Archive for June, 2008

the problem with poo

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Recently my good friend and blogging compatriot, Philip, posted about what he has judged to be an instance of subversive racism. Here are a couple of key quotes:

I’ve always wondered about a couple of crude phrases often used among men to announce the need to go to the bathroom. One is, “Well, I need to go drop the Browns off at the Super Bowl.” Tame enough, I guess. But when this phrase is mentioned, a similar phrase usually has to be mentioned in turn: “Need to go drop the Cosby kids off at the pool.”

Is this racist?

I’ve never used the phrase because I thought it to be sort of crude. And now I’m glad I didn’t, because I’m now convinced that it’s racist. And I’m going to discourage my friends from using it.

I appreciate Philip’s comments and will henceforth think twice before choosing from my vast repertoire of poo jokes. Particularly, I’d like to thank Philip for having the courage to write about it publicly. This is obviously a sensitive topic, but ignoring it is not the answer.

I think, somewhere back in the recesses of my mind, I recall having that same knee-jerk reaction when I first heard the “Cosby kids” joke. Since that time, I’ve done some thinking, and I’d like to share those thoughts here. I also welcome any constructive criticism. I’d be interested to know how such a joke is perceived by my black friends, and where the following concepts fit in to that framework.

A common brand of humor constructs the element of comedy by infusing the punchline with somehow shocking or ironic elements. In this case, the irony is that the color “brown” is being used for something other than its literal intention. A less specific euphemism limits the phrase to “I’m going to drop the kids off at the pool.” Either version can evoke the image of little children leaping from someone’s digestive tract and falling into a toilet, which is so shocking as to elicit humor.

Usually, the statement, “I need to defecate” or some other literal approach does not solicit wild laughter. (NB, in some circles this is more than enough to do so.)

The problem we encounter is that sometimes, a punchline may be associated with a history in which the element designed to be appalling turns out to be real. Let’s go ahead and continue with the Cosby version. This joke would be perfectly acceptable in all circles IF we did not have a history of black people having been oppressed or disenfranchised in this country. However, due to that history, we now have to deal with repercussions, including both the perpetuation of racism by unimaginative types, and the paranoia of racism by the over-imaginative ones. Unfortunately, the latter tends to spawn the former, which then generates more of the latter. Vicious cycle, and all that — you know the drill.

The larger issue here is that racism has effectively experienced a redefinition. Merriam Webster currently states racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. At this point in time, nearly any mention of racial distinctions leads us to assume that racial discrimination has occurred. May we be honest, and admit that races are called races because they have distinctive traits? On a macro level, these traits are described by elements related to pigmentation or geography. On a micro level, there are other distinctive features, including bone structure, height, and even consistency of ear wax.

Let us, for a moment, pretend that we live in a world where racism has never been an issue. In this world, we could use the Cosby joke and it would be genuinely funny. In that world, we could try and say “I’m dropping the Simpson kids off at the pool.”, but it would not be funny. The reason is that human feces are not (naturally) yellow, and they rarely come out shaped like Bart. So the Simpsons have no similarity specific to them from which the joke may draw its analogy. We might use the version that does not mention a specific family, but then the analogy is less defined. The toilet may still resemble a pool, but some explanation is needed. If we are to have the additional similarity of color, only a family whose pigmentation resembled the color of poo would work, because otherwise the color does not lead us to the shocking punchline where we imagine tiny children being dropped into a toilet. In our imaginary, racism-free world, a hostile interpretation would not be open to us because racism would not exist.

Our plight is that the world’s history does contain many examples of racism. Therefore, if a joke may be interpreted to either include or exclude a punchline inspired by racism, we often assume the former. Thus, racism has killed off some of our humor, and also denies us full access to our own language. We have to go out of our way to avoid usage that could be interpreted as racist, and so we lose many analogies and sometimes an entire end of the light spectrum.

Frankly, I’m losing patience with our tired obsession with racism. I can certainly handle the loss of a mediocre poo joke, but our victims extend far beyond that casualty. Now we are trained to look for color differences and see them where they were not likely to be intentional. I believe that we will not see a country where racism is truly extinct until we begin to act like we already live in one. This includes ceasing our ridiculous notion that “we are all the same”. We are decidedly not all the same, and I’m the happier for it. I love seeing God’s artistry in the human palette. We need not assume that any mention of our pigment must carry with it centuries of discrimination, or the notion that our external differences imply unequal inherent worth. By doing so, we cede victory to that sad tradition.

Whether the Cosby joke found its birth in racism or only in irony, I do not know. I would like to give it the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter (perhaps this is naive). In this vein, we’d better be careful about taking the Browns to the Superbowl as well. After all, they were originally intended to be the Brown Bombers, in honor of boxer Joe Louis.

