Bowing

U.S. President Barack Obama bows as he is greeted by Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko as he arrives at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009.
———–AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

—————————————————————————————————–

What I love about this picture is the respect and symbolism that is here.

Although folks are upset about Obama bowing to the Japanese Emperor, he was showing a sign of respect. Some commentators have argued that Obama did not bow to the Queen of England. But that was because Obama greeted her in what was a culturally proper manner; he gave her a slight, respectful gesture. In this case Obama greeted the Japanese Emperor in a completely acceptable manner, he was formal and respectful. Obama was stepping on Japanese territory, it wasn’t up to him to dictate the way that he greeted the Emperor. Even, if this meeting was in the United States, the humility to be hospitable to the presence of someone from a different culture and point of view is a valued and important quality.

There is some great symbolism in this photo.

First, I love that they are shaking hands and bowing. This is multiculturalism in action. It is the West meets East in a beautiful way that integrates and values both American and Japanese culture. I also love seeing this because  it occurs when I visit my in-laws; I simultaneously shake hands and bow with my wife’s grandfather.

Second, and more importantly,  there is the issue of humility. Bowing innately represents the lowing of one’s self. It is submissive.  It is easy for me as a Westerner to see humility, lowering and submission  as negative traits, but biblically these are beautiful things.  They are not signs of weakness, but strength. These actions acknowledge that it is not necessary to try to reaffirm one’s power, it is not necessary to try to assert power and it is not necessary to be domineering. These traits show strength comes by understanding one’s self so well – for the Christian this means understanding one’s identity in Christ – that it is not necessary to flaunt power or control. It takes a strong and confident person to bow, to lead by putting one’s self literally and symbolically underneath another.

God in a Box?

Recently I have been wondering about the personhood and magnitude of God and a question came to my mind. In our attempts to “not put God in a box” we are actually still trying to put our own attributes or desire of God on God? Is it that we really believe in a transcendent God who is beyond our imagination and human conception or do we want God to be out of the box so that we can feel as if we have the liberty to do whatever we want to do? Or is an “our of the box God” one that we use to comfort us when things go wrong – thus trying to escape acknowledging that this world has fallen from what it was created to be and that we – in Christ – have a role in pursing the redemption and reconciliation of the world?

What if God really is “in a box”? Even if one of His own creation and desire? If God is omnipotent - all powerful - , yet He limits himself and chooses to do things in certain ways (i.e. redeeming the world through a Messiah, Jesus), can we then assume that God is boxing himself in? At least in his interaction with us – his creation? This does not have to be negative; God is interacting with us in the way we need to be interacted with. Just because he is limiting himself doesn’t mean that He is a limited being.

Thoughts?

The Hope of a Hebraic-Jewish Jesus

What does it mean to have images of a White Jesus, Asian Jesus etc.?

Most of the time we don’t really think about how we depict Jesus, but perhaps it is important that we think of it with more intent.

Historically a depiction of a white, western European looking Jesus has been the most prominent. Arthur Maxwell’s “The Bible Story” and the Hanna-Barbera video series “The Greatest Adventure Stories from the Bible” are two examples of how mainstream Evangelical Christianity has made Jesus white. But incorrect ethnic depictions of a “black” Jesus can be seen in the Ethiopian Orthodox church, and South American Christians have utilized a Latino Jesus.

We unfortunately create Jesus in our own image. So who was Jesus?

Jewish as a Hebraic Jew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his earthly mother, Mary, and his earthly father, Joseph, were from the northern parts of Galilee. Jesus would not have been white; he would have been olive-skinned. The closest thing in our day and age would be Middle Eastern Arabs or Middle Eastern ethnic Jews.

Jesus would have looked like a multi-ethnic Jew. He would have most likely had Jewish traits, a prominent nose and jaw, and dark hair, but he would have most likely also had traits and blood from various ethnic and cultural lines (look at the inclusion of Ruth (a Moabite), Rahab (a Canaanite), and others in Jesus’ genealogy). Additionally, as the son of a carpenter and a young man who trained in carpentry, we can deduce that Jesus was probably tanned by the sun and at least in decent shape. Archeologist put pieces of history together and actually deduced that Jesus maybe looked similar to this . . .

Why do we create in our own image?

Generally, I believe we depict Jesus in our own image because we are ethnocentric and prideful. We want to normalize and validate our own race, ethnicity, and/or history. Some times that comes with elements of power. Although it isn’t a comfortable reality, a white Jesus normalizes Christianity as a “white man’s religion.” Historically, within the American context this has been painstakingly true. Native-Americans/First Nationers, Black Americans, and Asian-Americans have struggled with the possibility of Christianity, partly because it meant that they would have to follow a “white man.” Obviously, folks within these groups became and are Christians nonetheless, but Christianity’s presentation of Jesus was incorrect and a hindrance for many.

