Practicing Initiative. More Than the Minimum.

This Psalm Sunday I am reminded how Jesus exercised initiative in his early life, in his ministry, and during the final days of his life. Despite knowing that he would die in the Holy City because of the purposeful, inclusive, compassionate, and power-filled life of ministry he practiced, Jesus headed toward Jerusalem; he did not wait for his adversaries to come after him (Luke 9:51). As womanist biblical scholar Raquel St. Clair asserts in her book Call in Consequences, it was not Jesus’ purpose to die but to live; his suffering was a consequence of his ministry.  This historical Jesus was God with us (Matthew 1:23).  Jesus lived a life in which he continually exercised initiative; he took charge of his life.  Jesus chose to go to John the Baptist so that John could baptize him even though John thought himself unworthy to baptize Jesus; that Jesus should be the one baptizing him.  Jesus followed the Spirit’s leading and spent 40 days and nights in the wilderness fasting, praying and being tempted by the adversary in preparation for his ministry (Matthew 4:2).  Jesus, like his forerunner John the Baptist, did more than the minimum required to fulfill his purpose. Perhaps, because he believed that with God nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37). Jesus understood that to exist in and exercise a God-like perfection or wholeness means exceeding what is required and allowing possibility, purpose, compassion, and passion to compel us (Matthew 4:43-48).

In order to pursue our lives and vocations in excellence, we will exercise initiative that is motivated by possibility, purpose, compassion, and passion. This means that we won’t wait for others to compel us or overlook us, but we will step up to the plate and do what needs to be done and more.  Too often people wait to see if someone else will do a task rather than doing it themselves.  This lack of initiative occurs in situations from helping people in distress to asking questions in a classroom. Many people won’t ask questions that can help them to understand a particular topic because they are waiting to see if someone else will ask the same question. Meanwhile, nobody asks the necessary questions. So like the majority, they just show up, which is the minimum required of them.  I don’t want to minimize the importance of showing up; showing up is half the battle, but only half the battle. Too many people set the example of only doing the minimum required for a task or project. Some students will only do the homework a teacher assigns, even when it would greatly benefit them and increase their knowledge to do more. But those motivated by possibility, purpose, compassion, and passion will exercise initiative. We can exercise initiative by thinking about and researching our options beyond the obvious ones, by asking questions, and by doing more than is required. For example, if an executive asks her assistant to reserve a room at her favorite hotel in a certain city and the hotel is booked, then the assistant should take the initiative to, (1) ask her employer at the time of the initial request if she has a second or third option if the hotel is booked; (2) search for comparable alternatives, and (3) ask the hotel to notify her in case of cancellations.

We value initiative in others; therefore, we should cultivate it in ourselves.  Most parents and adults value initiative in children. If we ask them to take out the trash, and they only empty the trash in the kitchen and not in the rest of the house, we become annoyed with them. To do only what is required of us will only assure that we are average or mediocre.

Miseducation of Black Girls (and their peers)

Keep your dress tail down; all it takes is down

Down down baby down by the roller coaster

Sweet sweet baby I’ll never let you go

Go along to get along

Along the way, don’t make waves

Waves like a ship on the sea

Sea that Jesus rebuke

Rebuke da devil and he will flee from thee

[Thee devil done took the best]

Best to be ready

Ready to get married

Married is better

Better than single

Single most important value

Value submission to a man

Man will complete and make you happy

Happy is not an educated black woman

Black Woman educated won’t get married at all

All single women wish they had your husband to love

Love self sacrifice

Sacrifice self to love everybody

Everybody but yourself protect

Protect your virginity~that’s the best & all the morality you got

Got to maintain a full fool figure

Figure this, A dog don’t like no bone.

Bone straight those locks

Locks (au naturale) unprofessional, unkempt, pick-a-ninny look

Look like somebody

Some Body white

White is right; yellow, mellow; brown makes you frown; black get back

Back then, way back, Eve seduced Adam

Adam, not Eve, created in God’s likeness

God ain’t never called a woman to preach

Preach to the children

Children to be seen, not heard

Heard you spoke your mind

Mind is a terrible thing to waste on things that don’t concern

Concern yourself with cooking, cleaning, birthing babies, layin’ on your numb back

Back then wasn’t any separating, nor divorce

Divorce is for weak women who give up too easily; first, second, third blow too soon

Soon we will be thru wit de trouble of dis world

World ain’t my home; no need to clean up this place

Place your pain way down deep and throw away the key

Key to movin on, to survive keep quiet

Quiet bout verbal abuse, bout incest, bout how man next door, daddy, uncle, brotha, granddaddy, preacha molested, raped you, bout all those crosses

Crosses you must bear for Jesus

Jesus had his cross, but you got some too.

