Showing posts with label Daniel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2026

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. Hand-Waving at the Fall: YEC Explanations of the Origins of Defense Structures (March 23) "If God “pre-programmed” organisms with hidden venom systems, parasitic capabilities, and predatory anatomies—knowing they would be activated by the Fall—then the distinction between a “very good” creation and a creation designed for predation and suffering becomes vanishingly thin. This is not a creation that was corrupted by sin; it is a creation that was engineered from the beginning to produce suffering upon activation of a divine trigger."

Also, I was struck by the part about "different use" (ie, young-earth creationists claiming that maybe predatory and/or defensive features of organisms' biology were adapted from some other purpose), because seriously, most creationist arguments are along the lines of "look at this complex system that this creature uses! So many different parts, and they all have to interact just right, and it if only worked partly, that would be totally useless and natural selection would not favor it- there's no natural explanation for this, it must have been God designing it! Wow!" but now that they've noticed the awkward theological implications of claiming that animals' abilities to kill other animals are specifically designed that way by God, it's "oh, well this was probably *not* originally designed that way by God, probably just adapted from a system that had some other purpose NOTHING TO SEE HERE!" 

So KIND OF THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

2. "I am Jesus Christ" and Other Games About Jews (February 21, via) I laughed so hard at "But as a popup tutorial informs us, you can turn water into wine by first pressing right click and then holding left click." Also, I hadn't heard of the "Bible Adventures" video game before, but I am 0% surprised that Christians made a not-very-good video game with extremely shallow representations of bible stories and then marketed it as a godly alternative to mainstream video games.

This video is about what it means for a video game to be Jewish, what it means to play a video game in a Jewish way, and the search for video games which reflect what it's like to be Jewish.

3. A series of posts from the Slacktivist:

Texts of terror? Terrific! (March 25) "This is such a non-liturgical white evangelical idea. The rest of American Christianity gets to watch them awkwardly attempt to rediscover and reinvent the lectionary without realizing that’s what they’re doing."

You have heard it said, but I say this instead (March 26) "But the real obstacle for Olson here is not any notion of inerrancy or infallibility. It’s the dogma of univocalism — the idea that all of the Bible is a single text that speaks with a single voice without internal debate or contradiction or contention."

Team Everybody sliding into our DMs (March 28) "This is what we find, too, when we turn to “the Bible.” It affords and accommodates different and opposite meanings, depending on how we choose to read it. We can choose to view it as a text assuring us that we are the special ones who will get to “possess” every last remnant of the lands and legacies of “Edom” and of all the excluded whose birthright we have taken for our own. Or we can choose to read it as a text that calls us to call in “the rest of humanity,” so that Everybody may seek the Lord."

And from Paul Davidson: Why Scholars Date the Book of Daniel to the Second Century BCE (March 5) "You know how in movies based on true events, multiple historical individuals are often combined into a single movie character for simplicity’s sake? That seems to be the case here, with the historical Nabonidus subsumed into the literary character of Nebuchadnezzar."

4. Satellite Pollution (March 27) 

Also from xkcd: Creation

5. Under New Olympic Sex Testing Policy, A Cis Woman Who Gives Birth Could Be Considered Male (March 31) "And it is not the first time the Olympics has subjected women to mass sex testing—the last time it did, from 1992 to 1999, the results were disastrous, with cisgender women discovering they had intersex conditions they never knew about, leading to public humiliation, career destruction, and at least one suicide before such testing was abolished."

And more on that from Skepchick: Olympics Committee Punishes Trans & Cis Women (March 31) "Because as a reminder, girls as young as 11 compete in the Olympics, and now those children, too, will be put under the microscope to determine if they’re truly “woman” enough. It’s disgusting, and the Olympics staff should be ashamed."

