“Mooz-Lum”
Went out with some friends to see the movie “Mooz-Lum”. It was the winner of the Urban Independent Film Award 2010. Mooz-lum was a well-thought, but not overly deep, insight into the struggles of being Muslim in a post 9/11 America. It deftly contrasts the fissures among Muslims themselves and the perceptions/actions from non-Muslims that contributes to the melting pot of anxiety that typifies the lives of many from both sides of the aisle, but especially Muslims. It’s not “Independence Day”, “Harry Potter” or any of the other blockbuster movies around, but it will give you pause and food for thought..take a chance..watch?v=V1f9t8HPIqw
BLACK MEN: WHERE ARE YOU?
(The following was written response to a facebook column by a friend in the ministry, Pastor Toki Booker. Please know that I value her and her respondents greatly! They are thinking people, as witnessed by their many and diverse responses…)
Greetings Pastor T and all. I usually don’t engage in conversations like this because I usually am painfully honest. Some see it as offensive. Nevertheless…the answer to your original question is so much deeper than most of the responses here; though on one level they are (ladies in this case) expressing what they are looking for. Nothing wrong with that..its just that like it or not some of the wants, and some of the methods of achieving the same are nice in print (or maybe not so nice!) but not practical in reality (see RH screening process). Ladies, if you want to be with a man you must understand the chasm between who men are (black men in this case) and who you expect them to be. I make no excuses for any man, yet, I understand our psyche and its evolutionary nature. Let me start here..our role in American society and in the home has been marginalized, devalued and dishonored. Only those who have experienced this can fully channel the emotionally destructive impact of what it means to be “dismissed” on every level, publicly and personally. Like it or not, even our women have played an unwilling (unknowing?) role in this dismissal rooted in their own “rise to power.” Not blaming, just sharing a factual perspective. In some sense, this has not changed. In fact, some black women willingly dismiss black men these days in view of the perceived fiscal, educational, and perhaps emotional disparities they have with them (Note I did not say these things with respect to the specific black men they’ve encountered — which would be OK– but with black men, in general, which is a misguided stereotype and for another column! lol). Where did this begin? In the minds of those who historically have controlled American society, financially, socially and philosophically. Consider this, prior to our coming to America black men have been the leaders, fathers, lovers and friends one would expect them to be (not saying it was perfect but read on..). They had control of their own destiny and care for their families and fellow compatriots that informed how they shaped and implemented their life’s plan. Without reviewing the entire treatise on slavery (’cause you know the story), we lost that when we got here. A generally unspoken but yet no less clear hierarchy came into being with white men at the top followed by white women, black women and oh yeah…black men. Let me apologize right now to every other ethnicity I did not mention who were also here and are somewhere in the hierarchy, but I’m talking about black folk! White men have always and continue to subjugate their own women, though the latter are making great strides simply because of sheer numbers and their tenacity in all the areas that count. Together, those in power consciously and unconsciously (if that’s possible!) subjugate black folk but are more likely to allow striving black women to move forward because like the white women to the white man, neither of them are threatened by a black woman. White men are fine with the successes of white women as long as they stay in their place, as are some white women with black women as long as they don’t rise above them. Where does this leave black men? On the bottom looking up at black women and those above her. In some sad instances there is a sometimes true inference that black women are looking down at their black men talking about WHERE ARE YOU, WHY HAVENT YOU…without understanding the intricacies of their ongoing struggle. ek
(check out the other articles on here..)
Thoughts on the validity of Watch Night…
(This is my response to a writing by Barbara & David P. Mikkelson responding to blogger RiverAngel42 on his/her website ”Online Fellowship” [see cover page on "the Fellowship" blog] regarding Watch Night)
When I read this brief history of Watch Night, I was simultaneously transported back to the presence of my ancestors awaiting the good news of emancipation AND the front row seat in my present day church remembering from whence we’ve come. The moment was fleeting, however, because in my zeal to garner information to share with my parishioners tonite, I came upon a website with a slightly different bend on the history of Watch Night:
www.snopes.com/holidays/newyears/watchnight.asp
I was immediately drawn in because of the heading which preceded a reprint of RIVERANGEL42′s very words: “FALSE!” This piece, written by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson was making scurrilous claims about a tradition that informs the deepest sense of our social standing in these United States of America. It was one more nefarious attack upon “all things black” by people of presumed european ancestry. Or was it…
After composing myself, I decided to undertake a more critical examination of the Mikkelson writing and why it disturbed me so. Many things occurred to me along the way, though the following points seemed most relevant. Because of our experience in coming to America, including the loss of so many things germane to our African ancestry, black folk have created hybrid forms of many things rooted in european ancestry. Religious belief/practice comes to mind most quickly. Consider the AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church born of the Free African Society under Richard Allen/Absalom Jones which came out of the St. George Methodist Church in Philadelphia and by extension John Wesley and the Church of England in the late 18th century. One could say the same for the Baptists, Church of God In Christ, Christian Methodist Church (CME), and other denominations typically recognized as “the black church.”