~womanistntprof

A Truth of the Matter of Truth

Why do some insist that truth (particularly religious truth) is inherently divisive rather than unifying or liberating? Truth espoused by religious communities is regarded as unifying for the believers and divisive concerning nonbelievers. Perhaps, if we understood truth or the production of truth as more dialogically constituted than many presuppose; that is, truth emerges and evolves from dialogue or in dialectical communication. In the New Testament we have two opposing statements about Jesus and peace: “Peace I leave with you” (John 14:27; cf. 16:33; Acts 10:36); “Do not think I have come to bring peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Luke 12:51; Matt 10:34 NRSV). The temptation is to harmonize rather than consider each it its context and allow the tension to remain. But the latter option may not support absolute truth on the matter of peace and Jesus.

The way some groups and individuals employ the notion of absolute truth as binding and polarizing is paradoxical in light of the biblical idea of truth as liberating. If as the Gospel of John's (GJ) Jesus says the truth will set us free (John 8:32,36), why are our truths so restricting, exclusionary and divisive. For sure, the polarizing message of GJ depicting unbelieving Jews as outsiders is inescapable. Nevertheless, GJ's Jesus states that he is “the truth, the way, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through” him (John 14:6, NRSV). Jesus embodies or incarnates the truth.  The same Gospel writer admits his or her writing could not nearly contain all that Jesus said and did. In fact, all the scrolls in the world could not contain them (John 21:25). This humble admission implies that we do not have the information about Jesus to construct the totality of the truth that Jesus embodies. And the distance between mortality and immortality, divinity and humanity further obstruct our view. Thus as we continue our attempts to interpret the life and ministry of Jesus, we would do well to temper our claims to possess the truth given our limited access to the truth.

Add to the lacunae and chasms resulting from human and historical limitations of the Gospels and their writers the nature of translation. Given that stories and/or traditions about Jesus first circulated orally before they were written down and given that the orality did not cease with the production of written texts, many versions of what Jesus said and did were transmitted. In addition, translating original ancient foreign language manuscripts of the NT (and OT) into English and other modern languages is a further act of interpretation. With every oral and written transmission of stories and information about Jesus, translation and/or interpretation occurs. And when we read the many translations and/or interpretations of the Bible, we interpret or translate. The book does not literally talk to us, as some illiterate African slaves mistakenly surmised (see Allen Callahan's The Talking Book); we as readers encounter the book deciphering its meaning. Our interpretations, as well as those of the ancients, are filtered through our culture and experiences. The act of reading is subjective (not disregarding textual parameters). We construct (un)truths about Jesus (Christology) and God (theology).

There are circumstances in which we limit the plethora of truths. Those situations involve the construction of creeds and doctrines. A community develops a binding statement (e.g., the Apostles Creed) through a designated authoritative body that speaks for the whole. Under such circumstances the individual members are not encouraged or invited to think about the truthfulness of the creed or doctrine. Any interpretation or reading of the creed or doctrine must take place within the parameters of the absolute truth already espoused. In this sense the creed or doctrine, as well as its original interpreters, are implicitly and functionally treated as infallible. And if any member of the community should want to rethink or revisit the truthfulness of the doctrine or creed, that person would risk being ostracized or deemed heretical.

If Jesus, as Christians believe and as the GJ states, is the Truth, and if this Truth Jesus embodies or incarnated derives from his divinity or from God, then the Truth in all its fullness will never be fully known by humans since God from whom and in whom all the truth derives is inscrutable. The inscrutability of God was first introduced in the Garden of Eden when the first human pair were informed (by the wise talking serpent) that to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (an idiom for knowing everything) would open their eyes and make them like God(Gen. 3:5). They were already like God having been created in God's image. Nevertheless, their eyes were indeed opened and they discovered their nakedness (Gen. 3:7-11). Complete and absolute truth is naturally situated in the diety. Just maybe we should consider being more humble in our claims to possess the Truth and all Truth. And maybe we should allow that more people hold a piece of the spiritual and intellectual puzzle than we might imagine. And maybe we should accept the fallibility of our interpretations which have nothing to do with the inherent infallibility of God.

“Rarely do we find [people] who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr

.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I refuse to accept the view that [human]kind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

“Science investigates religion interprets. Science investigates religion interprets.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Wisdom is keeping a sense of fallibility of all our views and opinions.” ~ Gerald Brenan, British writer and Hispanist

“So be it. God created profoundly fallible creatures on this earth, and human history is mostly the story of error and accident.” ~ Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar at Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Elitist Demolition Teams, God, and Common Ground