Also from Erin in the Morning: Supreme Court Rules Against Conversion Therapy Bans On Transgender Day Of Visibility (April 1) This quote from Justice Jackson: "A state license used to mean something to the patients who entrust their care to licensed professionals—i.e., that the person is certified to be one who provides treatments that are consistent with the standard of care. That stops today."

6. The Final Word (Michael Card) - I've probably posted this before. I like this song about Jesus.

7. Liftoff! NASA astronauts have launched on a historic journey to the moon (April 1) "The crew members will first orbit Earth so that they can check out key systems on their spacecraft, including life support, communication, and navigation. Then they'll fire their vehicle's propulsion system to send themselves on a looping figure-eight path around the moon and back, ending with a splashdown into the Pacific Ocean."

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Lebanon faces ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ under Israeli assault: UN (March 27, via) "The families are … living in constant fear, and the psychological toll, particularly on children, will last far beyond this current escalation."

2. Photos: 'No Kings' protests across the country (March 28)

Millions turn out for "No Kings" rallies held worldwide to protest against Trump (March 28)

No Kings Protests Failed To End Fascism on Saturday. Curious. (March 30) "They watched 200,000 people gather in Minneapolis, a city that was terrorized by the president's secret police for a solid month, and they were not impressed, not in the least."

3. Trump Must Resign (March 24) "It’s true that Trump is very unlikely to willingly step down. But calls for resignation can be powerful in themselves if repeated consistently and forcefully."

4. Franklin Graham told Trump he can still get into Heaven. That’s the problem. (March 30) "On a side note, it’s wild that Graham is explaining Christianity 101 to Trump more than a decade after conservative Christians tried to convince people Trump was already one of them. (James Dobson said of Trump in 2016, 'He did accept a relationship with Christ.')"

5. The Largest Physician Organization In The US Reaffirms Gender-Affirming Care Is Medically Necessary (March 27) "The American Medical Association (AMA) has reaffirmed that gender-affirming care for trans minors, including surgeries, is medically sound—and that access to this life-saving care should not be impeded."

6. Federal judge rules DHS illegally stripped immigration status from thousands who entered through CBP One App (April 1) "'Our clients followed the law: they waited, registered, were inspected, and were granted parole under the law,' Perryman said in a statement. 'The Trump-Vance administration's effort to tear this status away overnight was unlawful and cruel.'"

Saturday, March 7, 2026

Retconning the Old Testament

Text written in Hebrew. Image source.

The Christian bible is divided into 2 parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The New Testament is the part about Jesus- but, you know Christians, we try to make everything about Jesus. We try to make the Old Testament about Jesus too.

In this post, I'm going to call it the Hebrew bible, instead of calling it the Old Testament, because I want to make the point that it belonged to Jewish people first. It was already a thing, even before Jesus was born. It already meant something and could stand on its own- it wasn't incomplete, waiting for Jesus to come along so it could finally make sense.

The way Christians tell the story, though, is that the Jewish people were waiting for so long, looking forward to when the messiah would come. There were prophecies, there were signs that pointed forward to Jesus. And finally Jesus came, and lived and died and rose again, and this ties the whole story together. Now it finally makes sense, and the whole bible is about Jesus.

This is a retcon. As originally written, the Hebrew bible is not about Jesus. Christians read it through the lens of Jesus' life- and yes, I'm a Christian and I do this- but that's putting our own spin on it, and we shouldn't forget that. Our Christian take on the Hebrew bible is not its "real meaning."

Monday, August 12, 2024

"Jesus and the Lions' Den" (kids' book review)

Book cover for "Jesus and the Lions' Den"

I bought this book for my son: Jesus and the Lions' Den [affiliate link], by Alison Mitchell. Because I want to read books to him to introduce him to the bible, but that's tricky because I'm ex-evangelical, and in my honest opinion, the bible is not really appropriate for kids. So I decided to try this book and see how it is.