Nonetheless, I take comfort in the fact that I may still build a log cabin, dispense some soft-serve, drop a deuce, have some alone time, lose a few pounds, and make a sacrifice to the porcelain god. If I happen to be at Harding, I might even take a trip to the Bible building. Best toilets on campus.

on evangelism

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

Below is an essay I recently wrote for one of my classes regarding evangelism. I’m braving posting this before it’s been graded, but I welcome any feedback. : )

When we ponder the subject of evangelism, we are really pondering God’s overall purpose for the human race. For what reason were we created in the first place? In God’s ideal, what would we look like, and what roles would we play? Peter provides a framework for the ideal: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) In this view, we are all in danger of destruction, and this is not within God’s volition. His overarching plan is that we might avoid this destruction through repentance and obtain an alternate situation: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Jesus informs us that the good news with which we are immediately concerned pertains to our rescue from destruction. Our alternate (or perhaps original) destination is that of eternal life.

Such a message, it seems, would be universally embraced without our agency. In spite of this, Jesus rightly predicted that relatively few would accept His offer. Hence, before His departure, He commanded his trusted apostles to disperse among the population and spread the news. This command has been transmitted through the ages, even to the point of our current discussion. I submit that our own efforts to uphold this charge must focus on two questions. First, in what distinctive ways does contemporary, unbelieving culture find itself incongruent with the Christian faith? Second, and perhaps more vital to our success, in what specific ways does our modern community of believers find it difficult to display faithfulness to our mandate? I will argue that these issues are ultimately rooted in the same soil.

The world theater as we currently experience it is not bereft of conflict. Nations struggle for influence. World views clash in the Middle East on a daily basis. Even in our own developed government, political parties combat for values, resources, and power. Despite our heritage rich in conflict, post-modern man’s acceptance of spiritual conflict is not ubiquitous. The question no longer entails how we might be saved, or who might enact such a salvation, but rather whether salvation is an issue at all, and from what we might need saving. This scenario provides little impetus for unbelievers to inventory their theological beliefs. These issues are relegated to philosophy and personal meditation, where they pertain to personal issues only nominally, and to corporate matters not at all. This is the barrier before which evangelistic efforts now must stand.

It is fortunate, then (or perhaps God’s design), that the conflicts apparent in the physical world provide a bridge to spiritual struggles still invisible to our culture. In his Biblical Perspectives on Evangelism, Brueggemann argues that the first theme represented in an evangelistic trio of stories is Theological Conflict. He observes that Yahweh’s victories over Pharaoh and Babylon provide the necessary history to engage non-participants with the faith of Israel. At the time, these victories were apparent amid a contemporary struggle. Pharaoh and Babylon were very real powers over which no physical victory might be expected. Yahweh’s initiative to address and conquer them prompted an invitation to those previously under their employ.

The conflicts that immediately occupy our own culture are poverty, addiction, familial dysfunction, and depression, among others. Such concerns claim the same undeniable reality as did Pharaoh and Babylon. Victory seems unlikely. One may observe that all of these conflicts may stand on their own, outside the purview of faith or religion. If we now introduce an agent who seriously challenges and defeats these stalwarts, this agent gains immediate credibility among those previously in defeat. In many demonstrable ways, the manifest disciplines of spiritual living strike a death-blow to our most feared enemies. When we give our cloak to him who has none, we wound poverty. Self-control crushes addiction. The husband who gives his life for his wife trumps familial dysfunction. Loving one’s neighbor as one’s self abolishes depression. When the unbeliever witnesses such massive victories in the conflicts that characterize his world, he is open to the suggestion of alternative conflicts and a superior future. In this way we can see why Roy Fish predicted that 21st century evangelism would entail increased focus on societal needs, and how that focus may be illustrated.

Perhaps before we can overcome the difficulties of reaching our unbelieving culture, we must discover the causes of our own reticence. Brueggemann details three candidates for evangelism, one of which is the “forgetful insider”. Along with Brueggeman, I am convinced that it is this candidate with whom we can most readily identify in terms of our outreach efforts.

The Church in the United States has been increasingly placed in what we believe to be a delicate position. Our culture accepts fewer and fewer of our fundamental claims outright. Richard Dawkins is not the only person who believes Yahweh is a delusion. The jealous God of the Old Testament is increasingly “embarrassing,” as Brueggemann phrases it.

On the one hand, we are tempted to become staunch, to put up walls, and to protect what little assets remain within our control. Of course, this is counter productive as a method of engaging lost souls. Exclusion decidedly does not lead to growth. On the other hand, we are tempted to give up the sticking points that are judged to be foolishness by the world. Perhaps we can concede that Jesus is not the only way to God. Perhaps we can stop insisting that the Bible contains imperative moral claims. Unfortunately, neither of these options provides a serious solution. One promises asphyxiation. The other guarantees that we will lose our identity altogether. Are there any alternatives to this confining horizon?

The truth is that we have forgotten the victory God claims over our lives and the lives of the people around us. God’s triumph and our good news is His forgiveness despite what Brueggemann calls our “massive seduction and sellout.” The very barriers that we believe are so insurmountable become the spans by which we will arrive upon success. It is imperative that we recognize the darker times in which God has triumphed before, and the power He holds to claim victory again. Only by connecting to that power will we have the courage to press forward in seemingly dangerous circumstances. We should be encouraged to follow Peter out onto the water. Only then can we learn from his mistake and avoid sinking.

Our call is to expose the darkest places of fear in our society’s mind. We must show that the God who demolished Pharaoh and who humbled Babylon will also destroy these demanding enemies. In doing so we will ignite faith in those who have none, and prevent our own from being quenched.