Instead of Offense, Lament: How one believing Christian is responding to Obama’s Prayer Breakfast speech

Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R) just declared me offended. In response to President Obama’s comments about the presence of religious extremism and violence in Christianity as well as Islam, Gilmore declared that, “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States.”

I consider myself a believing Christian, but I did not find myself becoming offended. Instead, I felt the deep need to lament.

I need to lament the ways my faith has been used to justify oppression; lament the ways my country has failed to live up to its highest ideals; lament the fear and pain so many have felt in this country at the hands of people who said they were acting in the name of Jesus.

Of course, Christianity has also been part of wonderful things (abolition, civil rights, development and charity around the world), and, as a Christian, I will wholeheartedly say that those who used the Bible and Christian teaching to justify slavery, racism, lynching, and other forms of terrorism, were really twisting our religion. I embrace what is reflective of our faith and reject its distortions. Just as so many are saying that about ISIS and Islam.

At the same time, I know that there were Christians offended by Obama’s remarks. One good friend of mind wrote on Facebook:

Friend: “I listened to Obama's speech and I was annoyed. Everyone wants to be politically correct and put all the religions on equal footing. Of course there have been abuses in Christian history but Obama has a tin ear for relating to evangelicals. I resent being implicitly compared to ISIS. The prayer breakfast is supposed to be a bridge building moment not a moment for the Christian religious community to be publically spanked for really old offenses.”

I replied and we got into a good back-and-forth on Facebook that another friend said she appreciated. She asked if I would post it on my blog, so here’s the somewhat-edited exchange I had with this friend. After her comment above, I answered:

ME: Personally, I think it is odd to say that you feel you're being compared to ISIS. You did not own slaves or support segregation or lynch people. He's saying that people claiming to be acting in Christ's name did these things, just as ISIS, claiming to be acting in the name of Allah, do horrible things. I see him comparing ISIS to lynch mobs and racists, neither of which I am (or you are.)

But if we're going to say that ISIS is somehow representative of Islam, then we need to be prepared to acknowledge lynchmobs and segregationists as representative of Christianity. I think most of us are quick to say, "But that's not real Christianity." Lynch mobs and segregationists did quote scripture and go to church, so we need to say they're doing it wrong, no matter what they say. But then some U.S. people are very comfortable saying that ISIS really is representative of Islam because they're quoting the Quran and being pious. And then we pull out Quranic verses to prove our point. Same as the KKK does to prove racism from the Bible.

Obama is just saying that we should be able to believe those millions of muslims who say ISIS is not Islam, if we also want to say that the KKK is not Christianity.

Friend: I wouldn't say ISIS is the true representation of Islam. But when Obama said, "Lest we get on our high horse..." I felt like he was addressing the room and contemporary Christians. (Maybe I'm wrong). Also if you're saying I didn't have anything to do with those old offenses perpetrated in the name of Christ, why should I need to lament? Ok- one more thing, I think that ALL religions should have equal freedoms under the law but I don't think they should all lumped together like they are the same thing.

Me: I think he was addressing the room, and putting himself along the Christians there ("Lest we…"). So he was offering a caution to think that the sort of horror done by ISIS could never be done by those claiming to be Christians.

Lament, however, is not the same as apology or repentance. I don't believe so much in the historical apology or giant cultural repentance, because I often think it's kind of phony. But I do believe in acknowledging with people when horrible things have happened - things that were done by people (so not the earthquake sort of tragedy) - that the proper Christian response is sorrow and sharing the pain of those who have suffered.

The Crusades are pretty remote, but there are families around today that lost grandfathers, uncles, grandmothers, sisters, etc. to lynch mobs. there are a LOT of people in our country who had their land, property, and dignity taken by people who claimed the Bible gave them the right to discriminate and oppress. I think as a Christian, the best thing I can do is acknowledge the pain and mourn with those who mourn.