---

Using other bible stories to teach about Jesus

This book is part of a series called "Tales That Tell the Truth", and the gimmick is that in each of the books, it tells a bible story that isn't necessarily related to Jesus, and then uses the story to teach us something about Jesus. This is very cool from a literary perspective- finding themes in other bible stories which parallel things that happened in the stories about Jesus. This book in particular, "Jesus and the Lions' Den" first tells the story of Daniel in the lions' den (from Daniel 6), and then points out several similarities between Daniel and Jesus. I'm really interested in this as a concept, though I wasn't sure how well this series of books would implement it.

---

This book is good for preschool-age kids

At the beginning of "Jesus and the Lions' Den" the book says that some pages will have a little lion symbol hidden somewhere in the illustration, and kids are supposed to look for these as they read the book. (This symbol means that something that happened on that page is similar to something that happened to Jesus.) My son is preschool-age and he was SO INTO finding these lions. This is a good idea; it's fun for little kids.

Also, the language used in the book is at the right level for preschool kids. 

---

My ex-evangelical hot takes on "Daniel in the lions' den"

So, here are my concerns about the story we find in Daniel 6. Here are the aspects of it which are problematic:

1. The most glaring issue is that at the end of the story, after the king sees that God rescued Daniel from the lions (spoilers!), the king makes a new law that says people must worship Daniel's god. I say this is the most glaring issue because this part of the story is included in adaptations written for little kids. Other aspects of the story get censored when it's made into a story for little kids, but not this one. This is almost always included. ("Jesus and the Lions' Den" cleans it up a little bit by having the king issue a decree that says Daniel's god is the true god- but does not mention that people must worship this god.)

So the story that gets told to kids is that there was a law that said you could only pray to the king, but Daniel broke the law by praying to God, so he was thrown into the lions' den, but God shut the lions' mouths so Daniel survived, and then the king made a new law that said people must pray to Daniel's god. The "happy ending" isn't just that Daniel wasn't eaten by lions, it's that a new law was made to be the *opposite* of the old law. The old law was bad because it said people couldn't pray to God. The new law is good because it said people must pray to God- specifically, Daniel's god.

And this gets presented to kids like it's a good thing.

Umm. I believe in freedom of religion. We definitely should NOT be making laws that require people to believe in a certain god, what on earth. This is not a "happy ending."

And in my experience hearing this story in Sunday school as a kid, this is mentioned but nobody really talks about what it means. It's just "God shut the lions' mouths so Daniel was saved! Yay! And then the king made a new law that said people must pray to Daniel's god! Yay! The end." Nobody says, wait, the king made a new law that said people must pray to Daniel's god? Are we sure that's a good thing? Is that really what God would want? Is that what we should want, as modern-day American Christians? Does the bible oppose freedom of religion? Isn't that a little messed-up?

But nope, nobody talks about that. The big climax of the story is when Daniel survives the lions' den, and then at the end when the story is wrapping up, it's mentioned that this new law was made, but nobody talks about it. 

This is messed-up; I want to teach my kid that freedom of religion is good.

(I'll add this caveat: In the actual bible story, this new law is probably not as bad as it initially sounds. It doesn't include any concrete actions that people are supposed to do, and no mention of it being enforced. And this was in a polytheistic culture, so probably it wasn't saying you have to *stop* worshipping other gods and *only* worship Daniel's god.)

2. Oh, and another thing that happened after Daniel came out of the lions' den: "At the king’s command, the men who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children. And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones." (Daniel 6:24)

WTF?

This part of the story is ALWAYS censored when it's adapted for little kids. Nobody's in Sunday school telling 4-year-olds "and then the bad guys' kids were violently murdered." But that's what the bible says. Should we censor that? Should we not censor it? Should we avoid telling kids the story of Daniel in the lions' den altogether? 

I'm not comfortable with censoring it, because then you're misrepresenting what the bible is. The bible has a lot of ****ed-up stuff, but Christians present it like it's a bunch of nice morality lessons and encouraging promises about God. Lol. No. That's not what it is. I don't want to teach my kid that's what it is.

