need Christ. This theology asks us to mimic God through clothing those in need—a new mom and her infant, an immigrant family, the homeless—and welcome others to experience the transforming, fashioning presence of Christ with us.[13]

It is Laura Winner’s brief look at this metaphor for God—clothing—that unveils the misplaced priorities in the clothing conversation. Each day we look into closets and open drawers to clothe bodies we may not be happy with. The world around us says, “It’s okay if you wanna change the body that you came in” and that you will be happiest when you “feel like a damn queen.”[14] Church culture tells us to maintain a distinct identity from the “world” and communicate holiness through what we wear. Scripture tells us we wear Christ.

It’s too soon to talk about modesty, if we first haven’t talked about our primary clothing—Christ. Expecting another book on modesty ethic, Wearing God surprised me. For years I listened to church cultures emphasize modesty and believed a clothing ethic was one of my highest priorities as a woman of God. Then I entered a space that preached first Christ—not ethics of holiness. In reading Winner, I realized what has taken place in my own heart is a heightened concern to wear Christ daily, rather than fixate on a clothing ethic. Tenderly clothed by God, with God, to then clothe others—this is our identity and what we communicate to the world. This is the foundation to discussing clothing as cultural artifact. It’s too soon to talk about modesty—so first, let’s begin here.

Note: Clothing is one metaphor Dr. Lauren F. Winner presents in her book Wearing God. We encourage you to read Winner’s book in full, keeping in mind all biblical interpretations and theological positions are not interacted with in this article or supported by the WOS Team.

About Emily C. Alexander

A first generation college graduate of a rural working class family, Emily C. Alexander recently completed her undergraduate degree in Ministry to Women at the Moody Bible Institute. Emily lives in Chicago where she enjoys long walks admiring architecture and pondering theological and sociological issues. Her hope is to impact the lives of women and the flourishing of the church through thoughtful theological engagement.

---

Footnotes

[1] Wearing God, Lauren F. Winner, Harper Collins, New York, 2015. Pg 6.

[2] Galatians 3.27 NASB

[3] Winner, 53

[4] Ibid., 38

[5] Ibid., 38

[6] Ibid., 46

[7] Ibid., 41

[8] Ibid., 42

[9] Ibid., 46

[10] Ibid., 45

[11] Ibid., 54

[12] Ibid., 55

[13] Ibid., 55-57

[14] “Most Girls”, Hailee Steinfeld, et all. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. Downtown Music Publishing.

What you missed in the “Halftime Show was Inappropriate” Debate

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? If this paradox were possible, it would be about Latina music and fashion in the US. The unstoppable force of Latina hips as they gyrate to the rhythm of dembow, salsa, and champeta would crash like hurricane winds against the fortified opinions of white America’s glass house. On Sunday, Feb. 2nd, the paradox was on full display when Shakira and J.Lo became the first Latina singers to headline the Super Bowl halftime show. The debris of opinions scattered all over Twitter and Facebook are the unavoidable aftermath from this collision. On one level, that may have been the desired effect of a performance as culturally centered as this one, but on another, the opinions trending online reveal deep undercurrents of racism, cultural myopia, and some problems with woke culture. Here are three key points where the conversation went wrong and a proposal for new dialogue.

Modesty Standards and Whiteness

Whiteness is a loaded word; I realize that it strikes many readers differently. For my purposes, whiteness is not about pigmentation. I am not referring to people with lighter skin tones. In fact, no one has ever been white, and there are many Latino/as with light complexions. I use whiteness as the name for the racial system here in the US and in other countries affected by colonization. Whiteness has theological underpinnings and is supported by bad science. It is rooted in the idea that physical differences gave inherent, God-given, superiority to Western Europeans, their descendants, and their way of life. As a system, whiteness continues to promote this singular culture, forcing all others to conform to it. Much of the conversation regarding this year’s halftime performance reflects the way the system (what I am calling whiteness) shapes our experience.