So when Obama, or anyone, reminds us of our nation's legacy, the pain we've caused one another, I am called to lament, rather than try to defend those who did such things, or dismiss it as irrelevant. (Not that I'm saying you're doing either of those thing, but I've heard lots of outrage in the media that Obama brings these things up. I just think outrage is not the right response.)

Friend: I'm just saying that I feel like there is an impulse to talk about religions as if they are all equally peaceful or equally violent.

Me: As an anthropologist, I don't think we can say religions are "peaceful" or "violent." There's so much that could be (has been!) taken from the Bible to justify horrible violence. Do we say that's just "not Christianity?" I mean, Calvinists were pretty violent toward the Anabaptists (drowning them and the like.) And Luther said it was all right for the German princes to kill more than 100,000 peasants to crush a revolt that Luther partly inspired. I don't think we want to say Calvinists and Lutherans aren't Christians.

I think it's wrong, bad exegesis, and all the rest when people use the bible to do bad stuff, but it's still Christianity. Islam is a pretty diverse religion, with more adherents in Indonesia than any other country. There are the Sufis throughout the world (kind of like mystical monk types.) There are fundamentalist Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and Islamic Feminists in Egypt and a lot of other folks all over the place.

Karen Armstrong has recently published a book arguing that so-called religious violence is really always political. People just use religion to justify their cause. I'd have to think a bit more to see if I can think of exceptions, but I'm inclined to think she's right.

I will say, though, to your point about religions being the same, I totally agree. They're not the same. I don't think Obama was implying that, but some people do try to suggest that all religious are *actually* just saying the same thing in different ways. And that's just silly.

Epilogue

I don’t imagine the conversation is over, but that’s where it is for now. I’m glad to have friends who will engage, and personally glad to have a President who says things that are hard to hear. But whether we think his comments were made well, or in the right venue, or just the perfect thing, I hope Christians can agree that our faith is maligned not when someone points out historical events, but by those who have actually committed acts of hateful violence in the name of Christ. We can agree that it has happened in the past, and will likely happen in the future. And we can agree that whenever, and wherever it happens, we must join those who suffer in lament.

What are You Going to Do with That?

Dear Anthropology Students and Liberal Artsy-Folks of all Kinds,

Thanksgiving break is coming. For many of you, this means a delightful feast of turkey, prayers of thanksgiving shared around the table, and an unending, and seemingly incomprehensible conversation that goes like this:

Aunt Hilda: Anthropology? Is that dinosaurs?
Student: No, that would be paleontology. "Anthro" means people, so ANTHROpology is..
AH:  Do you go on digs?
S: No, that's "archaeology," which is part of anthro…
AH: [Now with conspicuous side-eye to the foolish parents who allowed such a major] So what are you going to DO with that?

There is it.

"What are you going to do with that?"  Bring on the McDonald's-themed "Do you want fries with that?" liberal arts jokes.  Commence sad head shakes and worried adults-who-know-the-world expressions. No, I'm not going to be a college professor.  No, I don't have a business minor to "fall back on."  Yes, the job market is scary but not because I'm majoring in anthropology; it's because wealth inequalities have ruined the economy and limit opportunities in the middle class. [OK, leave out that last one unless you want a Thanksgiving food fight to break out with your uncle passing out the pumpkin pie.]

There are a lot of ways to answer this question about what you're going to do with your liberal arts education.  Good, thoughtful answers about the relevance of liberal arts skills to the wider job market.  Good responses based on the sorts of things anthropology majors learn to do and ways they learn to think that allow them to address the most commonly sought-after abilities named by employers.

But let's be honest: you rarely get to these thoughtful discussions. Most people - people who love you and just want to know you won't be living in a van down by the river - want to know what job you are being groomed to land in that month following graduation.

The problem is most of you don't know what job you want yet, and, unless you're a second-semester senior, you haven't thought too much about it. (For the record, you should start thinking a bit more specifically now. Come by my office hours. We'll talk.)

So given that you don't have your ten year plan worked out yet, here's the answer I recommend. When Aunt Hilda asks "What are you going to DO with that?", you get a kind of wistful look on your face and say, "I haven't decided yet.  There are so many options that I'm still trying to narrow down the choices."