But I'm also not okay with telling the story to kids uncensored, because, holy crap that's horrifying and violent.

3. In this story, God saves Daniel, but what about all the times God doesn't save people? Religious persecution is a real thing. People are murdered for their beliefs, and God doesn't save them. How should we understand the story of Daniel in the lions' den, with the knowledge that God often doesn't save people?

So those 3 points are the problems I have with the story of Daniel in the lions' den, related to how the story is presented to kids.

However, my son is a little kid and he's not thinking about any of that. He just wants to see pictures of lions. (Who wouldn't?)

It's got me thinking that it's not just about the story itself; it's about the culture surrounding it. If you grow up evangelical and you frequently hear the story of Daniel in the lions' den, it will mean something different to you than to someone from a different religious background. Maybe my son can hear the story and be fine because nobody's teaching him the accompanying evangelical beliefs.

---

It's interesting that this book didn't take the "stand up for what's right" approach

Typically, growing up evangelical, the lesson I've seen people teaching kids using the story of Daniel in the lions' den goes something like this: There was a law that made it illegal to pray to God. But Daniel did the right thing and prayed anyway! What would you do if you were in a situation where someone wanted you to do something you knew was wrong? What would you do if you were being persecuted for your faith? Would you stand up for what's right, like Daniel?

At times it can even get an ugly culture-war spin, like "our society is going to outlaw Christianity! We must take a stand against it, like Daniel!"

I have to say, I like how the book "Jesus and the Lions' Den" didn't try to teach kids something they *should* do. The main points are that there are similarities between Daniel and Jesus, and that God is the true king.

Also at the end of the book, when discussing similarities between Daniel and Jesus, the book says that just as God saved Daniel, "God promises to bring all of his Son's friends out of death and into life with him, too." (But it doesn't even explicitly say "you can ask Jesus into you heart" or anything like that.) And also on the very last page, it says we can also pray, just like Daniel did. These practical application bits are just kinda tacked on to the end, after all the interesting parts of the story are finished- my son probably didn't even pay attention to those. The book doesn't really emphasize them, or do the work of connecting them to the rest of the story. The point of the book is not to teach something that kids "should" do. It's to teach them some ideas about what Jesus is like.

I think that works really well, actually. Maybe a big part of what I find "problematic" in kids' bible stories is that they turn every story into a simple morality lesson about "here's what you should do." This book doesn't do that.

---

God's pronouns

The book uses he/him pronouns for God. I can't really complain about that, because the bible does too, but... what's a queer Christian gotta do to find a kids' book that uses something other than he/him for God???

("When God Made the World" doesn't use any pronouns for God- it just says "God" over and over. I like that, but also, how about a book that uses She or They?)

---

Conclusion

I like this book. There are still some things I find problematic about the story, but my son is a little kid in preschool and he doesn't have an ex-evangelical mindset, so it's not problematic for him. I guess for him, it's just a story, just like "Green Eggs and Ham" or any of his other books. Wow, imagine if there was an evangelical-like movement around "Green Eggs and Ham", imagine all the problems that would arise if you were required to take it super seriously and believe it's true and inerrant and that it should dictate how you live.

If my son learns these bible stories as interesting stories rather than as an authority over his life, maybe they won't be problematic for him. The problem is not the bible itself, it's the evangelical culture that tells us what we have to believe about the bible.

---

Related:

Not Sure I Want My Kid Reading the Bible 

2 Wrong Ways to Write Bible Stories For Kids

An Ex-Evangelical Mom Review of "When God Made The World" 

Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Me

Perfect Number Watches VeggieTales "Where's God When I'm Scared?" (1993)

Saturday, February 18, 2023

"There is no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred": What people do with "revival"

Image text: "Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. Micah 6:8" Image source.

My posts on the Asbury revival:

February 13 Blogaround
"There is no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred": What people do with "revival"
Does God Use Miracles To Take Sides? 
The Logistics of a Revival 
Why I Don't Want to be at a "Revival"

---

So, about what's going on at Asbury University.