Many viewers felt as though the half time show was a “racy, vulgar, and totally inappropriate performance.” These opinions mostly focus on the clothing and movement styles of the Latina performer, and they usually reduce the performance to a display of erotic sexuality meant to arouse. However, this perception of the performance drastically misunderstands the differences between Hispanic and “White” culture. These opinions either reflect a polarizing posture toward cultural difference that overly romanticizes one’s own culture (in this case, white culture) and overly criticizes the other culture (in this case, Latin American culture), or they could reflect a minimizing posture toward cultural difference that assumes that all cultures operate under universal rules for modesty, displays of human sexuality (particularly female sexuality), and dance.

The differences between the two cultural worlds reflect a network of values, beliefs, and assumptions about the body and its meaning. What does it mean to demonstrate technical skill in rhythmic, Afro-Latin dance styles? What does it communicate to move our bodies in outfits that accentuate the movements? How should it – Latin dance in Latin clothing – be understood? To answer these questions, we need a dialogue about female bodies that is not framed by whiteness.  We need a conversation where the terms match the subject. At present, the majority response to the halftime show suggests we do not fully know what to make of Hispanic female bodies.

The Big Picture

In most cases where pop-culture events cause controversy, people zero-in on a specific moment that epitomizes what they appreciated or what displeased them. This event did the same. In many of the reactions for/against the halftime show there appears to be a handful of moments that standout. The most meme-able of these moments was Shakira’s zaghrouta, a sound made by sticking out one’s tongue and letting out a high-pitched sound which is common among women in the Middle East expressing joy or other strong emotions. (Shakira is of Lebanese descent). There was also J.Lo’s brief dance on a pole, something that no doubt was incorporated after her grueling training in preparation for the Hustlers movie. These two, among other moments from the show, were cause for critique and dismissal. In response, however, many have argued that the focus is wrongly placed. Instead, they propose the emphasis should be on the choir of children displayed in cages as J.Lo’s 11-year-old daughter, Emme, led them in a rendition of “Born in the U.S.A.” [1] This, they counter, should be the focus of the event because it sends a powerful message about the border crisis.

In both arguments there is a flaw. No event, much less one as packed with symbols and meaning as this one, should be reduced to a single moment. Instead, the event must be interpreted in its totality. The viewer must ask questions about how each moment and symbol contributes to the meaning of the other. Once done, the viewer should decipher a theme, and they should consider how each symbol contributed to it. To understand the theme, the viewer should also explore the world behind the event. What factors led to Shakira and J.Lo being the first Latina’s to headline the halftime show? What might have inspired the choreography and setting of the show? How do these antecedents affect the way the viewer reads the event? This performance, as any pop-culture product, must be interpreted as a complex whole rather than be reduced to a simple flashpoint.

The Black/White Binary?

There is a third current of discussion worth reviewing here. In the many reactions that flooded Twitter after the Super Bowl Halftime show, Jemele Hill’s exemplifies a response that may implicitly communicate two assumptions worth challenging. Here is her tweet:

The language of crucifixion aside, Hill’s point seems to be that black woman had to pay a price, pave the way, for Latinas to now thrive. It also may imply – though it is worth emphasizing that it also may not – that Latinas are reaping a reward that is not their due. While Janet Jackson did have a role in the start of J.Lo’s career, the point may be overstated. First, it implies a bad binary. It is possible that those who are making this argument are still working from a black/white binary that requires all acts of social progress to come from one of these two “archetypes.” This, however, misunderstands the role Hispanics really have in the fabric of American culture. I dealt with this in a previous article, but my thoughts can be summarized this way: we cannot make sense of race in America by using two categories. These Latinas have women in their own heritage that contributed to their success. Women like Selena, Celia Cruz, and Gloria Estefan all contributed to the foundations of Latina celebrity that J.Lo and Shakira now embody so fully. The Latina contribution to progress in pop-culture should not be reduced just as the African American women’s contribution should not be overemphasized. Progress is not zero-sum. The success of Latinas only contributes to the overall reimagining of American society without taking away from the success of African American women.