Because it's true. You just haven't decided yet.

It's hard to pick a job if you're not actually in the job market.   What I have heard from many students - anthropology majors, biology majors, piano performance majors - is that their first job or two reveals a lot of things they couldn't see this side of graduation. They figured out how importance geography was.  Others discovered how much schedule, flexibility, or camaraderie meant in their job. Still others figured out what they needed (or didn't need) in a salary (see "geography" above). All these are very difficult criteria to measure out before actually having a full-time job and living life on your own.

So what should you be doing now before you get those first few jobs?

Talk to people with jobs. Network with alumni, parents' friends, friends' parents' friends, and anyone else living on their own with a job. Do an internship to see some work-a-day life in person (but don't expect that this is really like having a full-time job.) Study abroad in a way that helps you experience life as a grown-up-type person.  If you're in college now, take advantage of the mock interviews, job fairs, and career center activities early in your time in college to help you visualize various possibilities. Recognize that this won't always provide clarity - it might muddy the waters - but it will help you discover options out there.

What are the options for an anthropology major? Pretty much the same as the history major, English major, biology major, and international relations major.  You're going to figure out what is important to you in your work life, and you're going to work towards a job that meets those criteria. You'll likely need further education; most careers today have built in limits if you don't have a master's degree, or professional credential of some sort. You'll change jobs. Perhaps a lot. Some jobs will satisfy few of your criteria, but you'll gain skills and contacts that move you further along. Most of all, you'll make decisions about what you're good at, what you love, where you want to live, how important proximity to family is, and which opportunities you should take.

So, what are you going to do with that?

You're going to make some decisions.

But not just yet. Please pass the potatoes, Aunt Hilda. We're hungry.

How to Make a Better Cop: Hire Liberal Arts Graduates

Two nights ago I sat riveted and horrified by the LiveFeed coming out of Ferguson, MO.  Police advanced like shock troops against protesting citizens and journalists doing their jobs.  For days, no one in the police department of St. Louis County seemed to have any idea what to do except bring out heavier and more intimidating equipment.

Facts have emerged about the Ferguson cops that make some of this conflict more understandable – e.g., only 5 of the 53 officers serving the mostly-black suburb are black. But I also wondered how these officers view the situation. How did their leadership (mis)understand what was going on?

My colleague in the Sociology and Anthropology department here at Wheaton College has studied crime and race for many years.  In a brief conversation, he noted reports from 1968 (40 years ago!) produced after major American riots explaining the relationship of political disenfranchisement and violence. He talked about the insufficient training police receive in community relations and social dynamics. He noted the lack of nuance law enforcement leadership regularly exhibit when they seek to explain complex social contexts.  History, social science, empathy. Complex problem solving, critical thinking, curiosity.  These were patently missing from the police response in Ferguson. And these are exactly what we, in the liberal arts college, teach our students. 

This raised the question for me: How do we get our students to become cops?

I had a recent student, a bright and engaged young mind, who choose to do a short ethnographic study of policing a few years ago. He did a ride-along with a cop in a nearby suburb, interviewed the officer and several others, and observed dynamics of police culture and those they served. He found the whole thing fascinating. But when I suggested that perhaps he’d found a career path, he brushed it off. “It was fun for a project,” he said, “but I could never become a cop.”

Why not? 

My students want to serve. They want to make a difference in people’s lives. They often point to the social problems and underserved communities currently suffering from inept and unjust policing.

At the same time, police work has a reputation as blue-collar, almost grunt work.  It’s masculine in traditional ways that intimidates the bookish sort and offends the feminist.  It has a kind of class context that my soon-to-be college graduate students are seeking to avoid (or escape) rather than enter. 

There needs to be a shift in who is recruited to be police, and how we, in higher ed, talk about law enforcement as a career.