God calls us to be bridge builders rather than members of an elitist demolition team. Too often we Christians engage in rhetoric and acts that destroys (witting and unwittingly) the connection between our fellow human beings and God. And we employ Jesus as a pawn in our religious games. Jesus is precious to Christians, as should be the case. The black American slaves sang you may take the whole world, but give me Jesus. When the slaves sang that song the world, as they experienced and knew it, pushed their backs against the wall (see Howard Thurman’s Jesus and the Disinherited).  They needed  (and believed that) the Jesus and God whom the slave owners claimed sanctioned their oppression to be on their side.  The slavocracy and those who supported it had already enlisted the name of Jesus as a means to destroy the connection between God and the slaves. According to the slave owners the Apostle Paul, as a servant of Jesus Christ, said that God wanted slaves to obey their masters and be good slaves. Thus, through Jesus, God sanctioned the immoral and inhumane subjugation of black slaves.  Jesus is enlisted as the “middleman” who regulates and determines the relationship between the slaves and God. This Jesus-model should not be replicated by the children and grandchildren of former slaves or former slave owners for any reason even if  (or especially if) it is to boost our Christian stock or as a means to construct an identity for “us” over against the demonic “them” or Other. Women and ethnic minorities should be extremely cautious not to imitate the ways of our former and current oppressors.

The New Testament book The Acts of the Apostles (Acts) can be read as a real common ground or bridge-building text despite the anti-Jew rhetoric and the several silenced women, etc. Some Bible readers (and non-Bible readers) and scholars describe Acts as a story about the acts of Peter and Paul and/or the Holy Spirit. Many recognize that it is not about the acts of all the apostles as the title suggests. Careful readers of Acts will notice that the text is really about the acts of God. God promised to send God’s Spirit.  God poured out God’s Spirit. God raised Jesus (repeated often).  God made Jesus both Lord and Christ (anointed one or Messiah). In fact, readers will notice in the Apostle Paul’s speech to the Athenian audience in chapter 17, he does not mention the name of Jesus. This is an omission many contemporary Christians would view as an unpardonable sin. I recall the uproar over mega church pastor Joel Osteen’s interview with CNN’s Larry King.

I believe the early Jewish believers who joined the Jesus movement recognized (and some maybe insisted upon) the fact that God constituted the glue that united them; God remained the common denominator despite their theological differences concerning God’s Messiah. Even among us professed contemporary Christians, our Christology (ideas, interpretations, and words about Christ) is not uniform. We differ in our understandings of who killed Jesus; we do not agree on whether or how Jesus engaged in social justice acts; despite the Apostles Creed from the first ecumenical Council of Nicea (325 CE’s) concerning the relationship between God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit, we disagree on how to articulate or understand the relationship and function of the Trinity (Father, and Son and Holy Spirit) and what it means for our lived experience. 

We stand on common ground with people of many religious faiths based on our belief in God who created all things and who loves all God’s created being and demands that we love one another. How do we engage in religious posturing or Jesus-name dropping that is counterproductive to building bridges between God and humanity and that misrepresents, in my opinion, even Jesus’ efforts as God’s son-agent sent to glorify God and to reconcile a people to their God?  

Your Brand Matters

     A friend asked me on New Year’s Day if I had a twenty-second elevator pitch to share with people I meet about myself, my brand. I replied that I couldn’t provide an answer right now. I needed time to reflect (I had just finished cooking dinner and elevators and brands were the last thing on my mind). Since it is wise that we often put ourselves in a self-reflective mode about who we are, how we want to be perceived, who we want to become, and how we are actually perceived, the new year is as appropriate a time as any to consider elevator pitches and brands.  What is a brand or brand marketing?  Do I know what my brand is?  How am I branding myself?  A brand, if I remember correctly from when I was married to a marketing professor, has to do with product quality, packaging, dissemination, and name.  The American Marketing Association identifies a brand as a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.”

     The conversation with my friend about elevator pitches and brands took place in the context of how I would get the message out about my new book, among other things.  Whom do I need to reach (who is my audience) and what do I want to share with them that they would need or want to buy? This is worthy reflecting upon because there just might be a dissonance or disagreement between what I want people to “buy” and what (and how) I am actually “selling.”  I am reminded of Jesus’ conversation with his disciples concerning whom the people (and the disciples) understood him to be (see Matt 16:13-20/Mk 8:27-30/Lk 9:18-21;cf. Matt 11:1-6; 22:41-45). The opinions varied and we would be quick to say that for those with the wrong answer, the fault is theirs and not Jesus’.  But even when Peter blurts out the apparently correct answer, either the time (or the messenger, which can impact the brand) is not right. It is important that our brand is understood and communicated correctly and at the right time. 

     Some of the dissonance that will occur is unavoidable because the purchaser is not critically aware (an uninformed buyer; remember caveat emptor!). But I can control to some extent what it is I’m selling, how it is packaged by me and others I allow to represent me, and to whom I deliver it in that package.  I can construct my brand and I should take the time to critically reflect upon and produce a quality brand that will transform the marketplace of this world and not content myself with a generic rip-off of empty, abstract rhetoric.  I will keep thinking about branding in more specific, concrete terms, and I’ll get back to you in another post. Share your thoughts.