But this is not a “white issue.” It is a Christian issue. A lot happens when we create Jesus in our own image. We have Aryan depictions which fueled Nazi Germany & the KKK, We have Black depictions that form an Afro-centric/Black Power Christianity. We have European depictions that encouraged the Crusades. We have Latino depictions that lead South Americans to violence. Having a Jesus that looks like us makes us – even if not consciously – feel entitled to view our expression of faith as true, sometimes despite the unbiblical reality of our expression.

* I must establish that rich art is something different than normal depiction. For example, the artistic depiction of Jesus as an African-American slave says something much more than Jesus is Black. In fact, it doesn’t say that at all. It says that Jesus can identify with the suffering of Black slaves in the United States and suffering as a whole. To depict Jesus as an Italian immigrant can speak of Jesus’ extraterrestrial alienation in this world. It is not art that is of our concern. In fact, Jesus art should be celebrated. We run into trouble when we normalize the race and ethnicity of Jesus to our own presuppositions rather than truth.

Does it matter what Jesus looks like?

Some say that Jesus’ physical appearance doesn’t matter, that it is superficial, but that isn’t reality. Jesus’ social environment was impacted by his culture and his appearance. Jesus was a Jew. That means people treated him like a Jew.

We have a temptation to want to be nice and color-blind or ethnic-blind (probably a better fit, but not as catchy). We wish we didn’t see difference, but that again isn’t reality. I am black, specifically African-American. To assume that my ethnicity hasn’t shaped my perception of the world and the world’s response to me is preposterous. My African-American”ness” doesn’t ultimately define me, but it is a part of who I am and who God made me. Maybe you are European-American, maybe you are Kenyan, maybe you are Black Jamaican, maybe you are Chinese-American, etc. Whatever ethnicity/race you are does not define you, but it is a part of your definition.

Jesus’ jewish”ness” connected him with humanity, with a people who had suffered, who had ruled, who had been in favor with God, and who had felt the hand of God.

Jesus dealt with – in neither an explicitly positive or negative way – being a Jew in a Roman land, being officially a bastard (lest we forget although Mary and Joseph were pregnant before they were married, even though we understand the work of the Holy Spirit impregnating Mary – try selling that to a whole society), a lower/middle class individual, a carpenter’s son, a brother, a Nazarene (thus, not from a “good” part of the middle-east), being most-likely tri-lingual (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic), and being connected to a Hebrew ethnicity and history. His ultimate identity was the son of God, but he had many identities, one of which was his race/ethnicity.

So what?

So what do we do with depictions of Jesus? That is the hard question. I don’t know if there is a 5-step plan or that I can give a 5 point sermon about it. But here are some simple thoughts.

1- Internally and Externally acknowledge that Jesus was an Arab, Hebraic Jew

2- Confront incorrect -non Artistic – depictions of Jesus

3- Realize that artistic depictions of Jesus are not suppose to create an image of Jesus as a human, but as the Messiah (e.g. Black Jesus relating with liberation from American slavery equates with Jesus liberating us from the slavery of sin)

4- Understand how incorrect images tied with power (KKK, Nazi Germany) distorts the Gospel and is a hindrance to others.

The hope of a Hebraic-Jewish Jesus.

Seeing Jesus as Jewish liberates us from power plays. We all, despite our current ethnicity/race, most identify with the lineage, history, and stories of the ancient Hebrews. If “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22), we must realize the depth of understanding. God worked within the Hebraic context in the Old Testament, but Jesus widened the perspective, it was no longer necessary to specifically join this people group. What Jesus brought was a multi-cultural expansion to where and to whom God would work. The Kingdom of God became open to all who wished to enter and was historically tied, but not bound to the Hebrew people.

In many ways this is obvious. If we as Christians weren’t supposed to connect to the Hebrew people, what is the point of the Old Testament? Yes, there are prophetic allusions to the Christ and we have a broad understanding of who God is by reading the Old Testament. But God could have simply placed the remnant of all those things within various cultures without having us follow a unified grand-narrative (I argue that he did give us pieces to look at in various cultures). But God pinpointed a certain people group to work through. Through their ethnicity and history we read the Old Testament and connect, in part because we are, too, God’s people. Like Ruth said to Naomi, we say to Jesus, the Christ, “your people shall be my people and your God my God.”

This was originally posted on the MOSAIC website of Huntington University

Soda and the Health of a Nation

- watch the video before you read the comments -

The video is referring to the obesity tax suggested by NY Governor David Paterson .NPR also recently posted a segment about a Soda Tax.