Why students at a Kentucky Christian school are praying and singing round the clock (February 14)

Last Wednesday (Feb. 8), students at Asbury University gathered for their biweekly chapel service in the 1,500-seat Hughes Auditorium.

They sang. They listened to a sermon. They prayed.

Nearly a week later, many of them are still there.

“This has been an extraordinary time for us,” Asbury President Kevin Brown said during a gathering on Monday, more than 120 hours into what participants have referred to as a spiritual revival.

The revival has disrupted life and brought national attention to Asbury, an evangelical Christian school in Wilmore, Kentucky, about a half-hour outside of Lexington. Videos of students singing, weeping and praying have been posted on social media, leading to both criticism and praise from onlookers. News of the revival has also drawn students and other visitors to the campus to take part in the ongoing prayer and worship.

(I have some Facebook friends who have gone to see this revival and written about it on Facebook. A lot of people in evangelical circles are talking about it.)

See the Slacktivist's post about it: Revive us again (again), and also what I wrote in my latest blogaround.

So, first what I want to say is: I believe in God. I'm a Christian. Therefore I believe that it is at least theoretically possible that God does sometimes come and "pour out Their spirit" in a certain place, and people there do feel Their presence and have very strong emotional/spiritual experiences. Yes, it's at least theoretically possible, but I believe we should always be skeptical of any actual reports of this actually happening. Because it is much more likely to be caused by the way the music and the environment of the worship space manipulate people's emotions- and this can be used in nefarious ways by Christian leaders who know what they're doing.

So, I see articles from Christian sources about what's going on in Asbury, and I do feel like there's something real about it. Like God really has chosen to cause Their presence to be powerfully felt there. (Maybe I'm wrong though, who knows? I have ex-Christian Twitter friends who are side-eyeing the entire thing, and I get that.) My *feeling* is there really is at least a part of this that's from God- I don't think it's *all* because of someone's skill at playing emotionally-manipulative music or whatever- and I say that because what's happening at Asbury is very grassroots and student-led. 

But that doesn't mean that Christians who describe what's happening, or say "this is what it means," are right about that.

There's what God does, and then there's how people respond to it.

It makes me think about the healing of the man at the pool, in John 5:1-15. "Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. [footnote, only found in some manuscripts: and they waited for the moving of the waters. From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had.]" Apparently this was the way God worked at this miraculous pool.

But it's not just about how God works, it's about how people respond. Jesus sees a man who had been sick for 38 years, and the sick man says, "Sir, I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me." Like... should someone have taken charge and set up a system where new people couldn't cut in front of people who had been waiting there for years, who were too disabled to get into the water? Or... maybe not... something seems kind of wrong about people putting rules and restrictions on a miracle, setting up neat systems to make it work according to their own opinions about who God "should" heal first... but at the same time, it wasn't fair to this guy, right?

I've heard that at Asbury, some Christian celebrities have shown up, and the students there do NOT let them have the stage. The worship music on stage is student-led. Whoever is in charge there doesn't want anyone to co-opt it for their own purposes. Maybe someone should have done something like that at the pool in Bethesda.

But if you're making decisions on who can or can't have the stage, then that aspect of it is from humans, not God. But there is no alternative- if no one puts a restriction there, then inevitably some power-hungry person will use it for their own ambitions/ political goals/ etc.

There's what God does, and then there's how people respond to it.

I believe in a God who lets people have the freedom to respond- and to be wrong sometimes. God does something, and then some believer says "God did this in my life, and this is what it means" and maybe their explanation on "this is what it means" is so completely different from God's actual opinion. But what is God going to do- only allow people who are right about everything to have spiritual experiences? Mind-control people to make sure they have the correct opinion about their spiritual experience?