The police should be actively recruiting my students because they have the skills and dispositions to become the kinds of leaders who will understand Ferguson and the thousands of communities like it.  They should be seeking out majors in anthropology, sociology, students of literature, and physicists who graduate with liberal arts backgrounds. They know how to study new situations and understand them, read human behavior, and think critically about problems. 

For our part, we in the liberal arts should demonstrate the relevance and importance of law enforcement as a multi-faceted career. From prosecuting attorney or public defender, to officers on the beat with the potential to rise in rank and responsibility, we should be encouraging our graduates to consider these as valid career fields.

Our nation is only becoming more complex and diverse. We need police prepared to interact with complex and diverse people.  Training in tactical procedures and weapon use, without a comparable ability for the police to think differently, learn quickly, and engage complexity is an invitation for more chaos. 

Liberal arts graduates, if you want to make a difference in the world, consider this: become a cop.

An Open Letter to Students and Alumni of Color at Wheaton College

An Open Letter to Students and Alumni of Color at Wheaton College

Dear Students and Alumni of Color of Wheaton College,

Many of you have recently seen DannyAguilar’s post regarding racism at Wheaton.  I had the privilege of watching Danny and a group of motivated, dedicated, and brilliant students respond to the events of #chapeltweets in February, 2012.  I can say that even amidst the tears and pain of that event, I was never so moved by the passion and concern of students for one another and for their wider community. It was a time when hundreds of students of conscience, the majority students of color, rose up and led us all to think together about what it means to be Christians in the face of racism, fear, and willful ignorance. It was a pivotal event for many on this campus in thinking about our mission as a college and it demonstrated the power of students to affect change.

Nevertheless, Danny is absolutely right when he says that then, as now, the response of many White students was defensiveness, bewilderment, and denial.  For the 13 years I’ve taught at Wheaton, I’ve had a front row seat to this.  Generations of students have faced similar frustrations in an institution with a relatively homogeneous constituency, who are notoriously blind to issues of culture, structure, race, and history. Each year, we welcome a new crop of earnest, bright young students who bring with them the same baggage of White racism and privileged perspective that the classes before them have brought.  Change is slow.

For that reason, it is no surprise that many of you who have commented on Danny’s post have noted that it resonated with your experience as well. I wish it weren’t the case that this experience were so common, but we can all be grateful to Danny for putting together his years of thinking and work in one place, alongside the incontrovertible and painful evidence, so that we can continue to demonstrate the important and undeniable problems that exist at Wheaton.

At the same time, I hope that you will not lose the sight of the hope that is in Danny’s post.  He has strong words for Wheaton’s leadership, but ultimately he calls not for withdrawal, but for engagement and change.  In other words, in the face of this cultural and structural evil…

                                                                       lean in.

Push us. Demand action. Be involved. Lean in.

Though the pace of change at Wheaton is too often confoundingly slow;  though there is frequently more rhetoric than action; it is true that people who speak out forcefully are sometimes made to feel disloyal, irresponsible, or unchristian. At the same time, there are good things happening at Wheaton that are not merely window dressing. God is not silent and there are signs of God’s redemption even at Wheaton.

Some of these changes may be the result of demography. The fact is that the United States will be a majority minority country in perhaps 30 years or less. Latino/as are the fastest growing population, a community with a strong Christian contingent.  Wheaton would be foolish to ignore this change, and, in fact, we are not.

Some of this change may be the result of a younger leadership in among the trustees and senior administration who are more aware and connected to diverse communities.  Our current President, Phil Ryken, is in his fourth year at Wheaton, and has made deepening ethnic diversity one of his top priorities.

Some is the result of innovative and inspiring students, like Vince, Veronica, Irma, Rachel, and so so so many others who have had brilliant ideas and pushed them into reality. (The B.R.I.D.G.E. program was one such dream cum reality.)

All of it is, unquestionably, the movement of the Holy Spirit bringing shalom through his faithful servants, servants like Danny who are willing to speak, brashly even, to motivate and inspire greater faithfulness from us all.

It is my hope – my prayer – that those who believe in the vision of Wheaton, the idea of this place that is too rarely realized in the living, will not abandon us, but lean in to the opportunity to push it further in the right direction.