Reimagining America con Salsa y Sabor

The halftime show included one moment that caused some viewers, especially Latinos, brief anxiety. While her daughter Emme sung “Born in the U.S.A.,” J.Lo reemerged on the stage wearing what appeared to be an American flag. After joining her daughter in the song, J.Lo opened the flag to reveal that it was double-sided, displaying the Puerto Rican flag on the inside. This symbol, in the context of the whole show, reimagines the US-American identity, putting a new proposal on center stage. The NFL Super Bowl is an US holiday, and the NFL has recently been the stage for conversations about what it means to be a US-American and even patriotic. This year’s halftime show added to the conversation by reminding us that mestizos are American, and Americans are mestizo. Shakira and J.Lo put their mestizaje on full display by singing in Spanglish, honoring their heritage in the Bronx, Baranquilla, and Lebanon, and dancing in Afro-Latin styles. They showed the world that there never really was a paradox. They were unstoppable. Now we have to be movable. Join their dance and the new world that it imagines.

---

Footnote

[1] It’s worth noting that as an 11-year-old, Emme lives in an America that is remarkably different from her mother’s version. Non-Hispanic whites already are less than 50% of the youth population in 632 of America’s 3,142 counties. According to research published by National Geographic, 2020 was projected as the year when 50.2% of American children would be from today’s minority groups. “As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind,” Magazine, March 12, 2018, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-rising-anxiety-white-america/.

Do We Believe in Mercy?

“Jesus said: “When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.””

— Luke 7.36-50

Bryan Stevenson did not discover his passion for justice in the classroom. The founder of the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), while gifted and open hearted, was like any other young adult searching for his purpose and path. The newly released film, Just Mercy, based on Stevenson’s book of the same title, begins with the moment that solidified Stevenson’s pursuit of justice for the marginalized—a moment defined by proximity.

Michael B. Jordan as Bryan Stevenson and Jamie Foxx as Walter McMillian // Warner Bros. Pictures

 As a law student intern with the Southern Prisoners Defense Committee in Georgia, Stevenson experienced his first meeting with a death row inmate. Feeling nervous and ill-equipped, Stevenson showed up for an hour appointment with Henry, prepared only to relay a brief message. Stevenson was not expecting to meet someone his own age, a young man he could have grown up with, played sports with, and sung in church with. After three hours of warm conversation, their meeting came to an abrupt close. Henry was roughly led away in shackles and Stevenson was left with an altered “understanding of human potential, redemption, and hopefulness.”[1] Stevenson reflects on this encounter with Henry, writing:

“I had come into the prison with anxiety and fear about his willingness to tolerate my inadequacy. I didn’t expect him to be compassionate or generous. I had no right to expect anything from a condemned man on death row. Yet he gave me an astonishing measure of his humanity.”

This increased level of proximity to the life of a death row inmate proved to be a defining moment in Stevenson’s education. Interacting with Henry’s humanity and gaining an intimate perspective of his need became the starting point of Stevenson’s journey in understanding justice and mercy.

Released at the start of this new decade, Just Mercy is a stark reminder that the remnants of the past do not just linger as ghosts in today’s world, but color the very fiber of our society. Just Mercy highlights the beginning of Bryan Stevenson’s career providing services to death row inmates in Alabama, and the foundation of the EJI. Through the case of Walter McMillian—a black man wrongfully convicted and placed on death row for the murder of a white girl—the injustice, racism, and prejudice towards poverty which plague the United States Justice system rise to the surface. Emancipated in 1993, only 25 years ago, McMillian’s story on screen becomes a case study of the issues EJI still fights against today.

But there is risk in allowing Just Mercy to become a mere conversation piece. Hitting theatres in time for MLK Day, this film has the potential to be regarded as just another story which makes the majority feel uncomfortable and incriminated by the past, while the minorities say their amens. However, I think this film holds deeper possibility for Christians and the Church. Like Stevenson’s own experience, the narrative places the viewer in closer proximity to a concept commonly devalued—the doctrine of mercy. Trudging out of the popcorn littered theatre, I wondered, do we even believe in mercy?