I believe in a God who is a full person with Their own opinions and Their own experiences, and people are created in the image of God- God wants people to all be free to have their own opinions and their own experiences. It's not about making sure everyone knows the "right answer" about every issue- that's not important to my God at all. God does things and lets people make of it whatever they want. (Death of the author, I guess.)

And maybe I have an opinion and I believe that God shouldn't do those "spiritual experience" sorts of things, because of how people take it... like taking it as confirmation that all their already-held beliefs about God are true. I think about when God rescued Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), and I wonder if there was some other friend of theirs who was also very devoted to God, and made a nuanced argument about why it's okay to pretend to bow down to the statue, and so he wasn't thrown into the fiery furnace, and didn't experience the miracle, and then... then what? What does that do to his faith? (Maybe someday I'll find the time to write a bible fanfic on this.)

For me, actually, it used to be that a big part of this was wanting "evidence" that God exists. When I was evangelical, that's what I wanted. I was always very aware of atheism, and always fighting it... wanting a "spiritual experience" because then that would be "evidence"- wanting to investigate other people's accounts of their own spiritual experiences, to prove atheism wrong. 

Now I don't care about that anymore, though- now I would say I have more in common with atheists who criticize Christianity, than with conservative Christians. I don't think being wrong about the existence or non-existence of God really matters as much. So I hear about this revival, and my concern isn't about if it's "real" or not. It doesn't matter to me if it's real or not. It matters what people do with it. Are people going to say "and this means that God is confirming I was right about how being queer is a sin/ God is confirming I was right about how being queer is not a sin" etc etc etc?

(Maybe we should say that these spiritual experiences shouldn't be used to prop up one side or the other in a culture war- but isn't that what happened in Acts 10:44-48? There was the question of whether Gentiles could be Christians, or if only Jewish people could- and the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles and they spoke in tongues, and that was evidence for which side of the argument God was on. Couldn't a similar thing happen, where God's spirit is clearly present in queer Christians, and that's evidence that the church should be queer-affirming? To some extent I think that has happened but in a more long-term sense- there are Christians who changed their minds because they got to know queer Christians and saw that the queer Christians really are devoted to God, etc.)

And I know a lot of Christians want to have these kinds of spiritual experiences, to have that feeling, to feel God's presence. Chasing that emotion, specifically. I'm not into that anymore either. I have boundaries with God; I've decided I won't have a "personal relationship" with any god. I won't be vulnerable to any god in that way. I've had spiritual experiences like this before, but I don't feel I need that now.

Like, honestly, I'm not on board with the idea that we "need" this kind of "revival." I'm not on board with Christians who long for it (because that's often tied up with ideas about Christians getting more political power...). It's just an emotional experience. Like, okay sure it's the presence of God or whatever, but, God is always with us. Where can I go from Your spirit, where can I flee from Your presence? We don't need God giving us our own personal little emotional experiences- we need to bring justice to the earth. Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God.

(Also I'm giving a lot of side-eye to Christians who uncritically accept that this really is a "revival", and don't have any concerns about it, and are like "let's pray for it to happen at our church too!")

Actually, I want to say a bit about where these emotional spiritual experiences figure into evangelical culture. I've been to Christian conferences where the worship service goes on a while and people are like "God is here!" and ... I would say the result of this is the way it inspires the people who experience it. The emotions of it can be so strong, that it's something that stays with you for years, and you base your life on it. There was one conference I was at, in college, that as I was kneeling in the front, with the worship music playing, I had this idea to start 2 bible study groups. And then I ended up actually doing it, over the next few months. I was inspired, I had that emotional experience, and I went on to do it. (At the same time, I wonder about people who made these big commitments about all the things they were going to do for God, during high-emotion spiritual experiences, and then don't end up doing them- I really wonder about the statistics on that.) And... I mean, yeah, hopefully people are inspired to do things that are good, but this is limited by the ideology you already believe in. Like, in those 2 bible study groups I started, I did that because I believed my friends needed God, and needed to become Christians. I don't believe that any more.