Immediately, a question came to the fore: “Should we abandon Watch Night and other elements of our religious praxis simply because of their european roots? I think not! Here’s one reason why: interaction between various cultures lends itself unavoidably to the interweaving or adoption of those elements from the influencing culture that feed the spirit of their own. This adoption or co-opting of culture does not devalue the integrity of its hybrid form. This hybrid seeks to embody those things that are distinctly that of the reforming culture; making it their own. No harm done! (John Wesley would say)
To close, truth is truth! It is inescapable if all or reasonable doubt can be extinguished. I greatly appreciate the additional historical information provided by the Mikkelsons. That being said, I would submit the manner in which the Mikkelson writing chose to frame the RiverAngel42 treatise was improper. I would have said that the brief was perhaps incomplete from a historical perspective. Yet, I believe RiverAngel42′s brief was not meant to be a full historical exposition but specifically aimed at capturing the spirit of that which is important to people of color. I feel better now. And so, tonight we remember and celebrate! Peace.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“DOES THE BLACK CHURCH KEEP BLACK WOMEN SINGLE AND LONELY?”
The following is written in response to radio personality Michael Baisden’s conversation with a woman, Debborah Cooper (the name may be incorrect, please advise), about an article or blog she wrote entitled: “Does the Black Church Keep Black Women Single and Lonely?”
Let me first say that I am writing this rebuttal without having read her original writing. I am responding to her expressed opinion and that of other female respondents during the program. Without recapping the entire program, the gist of her opinion included her thought that the black church is overwhelming populated by women, with respect to attendance. With that I have no argument. It is a fact that can easily be proven by anyone who attends worship in the black church with any consistency. It would follow that men do not attend in comparable numbers to women. I take issue with the generalities she made about the men who do attend; and why the bulk of them are unavailable to women. She opined that only a sliver of men that attend are viable prospects for relationships because the greater portions are gay or questioning, seeking sexual favors and or other “maladies/disqualifiers” that make them unsuitable. She further indicated that pastors/ministers actively take part in creating and feeding a neurosis through their preaching and praxis that is designed to convince women that they need to wait on God to send them a man. In addition, their consorts must be approved by the minister who, if following her logic and that of several respondents, would of course disapprove of them as part of their plan to control these women. Further, these preachers do this and related things to ensure that single women are there to give money to support the ministry (or the business as she would have it) and by extension the pastor. She states that it is the fault of the church and its leaders that women “fall prey” to this spiritual enslavement. There is more but this is certainly enough to call for review. Firstly, I must take issue with the fact that Mr. Baisden’s program made no attempt to engage neither men nor ministers in the conversation. As a result, what could have been a viable discussion was rendered unbalanced and baseless. Ms. Hooper’s submissions, save the attendance observation, were based in nothing. Personal opinion is rarely useful or genuine in discussing serious matters that require verifiable evidence. As a pastor/minister I can affirm that many, not all, of my colleagues preach that God will indeed provide a mate for single women. But this preachment is part of a broader belief that God will provide for all our needs, e.g. shelter, food, clothing and so on. Further, the sense that God will provide a mate is not only extended to single women, but to single men as well. Accordingly, there is no vendetta by pastors/ministers specifically aimed at women with control as its purpose. An additional point may also be that the same “maladies” or disqualifiers assigned to men in church can also be assigned to its women. Beauty notwithstanding, many women in the church do not measure up to the standards their male counterparts need or want. Yet, there is no parallel conversation about being kept single and lonely by the church or its leadership. Successive points about control and its product rooted in keeping the business going are easy pickings making her arguments yet easily as bogus as the other submissions. To be clear, the church is not a business. The church is an assemblage of PEOPLE gathered together around a common statement of faith for support and praxis. Plain and simple. Public governance is the source which requires any formalized entity performing activities that may receive or disburse funds for specific purposes determined by government to be registered with the same as a duly organized entity for recording and or taxation purposes. This is an inescapable requirement not religious organized crime. Accordingly, church management procedures are rooted in generally accepted business practices. Nothing inconsistent there. Consistency in financial support from its membership is a must that the real work of the church might continue to go forward. This support is solicited from whoever is in the pews. Having said that, more women are encouraged to give primarily because more women are in worship. If it were men, the same level of solicitation would be imposed on them. Giving for Christian men and women, as evidenced in the black church, is merely a fulfillment of the scriptural mandate to support the work of the church. It is not a method or activity that seeks to control women spiritually and financially. Finally, but perhaps more important than all the other points we’ve visited, the point in question: “does the black church keep black women single and lonely,” is more than suspect to begin with. Accepting this premise as factual logically breeds an equally disturbing affirmation that women in the church are released from personal responsibility for their own relational journey based on the so-called wait-on-the-Lord church teaching; which they have obviously gotten misconstrued, with respect to its broader meaning I alluded to earlier. If you are in need of a job and the pastor says you should pray about it, whether it is clearly stated or not, it should be obvious that you are not going to pray and sit at home waiting for the job to drop in your lap. You would take action on your own behalf, e.g. making calls to potential employers, filling out job applications, etc. Even the secular world understands the submission: “God helps those who help themselves!” That being said, ministers may encourage you to pray for a mate but are not suggesting that you not do the things that could place you in the presence of potential suitors. There are indeed limits, in terms of our statement of faith, but they would not include denying one some degree of interaction that allows one to get to know someone else. The problem is not the church but a plethora of concerns many church-women and I dare say men have not even visited that would perhaps be present even if they were not a part of a specific community of faith. As a pastor and minister, I am concerned and offended that this conversation was allowed to proceed in the fashion that it did. The church in praxis and teaching was wronged by said conversation’s mishandling. I would be the first to say that discussion of such matters is not only allowable, but a good thing. However, the manner in which it proceeds is of equal importance if we are to avoid that which is inflammatory, baseless and detrimental to an already much maligned community of faith that is the black church; to say nothing of the fact that the road to resolution of women’s perceived relational impediments could be missed because of more than questionable facts and opinions. Please comment