Michael B. Jordan as Bryan Stevenson and Jamie Foxx as Walter McMillian // Warner Bros. Pictures

God’s mercy is showcased throughout scripture. Mercy, also translated compassion, is a quality God attributes to himself when speaking to Moses in the book of Exodus, stating: “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth.”[2] Mercy was a baseline God set for relating to his people, underscoring that they would fail on their end of the covenant but he would never fail.[3] Mercy informed David’s understanding of and relation to God as he cried out for compassion when he murdered Uriah and lost his son.[4] God also displayed mercy towards those outside his covenant, such as the gentile Ninevites. It is God’s very character of mercy which angered Jonah  when he saw God extend this mercy to the repentant people of Nineveh.[5] This attribute continues through scripture, being the foundation of the redemption of people to God and the formation of the Church. Paul explains to believers in Ephesus: “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).”[6] Throughout salvation history the mercy of God towards humanity is the precedent.

While mercy proves to be a doctrine intrinsic to salvation, our presence and practice as the Church within our communities and nation do not loudly echo of mercy. A lack of awareness of faulty government and social systems, misaligned priorities at the polls, and a lack of advocacy and action on behalf of society’s “lowest” might point to a doctrine of mercy that is more ideological than practical.  While watching actor Michael B. Jordan, portraying Stevenson, grow in compassion for individuals who have perpetrated great wrong, my own heart was humbled.  Many of us, like Simon, have been forgiven little.

In Luke 7, Jesus is invited to dinner at the home of Simon, a religious leader. In the middle of this dinner a woman arrives—a woman known in the community for her sin. She has a reputation. She is known for her worst thing. It is this woman who gives Jesus a grand welcome, breaking an expensive vial of perfume to anoint his feet. Astonished, Simon and his friends are critical, taken aback by this woman’s presence in the home and her unexpected display of care for Christ. To rebuke the unspoken critique, Jesus addresses Simon by sharing a story, and concludes: “For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.”[7] In our biblical theology of mercy here lies a living example of the just mercy which Stevenson champions. Mercy begins with relationship—us choosing to interact with and see the humanity of another person. Mercy is extended as undeserved favor. This is the example of Christ.

Just Mercy film // Warner Bros. Pictures

Just Mercy asks our nation to consider the mercy and its absence in our systems of justice. I believe for the church in the US, Just Mercy asks us to reconsider our doctrine of mercy and test if it is merely ideological. Stevenson states in the close of the film, “We can’t change the world with an idea in our heads, we need conviction in our hearts.” This conviction moves us to act, to display mercy as Christ did to the woman who washed his feet, as God has always done for his people throughout time.

At World Outspoken we seek to equip the Church to make culture. It’s easy to spot the flaws in our communities, but not so easy to evoke the change our communities groan for. This is why we don’t seek to change culture, but make culture from the ground up, reinventing systems of thinking, and systems of doing and creating, which lead to the advancement of God’s kingdom on earth. Correct thinking leads to correct doing, but first we start with correct belief, belief that translates into conviction to act. Do we believe a robust doctrine of mercy, or do we look with critical eyes at those to whom God extends forgiveness? Bryan Stevenson says, “Each of us is more than the worst thing we have ever done.”[8] A three-hour conversation began Stevenson’s journey to this conviction. I am curious what increase in proximity needs to happen in my own life to change my perspective. And I wonder the same for you.

Learn More

To learn more about mass incarceration, the Word Outspoken team suggests these resources:

• Just Mercy: Take a deeper look at Bryan Stevenson’s journey of justice in his autobiography.

• Visit the Equal Justice Initiative: We visited their monuments in Montgomery. Read our review of their monuments here.

• Ear Hustle Podcast: Hear about the daily realities of those inside the US prison system.

• LIVE FREE: Our friends at Live Free Campaign are working to end the scourges of gun violence, mass incarceration, and the criminalization of Black and Brown bodies. They are mobilizing people of faith to be on the front lines addressing mass incarceration and gun violence.