Here are some concrete things you can do as alumni, future alumni, and current students that can bring these changes to campus and make Wheaton a more accessible place for everyone.

1. Come back to campus for alumni events and meet with senior leaders. Tell them what your priorities are and how you would like to see Wheaton reflect those.
2. Take Danny’s suggestion to pool your resources to support initiatives that matter to you. (How amazing would it be to have the Adeline Collins Chair of Women’s Studies [first woman to graduate from Wheaton, 1870] or the Edward B. Seller’s Institute of African and African American Christian Studies [first man of African descent to graduate from Wheaton in 1866]). 
3. Organize the Wheaton Alumni of Color Network to push Wheaton to realize a truer vision of what it means to be a Christian community that actively works against White racism in all its forms.

I, along with so many of my colleagues – your current and former faculty and staff - will continue to work with, and sometimes against, those at Wheaton who may not feel the urgency for change that Danny has articulated here. We’re in this. We hope you will be, too.  

Those who have been away for years, even decades, you are welcomed to come back and see the ways Wheaton has (as well as the ways it has not yet) grown in becoming a more diverse and inclusive community. 

Those of you who have been here more recently, I encourage you to take Danny’s energetic call as a reason to stay involved and be connected.

The vision that gave rise to Wheaton, rooted in abolitionism, gender equality, and engaged Christianity has wavered in its history, but the dream is not dead. There are good reasons to be hopeful. Stay with us. God honors the brave. But most of all, God is with those who stand for righteousness in love. Stand with us. 

Humbly,

Brian Howell

Associate Professor of Anthropology

Why I Won't Be Filling a Shoebox this Christmas

Why I Won’t Be Filling a Shoebox this Christmas

Christmas starts the annual season of Christians wrestling with materialism and inner-conflicts of shopping vs. worshipping.

At the same time, gift giving has its place. Remembering the gift of God through His son, and thinking of others through gifts under the tree is, for many, a deeply spiritual act. Many will be looking for ways to help their children, nephews, or kids in their churches to think of others and not simply what they’ll be getting.

For this, Operation Christmas Child (OCC) seems ideal.

This project, a part of Samaritan’s Purse, encourages churches and schools to pack crayons and toys and toothbrushes, along with $7 for shipping, into a brightly colored shoebox for a boy or girl somewhere else in the world. We are given a tangible way to bless a child in another country, perhaps even starting a relationship through a letter and photo the giver is encouraged to put into the box.

Call me a Grinch, but I won’t be filling a box this year.

This is certainly not about whether Samaritans Purse is a good or bad organization. They do many good, long-term projects.  My point is that this kind of giving - like Tom's shoes, or food give-aways to deal with chronic hunger - is always a bad idea, no matter how it is done. Except in response to emergencies, to give this way suppresses local markets, creates feelings (if not the actuality) of dependency, and does nothing to address systemic problems nor empower local leadership.

The Tom’s Shoes give-away, used clothing distributions, and even some parts of the U.S. Food Program, have been collectively termed “bad-vocacy” or “bad advocacy.”  By bringing in resources from outside an economy, without supporting trade, industry and investment in the local context, no one is empowered, communities are not changed, and problems remain in place.

Of course, to say that a program doesn’t solve all the problems in the world doesn’t necessarily mean the program is bad.  Doesn’t OCC bless a child with a gift they wouldn’t have otherwise received? The child receiving the gift feels loved – their faces ‘light up’ when they receive their boxes - and you can teach a child in a wealthy country to be generous. What’s the problem with that?

First, consider the effect in the local context. The distribution of these gifts is guaranteed to be inequitable in a community (since each box is individually filled). This is guaranteed to create conflict via jealousy between those who receive the “best” goods (or any goods) and those who don't.  

