This post is both a reflection and an assignment - that's some serious double-dipping.
In the assignment, we're asked to write down what we think, and then see if there is "an idea from these thoughts that you can develop into a public post." Unfortunately, whether there is or not, we're required to post something. And frankly, there are a lot of ways I could go with this post. But I'll just hand down my own reviews of the two things I read for this assignment.
So, I'm reflecting on Touch, but Rudy Rasmus and an article from a chapter in James Cone's Risks of Faith, regarding racism and ecology.
First, a brief reflection on Touch. I think I understand why this book was assigned to us in the course. It has a lot of helpful stuff about being there for people. And in its very title, the book indicates the importance of our sensory perception of the world. Particularly through touch, which can be life-giving (and of course, very destructive - but at the moment, I'm just focusing on the positives). There are many people in the world who go each day without feeling a loving touch, and that is a very, very sad thing for those of us who do and want desperately for others to feel it. As for thinking about myself in my ministry, I know that this is important, and will encourage loving touch - for some people "passing of the peace" is not just a handshake, but the only time they feel someone else touch them lovingly during the week!
But aside from Rev. Rasmus' focus on the actual issue of touch, I found the book to be frustrating. For example, Rev. Rasmus does one profile of a person in his church, Amber David. The first sentence is, "At the age of thirty-five, Amber David finally learned to be a man" (93). Seriously? There are so many problems with that statement: why is your definition of a man the right one? Is he now done learning? What is the "right" age to learn to "be a man?" There were so many problems with that statement, it really turned me off to much of what Rasmus had to say in the rest of the book. Additionally, he turned me off with some of his rhetoric: I found him to be a little self-congratulatory for my taste.
Additionally, I find statements like this a little revolting: "We examine what the institutionalized church is doing, and we do the opposite" (174). This occurs in the chapter titled, "Keeping It Real," which concerns how to keep church "relevant" to churchgoers; in other words, what works for this particular church in this particular place. But this statement, like the one I described in the paragraph above, is rife with difficulties. What "institutional church" is he talking about? He compares his church to Jesus, while 'the rest of us' are compared to Pharisees and Sadducees; high on yourself much? Besides, is it really wise to say, in effect, "The true Gospel of Jesus Christ is the opposite of what most churches are doing"? I don't think using other churches as any sort of a marker for one's own practices is a good idea. Aren't better tests ones like this: what is Jesus calling us to be? How do we adapt to this unique expression of culture? Where are the places the Gospel is calling us to make a stand against the culture in which we live? Frankly, "What are other Christians doing, so we can not do that," is not a good strategy. It's alienating, it's insulting, it's uncooperative, it's arrogant, and it's not done in a spirit of love. Am I taking that too far? Maybe. But again, this is one of those places where Rasmus loses me, because he's (in my opinion) too insensitive; by speaking the way he does in this section, in the one addressed above, and a number of other times in the book, I can't help but be somewhat dismissive of his whole work. It does jive with my own perceptions and experiences.
On the other hand, we have James Cone. I've heard James Cone called a "racist" by more than one (white) seminary classmate. I love Cone, because I think he's immensely challenging for most white theologians. The difficulty is that Cone says a lot of things along the lines of "white people do this" or "these people are racist." This is so off-putting to most people that they have no ability to actually hear what Cone has to say. After all, one of the most difficult things to do as a white person in America, I think, is to have a frank discussion about race. Whites are afraid of saying the wrong thing (and rightly so, for many a person has said many a harmful thing), so many believe that it's best if no one talks about racial issues, including non-whites. But this, of course, closes the conversation, and makes it impossible to make any progress.
In particular in this excerpt, Cone is discussing ecology as it relates to race. He talks about how environmentalists and blacks in America rarely have anything to do with one another; yet, he talks about how many of there concerns are the same. In particular, he's critical of ecologists for pointing out many dangers to our world, yet not seeing that, while endangering the world, we most often (in this country) endanger one specific ethnic group. Perhaps his most damning statement is this: "Blacks and other minorities are often asked why they are not involved in the mainstream ecological movement. To white theologians and ethicists, I ask 'Why are you not involved in the dialogue on race' (144)? It's understandable why white people can see this type of challenge as being "racist." It's seems to say, "Oh yeah? You think we're the problem? No, you're the problem!" Perhaps it does do that; but the holding up of a mirror to another's face is a prophetic act; it's the asking of the question of why we see the speck in the eye of the other, while ignoring the log in our own. At it's heart, it doesn't absolve racial minorities for caring about the environment; it just disallows white Americans from ignoring the problems of race which still plague us today. And that is prophetic action.
The biggest commonality I see between Touch and the selection from Risks of Faith is that the two interact with one another in regards to what is the "null curriculum" of the church. How often do we talk about the marginalized? Rev. Rasmus fully embraces them, and it enriches his ministry in Houston (at least while he's not patting himself on the back). It turns what was a small community into a large one. Likewise, Dr. Cone's challenge for white America is similar: look at yourself in the mirror, and ask if you're really seeing the problem from the perspective of the other. That's a true challenge. It takes a lot to embrace it. And we would be wise to do so.