---

About Emily C. Alexander

A first generation college graduate of a rural working class family, Emily C. Alexander recently completed her undergraduate degree in Ministry to Women at the Moody Bible Institute. Emily lives in Chicago where she enjoys long walks admiring architecture and pondering theological and sociological issues. Her hope is to impact the lives of women and the flourishing of the church through thoughtful theological engagement.

---

Footnotes

[1] Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson, Spiegel & Grau, 2014. Pg. 12.

[2] Exodus 34.6-7, NASB

[3] Deuteronomy 4.31

[4] Psalm 51.1-2

[5] Jonah 4.2

[6] Ephesians 2.4-5

[7] Luke 7.47 NASB

[8] Stevenson, 17-18

Where Do I Belong? Reflections on How Education Changes Identity

“The pride of the laborer is gritty and unbelieving,

Binding the greatest thinker forever to a chain of insignificance,

The shrewdest business tycoon to a ladder of gold and glint,

Never thinking the self-made man needn’t always use his hands.””

— Emily A.

“‘It has never occurred to you,’ he said, ‘that you might have as much right to be here as anyone.’”[i] Why would Tara Westover believe she had a right to roam the illustrious halls of Cambridge? The youngest daughter of a large conservative Mormon family from the Idaho mountains, Tara was not a poster child for academic prodigy. Her homeschool education involved more hours working in her father’s junkyard and preparing her mother’s herbal tinctures than reading, writing, math or science. Yet there she was, studying abroad at Cambridge as an undergraduate student with Brigham Young University, defying fate and intriguing her faculty mentor with her intellect. All the while feeling that she didn’t quite belong.

In her recently published memoir, Educated, Tara Westover welcomes the reader into her not-so-common upbringing and the journey which proceeded from it. Numerous themes arise in Westover’s story, marking her life with complexity.[ii] This article focuses specifically on Westover’s experience entering the world of higher education from a working-class family. Higher education can be perceived negatively in working class communities. Urban and rural, majority and minority communities sense the impact of class shift through education. Rural flight is a cause for concern, as college graduates from rural communities seek to build lives in suburban and urban centers. With new perspectives on the world and faith, first generation minority graduates experience cultural dissonance when returning home. Westover’s memoir gives voice to the feelings and challenges of these individuals, offering insight for the communities we make and minister to.

During Westover’s junior year of her undergraduate degree she forged a relationship with Jewish history professor, Dr. Kerry. It was Dr. Kerry who tapped into Westover’s greatest internal battle—belonging. Dr. Kerry observes and identifies insecurity fueled by self-doubt in Westover: “You act like someone who is impersonating someone else. And it’s as if you think your life depends on it.”[iii] This question of belonging is not unique to Westover’s experience, but rather a common thread among first generation students of the working class. These students are stepping into a middle ground, a kind of “no man’s land” between classes. In Transition to the Academy: The Influence of Working-Class Culture for First-Generation Students, LaDonna L. Bridges shares theories of socialization when defining the differing value systems of the working and middle class. Bridges explains that habitus is a set of learned dispositions that children derive from their parents, which strongly influence how the child will interact with social and cultural connections and opportunities.[iv] For instance, middle class parents tend to parent their children in such a way that values self-control, consideration of others, curiosity and happiness. In contrast , working class parents often emphasize that children to be obedient, well-mannered and good students.[v] Culture and locality aside, class alone (a topic which Bridges argues is not openly discussed in America) significantly defines an individual’s access to opportunity.[vi] This brief look at differences between middle and working class reveals a first generation college student is wading into a system run on a different set of values than those on which they were raised.