Moreover, it leaves those selling these goods undercut by the freebies showing up.  It's easy to understand that handing out free rice grown in California will make it difficult for local farmers to sell their rice.  I can equally imagine that some of these poor parents who can't afford a toothbrush, doll or pencil for their children actually make their living by weaving among traffic or at a tiny market stall selling toothbrushes, dolls or pencils.

Second, imagine the feelings of the parents watching their children get these boxes.  I’ve heard, in anecdotes and promotional literature, about how the kids' faces light up when they receive their box.  Of course the kids are happy. My kids would be happy too if the wealthy people in my local community (and there are people in my town who are MUCH wealthier than I am) gave them iPads and $100 tennis shoes; things they couldn’t (well, wouldn't) get from me. The joy on their faces would be indescribable. Sure, my children would feel loved, but not by me, their father. Instead it is the love of a wealthy benefactor somewhere else.

Finally, our children certainly learn a lesson through these give-away programs, but it’s the wrong one.  They learn that the problem of poverty is primarily a problem of “stuff.”  One person told me that by criticizing OCC, I was being “astonishingly cynical” about a program that does good by teaching our children to be generous.  She defended her view by saying:  “As a pastor I have found that the connections that are formed by doing things like this can be used to foster further participation in missions and outreach in all ages. For example, "Remember those kids you gave presents to? They also need...’”  But that’s just it. Through these kind of temporary give-aways, we’re teaching our children, and ourselves, that the real problems of poor countries is lack of resources and their ongoing, insatiable need.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The real problem of poverty is a problem of access and opportunity, not stuff.  Nobel Prize winning economist Amartra Sen called poverty the problem of lacking autonomy and freedom. Giving stuff to the poor each Christmas contributes to what Jayakumar Christian calls the "god complexes of the non-poor." Certainly, in some cases stuff is needed for opportunities and autonomy (shoes to go to school, for example), but while the hand-out is the fastest way to solve the problem, it’s a never-ending ‘solution’ that does nothing to expose the real problems.

We need to stop responding emotionally to these issues and consider policy and programs that do something. Why waste our money and time on OCC when there is real work that can be done?

I would love to see churches develop relationships with organizations that do development work in specific places where the church can develop connections with leaders in those places, and respond to the needs that will bring long-term change. (One cell phone for a farmer can do more to change a child's life than 100 boxes full of little toys.)  Organizations like World Vision and Heifer International provide the opportunity for you, and your children, to “buy” a goat or beehive or rabbit and “send” it to a local community. Local community groups use the donated money to buy the animal locally and decide who will receive it. And I love teaching my kids about giving when our family sponsoring bunny rabbits and bees through Heifer Int'l. They totally get it and we don't have to send cheap plastic toys halfway around the world.

Recent research has shown that child sponsorship is very effective at producing many positive, long-term results for poor children. Have your child help you choose a sponsoree from the photos that many well-run organizations will send.  Correspond with the child and bring the kids in your church into the process.

But can't we do all these? Do we need to stop doing Operation Christmas Child if we are also supporting these other things?

The Bible teaches us to be generous, and so we must be, but it also teaches up to be smart; and sending shoeboxes of little gifts is just not smart. I haven't even mentioned the carbon footprint necessary for shipping these things (sometimes back to the places in which they were made!), but climate change aside, if we could take the energy, enthusiasm and good will that goes into OCC and channel it into the other programs that Samaritan's Purse, and a hundred other organizations, do to make long-term change, we'd be doing a much better thing.

OCC works because of it's emotional appeal to us.  We imagine a little African child, opening his Christmas box, and finding the items we loving packed there. We imagine a connection as he has the Christmas our children have, and he feels loved and cared for in the name of Jesus.  In fact, his family does love and care for him. And after the box is opened he walks back to a life of hunger and lack of opportunity. His Christmas is not just like our child's middle-class American holiday, no matter what's in his box.

We need to release the emotional appeals of these Christmas appeals and focus on the work of the local NGOs trying to lobby their government to enforce land tenure rights for the local farmers, build accessible educational institutions, and reform legal systems, all the while sharing the hope that is in Christ. Now that's a gift worth giving.