The BIG issue that I can see is that sometimes we get dependent on taxes – like we have with tobacco. Why can’t we just make cigarettes illegal? Well, we are making a bundle in tax revenue. NJ makes $2.57.5 and RI makes $2.56 per pack.

What is possible is to utilize the taxation to limit usage but not factor the tax money in normal state budgets. Tax money can be utilized to run special programs or to supplement under-funded projects. But they would not be a primary source of revenue. That keeps us from being dependent on people drinking soda and sugary “fruit juices” so that we can have their tax money. While this is occurring and people are weaning off of sugar we can work to further regulate the contents of soda and fruit drinks.

I also wonder if the tax will actually cause people to change their behavior? I would think that the tax would have to be somewhat significant in order to change people’s thoughts and beliefs.

I know an opposition to this tax would be that it doesn’t have the same effect as smoking does, especially second hand smoking. But I would argue that it does. Although smoking causes the most deaths and health problems, obesity is second on the list (15.2% of Preventable deaths are because of obesity/overweight). Childhood obesity has also dramatically increase in the past years.  Additionally, health care costs go up for all when doctors and hospitals have to worry about obesity. This will become even more an issue if we head towards a universal(ish) health care system

This is by no means a silver bullet. Americans have to choose not to pay the extra money for the new taxed soda. Additionally, Americans have to make familial and personal health choices not to drink Soda to the degree that we do.

I personally, believe that we need further regulations on what food is approved by the FDA, but also realize that change comes slow and often within a process. But if we can work out a plan to tax Soda as a bridge to greater regulation of soda and sugary beverages then go for it.

Interracial Injustice

What is this 1967?

A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

. . . Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

. . .  Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

Read more

This article simple astounded me, not solely because of the interracial marriage issue but because of the nuances and details of the issue.

One the one hand, we have a loving man and woman who want to get married. This is the story of millions of individuals and additionally many interracial couples – I was included in this when I was married.  This couple must have simply been blindsided.  When I was in high school I dated a girl who was euro-American (white) and her step-father had some issues with our relationship,  a couple years ago when I was married to my wife Alyssa there were some minor issues with my wife’s – who is Taiwnese-American – family. But those were unfortunately expected.

What occurred in Louisiana couldn’t have been expected. A governmental agent said “no”. Although he qualified and says that “I didn’t tell this couple they couldn’t get married. I just told them I wouldn’t do it” he is basically thwarting the law. Somehow he has been able to let his personal preference to usurp law.  This situation is simply ridiculous, but what do we take from this, what insight does it give us?

1. Mis-conception of interracial difficulty -

It is interesting that the justice of the peace mentioned the difficulty of the children. This is an age old argument against interracial marriage. It is predicated on assuming that difficulty – if present – is a bad thing and that difficulty will occur in the first place. And although this was a white man saying this – which includes issues of power/history etc. – this sentiment is held by those of all races who oppose interracial marriage.  But this is somewhat of a straw man argument.  Few, is any, proponents of interracial marriage hinge and argument on the difficulty or lack of difficulty in an interracial relationship. Most individuals who enter into interracial marriages are quite aware of the societal push backs (i.e. my wife and I know that groups of black women and groups of Asian men are prone to stare, un-lovingly, at us ). The assumption that someone is protecting the children by opposing interracial marriage is pretty naive , especially given the emergence of multi-racial figure such as Obama, Tiger Woods, Heinz Ward, Jessica Alba, Keanu Reeves etc. Futhurmore it is patronizing and suggest that those getting married don’t care about their children. Again, this is not a white issue it is an issue for folks in various cultures and racial backgrounds.

2. White American individualism -

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

There is no better example than this. First, the comment that he is not racist. There is a difference between being a racist and doing something racist. And this was the latter. I don’t know this man, he may not be a person who is wholly racist, but this act was racist. He and we as a society must address that. Second, claiming that “I have black friends”. This is often a way that white individuals push back. White Americans often  individualize (Divided By Faith). This issue of race, including interracial marriage, is not solely a person to person issue it is a societal issue as well. Individualizing it devalues the societal impacts. It is a both/and nor either/or issue.

3. The importance of slowing assumptions -

I can read this ans assume that this justice of the peace doesn’t like Black people. I can even read into his defense and understand the context of where he is living and assume he has issues with Black folk.

But that would be wrong of me.

This man probably spoke reality when he said folks in BOTH Black and white communities wouldn’t be accepting; in Louisiana – in many states – many from both groups may have issues.  His folly was not having some concern – though he should have kept it to himself – but it was in refusing to marry the couple and various others in the past.  We have to take this issue at that level. No more and no less.