In fact, even how these students view education likely differs from their middle-class peers. In his article, “The Danger of Telling Poor Kids College Is the Key to Social Mobility,” Andrew Simmons points out that low-income minority students are sold education as a means to financial security and opportunity. While not necessarily ill-intended, it is a message that deemphasizes “the intellectual benefits of higher education.”[vii] As Simmons states it is “a message that intellectual curiosity plays second fiddle to financial security.”[viii]  Simmons even suggests that minority students are being taught by the system to fill their place in society rather than ascend class divides, stating: “Some students learn to take orders and others learn to chart a course of action and delegate responsibility. School can either perpetuate inequity through social reproduction or have a transformative effect and help students transcend it.”[ix] This is essentially a catch-22, for as Westover explains in her story: “Curiosity is a luxury reserved for the financially secure.”[x] This working class view, most often bent on industry and survival, devalues the pursuit of education for the sake of intellectual growth. For those first generation students who graduate, take new opportunities, or make the jump to middle class, this value of the intellect may come to be the greatest point of dissonance they experience.

First generation, working class graduates live in what Bridges calls a “bifurcated existence,” torn between two classes and sets of values.[xi] Carried through the challenges of college by the very work ethic which molds their identity, these individuals now experience feelings of otherness when returning home. It is the classic scene of Christmas dinner, when asked by a curious relative what he is actually learning in college. Hesitant at first, the student mentions their favorite history class, cheeks glowing, eyes lighting up, until Uncle John loses interest and turns to Pops to discuss the newest piece of machinery on the job. Unfortunately, Uncle John is probably thinking he’s lost his nephew to the books, not realizing the gain the social capital of education could bring to their community.

Yet neither do these individuals fully belong in the middle class. Justin Quarry identifies the emotion of shame some feel with regard to their working-class background. In “Coming Out As Working Class” Quarry explains his own struggle as a working class college student and his current professorship at Vanderbilt. Interestingly, it is Quarry’s working class identity which he feels most vulnerable sharing with others, particularly his colleagues in higher education. Quarry believes working class individuals are underrepresented in academia. Imagining that he had someone like himself to encourage him in high school, Quarry muses: “Don’t worry, I’d say, you’re good enough. Don’t worry, there’s financial aid. Don’t worry, I’d reassure her, you’ll belong.”[xii]

I can echo to the working-class student, “You’ll belong.” While the unfortunate feeling of being an imposter[xiii] may always linger, one does eventually find their place on the other side. But is there room for the first-generation college graduate in their home community? As a recent graduate of a working-class home this question haunts me as I look to the future. How can I give back to a community which values hands over head? How can I be an asset without becoming a threat to a long held system of values? The Church must also wrestle with these questions.  I search the New Testament and see a church marked by socio-economic and class disparity yet gathered to share in the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper. I see a body, that need not be bifurcated, but enriched by the duality of the intellect and the work ethic.

Bridges proposes that first generation, working class college students and graduates are in a transition process of “meaning making.”[xiv] In the meantime, I believe the rest of us can be about space making. Rather than fearing loss or change, working class communities can capitalize on the goodness and growth first generation graduates offer. Church leaders can endeavor to utilize the teaching abilities of those who return. Businesses and ministries can seek funding to create full-time positions, empowering a minority to return to work in their own neighborhood. Family members can listen to historical anecdotes or new political perspectives. Sadly, space was not made for Tara Westover in the mountains of Idaho. But her personal journey extends an invitation to the rest of us. An invitation to welcome the educated home.

About Emily C. Alexander

A first generation college graduate of a rural working class family, Emily C. Alexander recently completed her undergraduate degree in Ministry to Women at the Moody Bible Institute. Emily lives in Chicago where she enjoys long walks admiring architecture and pondering theological and sociological issues. Her hope is to impact the lives of women and the flourishing of the church through thoughtful theological engagement.

---

 Footnotes

[i] Westover, 242

[ii] As mentioned, many themes run through Westover’s story, her pursuit of higher education simply being one. This article in no way intends to diminish the other dynamics which shaped Westover’s life and personhood. We encourage you to read Educated for yourself to gain a fuller picture of Westover’s journey.

[iii] Westover, 242.

[iv] Bridges, 41-42.

[v] Bridges, 41-42.

[vi] Bridges 24, 38.

[vii] Simmons.

[viii] Simmons.

[ix] Simmons.

[x] Westover, 203.

[xi] Bridges, 4.

[xii] Quarry.

[xiii] Bridges, 6.

[xiv] Bridges, 16-18.

***Authors Note: For those interested in further reading, I highly recommend Bridges dissertation. Bridges frames the conversation well, and her research may prove to be a helpful resource for ministry leaders who are seeking to understand this issue.

Seeking Understanding PT. 2

“We were Jesus save me, blue jean baby
Born in the USA
Trailer park truck stop, faded little map dots
New York to LA
We were teenage dreamin’, front seat leanin’
Baby, come give me a kiss
Put me on the cover of the Rolling Stone
Uptown down home American kids
Growin’ up in little pink houses
Makin’ out on living room couches
Blowin’ that smoke on Saturday night
A little messed up, but we’re all alright””

— American Kids, Kenny Chesney

Country music is a staple of rural America. Playing quietly in every grocery store, blaring in the slowly passing truck on main street, or enjoyed at local festivals, it is absorbed subconsciously if not by choice.  In “Seeking Understanding,” I welcomed WOS readers into my rural American upbringing and its impact on my experience of urban communities. Country music is a significant piece of this upbringing. A piece, that once trading my dirt roads for the streets of Chicago, I realized played a key role in the shaping of my cultural identity and understanding of nationalism.

As the title suggests, this column is dedicated to “seeking understanding, “a theological and cultural posture for the furtherance of the gospel and the unity of people through the overcoming of divides. Divides—rural and urban, racial, socio-economic, or denominational—run deep. As deep as the art of a community and culture—perpetuated quietly in the background, blared on the streets, or danced to at festivals. As faithful Christians seek to make and engage culture in communities throughout America, it is the subtle yet influential messages of cultural art that must be analyzed and unpacked for self-growth and the breakdown of misunderstanding. Not to be taken as a critique of country music as a genre, the following analysis hopes to point out specifically how country music, as an element of rural American culture, shapes a specific understanding of the American identity.

 American Kids, country music star Kenny Chesney’s 2014 hit, seems to capture the essence of an American childhood. Blue jeans, road trips, school buses, ball practice and nominal Christianity. The lyrics are general, welcoming the listener into a broad, if not generic definition of what is means to be an American kid. Additionally, a reminiscent, reflecting voice is used. Both these components are common to nationalistic songs within the country music genre, as seen in Rodney Atkins’ “It’s America” which speaks fondly of lemonade stands and Chevys comprising the American experience. The words themselves, familiar and endearing, placed to what Chesney describes as a “fun” tune,[i] may not initially inform the listener of any distinct cultural identity being portrayed, but the music video takes the cultural implications further. A colorful bus is cast against a desert backdrop, possibly reminding the viewer of the carefree spirit of the 1970’s.[ii] There is guitar jamming, creek wading, and an American flag flying. And there are lots of happy faces. White faces.

While seeming to promote an inclusive and welcoming understanding of American identity through its generality, Chesney’s song and others of its kind, weave a narrative exclusive of some of its rural own. The US Census Bureau estimated in 2018 that Shenandoah County, Virginia is 7.3% Hispanic or Latino.[iii] Of the entire state’s population, Hispanic or Latinos are 9.3%.[iv] Interestingly, these numbers are similar to those of Memphis (7%)[v] and Nashville (10.4%)[vi], country music centers of the US. Could possibly one face in the American Kids music video represent the children I grew up with in the candy aisle of the grocery store? Aren’t they America’s kids too? It would seem in country music, there isn’t space for them, so a subtle form of nationalism is furthered within the popular music of rural America.

Another art form brings this faulty cultural perspective to task. Lynn Nottage’s Pulitzer Prize winning stage play Sweat, appeared at Goodman’s Albert Theatre in Chicago March 9th- April 21st, 2019. Looking at the lives of Reading, Pennsylvania steel mill workers, Nottage brilliantly unfolds the complexity of the human experience in Trump’s America, providing a case study for communities throughout the United States. Sweat opens with sound bites of news clips and speeches setting the audience into the early 2000’s, suggesting the theme “we need to redeem America.” The context of this need for redemption unfolds in the local bar, the main set of the play. Here co-workers and friends from the steel mill linger, processing their lives as blue collar workers, celebrating success, analyzing the past, and dreaming for the future. As a promotion opportunity surfaces and the economy spirals, relationships falter, ending in tragedy and seemingly irreparable misunderstanding.

In contrast to Chesney’s hit, Nottage’s play is in no way generic, but rather storied. Mill worker Tracey’s story effectively reaches the heart of the white middle class in the audience. A self-made individual, coming from a legacy American family, with a great-granddaddy that was a craftsman, Nottage taps into the pride of the Caucasian American through Tracey’s identity, an identity which is shaken when her job security is removed.  Next, Nottage delves into the narrative of the black working class in the life of Tracy’s closest friend, Cynthia. She faces several challenges herself: the challenge of earning her way into the union, the fight to provide her child with the opportunity of higher education, and the perseverance through mistreatment, even from her closest white friends. Finally, Nottage welcomes the audience into the life of the Latino via bar worker Oscar. Unnoticed by the community, yet working devotedly within the community, Oscar, seeks a better, happier life, just like the white and black factory workers. All three groups are pursuing their own American dream.

Nottage expresses in her art a community that is not limited, but complex. Sweat gives faces and personalities to the individuals in its community, embodying the American story as one unique to the individual yet marked by the commonality of human ambition, hope, and pain. This skill is not unknown to the country music genre. As Dolly Parton croons about her “Coat of Many Colors,” a story unfolds of a mother and daughter, of poverty, pride, and faith. But recording artists need new hits. And so what follows are songs like American Kids. An inadequate form of storytelling which continues to shape thinking, leaving products of rural culture bereft of a truly inclusive form of American patriotism.

What if country music presented a holistic perspective of what is means to be American? One that includes the Spanish speaking neighbor who drives a Chevy, the Asian family that runs the local buffet, and the Hindi man who recently bought the gas station. What if the next great country hit, was a bit more honest? For some, that may be too much to ask. But as culture makers and culture consumers, with eyes set on furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ, creating and engaging more storied and complex art cannot be a question. It must be practiced, so that as the next generation of rural teens head to the city for college, they are equipped with practical culture awareness. Or, as the elder generation leading the church struggles with political and multi-cultural issues, there is a launching point for constructive dialogue. If believers are to engage with America as it is, the art we make and use must wrestle with complexities.

July 4th found me proud to be an American. A perfect sunny day, I took the bus to a friend’s cookout, head bobbing and feet tapping to the “Patriotic Country” playlist blaring in my headphones. The son of Mexican immigrants, Manny[i] could have been one of those kids in the candy aisle of the grocery store when I was young. His dad grills the best arachera and his mom’s hospitality continually astounds me. The only disappointment of the evening were the conversations I missed because I don’t speak Spanish. But that didn’t really matter. Caucasians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, and multiracial individuals, we gathered as friends—laughing, shrieking, and celebrating as the fireworks boomed.  These are my people. This is my country. We are all American kids.

About Emily C. Alexander

A first generation college graduate of a rural working class family, Emily C. Alexander recently completed her undergraduate degree in Ministry to Women at the Moody Bible Institute. Emily lives in Chicago where she enjoys long walks admiring architecture and pondering theological and sociological issues. Her hope is to impact the lives of women and the flourishing of the church through thoughtful theological engagement.

---

Footnotes

[i] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/kenny-chesney-drops-american-kids-video-declares-the-big-revival-63425/

[ii] https://tasteofcountry.com/kenny-chesney-american-kids-lyrics/

[iii] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/shenandoahcountyvirginia

[iv] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/rockinghamcountyvirginia,VA/PST045218

[v] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/memphiscitytennessee,houstoncitytexas/PST045218

[vi] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/nashvilledavidsonbalancetennessee/IPE120217

[i] Name changed for privacy.