There's what God does, and then there's how people respond.

And I've been to Urbana (Intervarsity's huge missions conference). And it is a known phenomenon, that people "get the call to missions" at Urbana- like, you're having these emotional spiritual experiences, and in the midst of that, you feel like God is "calling" you to go be a missionary in some country. Actually, when I wanted to go to China, I didn't have that experience- and I worried SO MUCH that I wasn't "allowed" to go to China because God didn't "call" me. Like it was something I can't just choose to do myself, I can't just say "here are my reasons"- it's only valid if it just pops into my head as a random thought during a very spiritual experience. It really gave me a lot of angst back then, choosing to move to China because I wanted to, not because "God" "called" me.

Anywayyyy, maybe this post is all over the place, but I just want to write these things down... My point is, I think it's real, at least to some extent, but the important thing isn't if it's real, it's what people do with it. 

---

Follow-up post: Does God Use Miracles To Take Sides?

---

Related:

My Urbana 12 Commitment Card

"You Weren't There, the Night Jesus Found Me" 

When God Agreed That a Crush Was Dangerous

The things I've never let myself say about worship

---

Some tweets (after the jump):

Monday, March 19, 2018

Ending Slavery Didn't Address the Real Problem

Book cover for "The Cross and the Lynching Tree" by James H. Cone. Image source.
[content note: anti-black violence, lynching, the N-word]

We're going to be looking at James Cone's book The Cross and the Lynching Tree. This post will cover chapter 1, "Nobody Knows de Trouble I See." This book was extremely eye-opening for me, and the reason I'm blogging about it is because white Americans all need to learn about this. In school I learned the basic facts about slavery, reconstruction, segregation, and all that, but I didn't really *get* it. So. Here we go.

First of all: Let's talk about what happened after slavery was abolished.

When I was a child, I had this sort of perspective on slavery and racism: Obviously everybody should have equal rights, obviously there shouldn't be discrimination based on race, obviously slavery is bad. I saw these principles as clear and obvious, and sort of imagined them to be a "default" or a "reference point" which racist policies had been put on top of at various times during history. In other words, I thought that white people during the time of the Civil War would have "by default" believed in racial equality, but the problem was that slavery was legal. As a child, I imagined that abolishing slavery had solved that whole problem. As if the only alternative to slavery is full equality.

Yeah, no. The main problem wasn't slavery itself, the problem was an entire society full of white people who believed that slavery was right and good. And I really didn't get that. I had never imagined that nice people could hold such objectively racist views- believing that black people have a lower "place in society"- and that they believed that was just normal, that was just the way things are supposed to be. That they didn't see those things as evil. That they believed God set it up that way.

"All races are equal" was very much NOT some kind of "obvious" principle which all the white people reverted to when slavery was abolished. Ha. No.

And I should know equality isn't "obvious", because I used to believe in complementarianism. That's what I had been taught in church- that men are leaders, blah blah blah. I very much did NOT see it as "all right so our starting point is that all genders should have the same leadership opportunities, but then on top of that we add some rules from God about how wives should submit to their husbands..." No, they taught it as "this hierarchy is just the natural way that things go, created by God." When I started learning about Christian feminism, I was like "so............. so then how do you interpret the 'wives submit to your husbands' verse? Would it be like, the husband and wife discuss things and then, like, only as a last resort if they can't agree, then the husband makes the final decision?" I needed to spend time unlearning complementarianism.

And the United States should have worked on unlearning slavery. Not just making it illegal, but working through all the implications, examining why it was wrong and what we should do to bring justice to the people who had suffered under slavery.

On page 4 of the book, Cone says "Most southern whites were furious at the very idea of granting ex-slaves social, political, and economic freedom." And "White supremacists felt insulted by the suggestion that whites and blacks might work together as equals." I didn't get this before- I didn't get that a lot of white people disagreed with abolishing slavery. They genuinely believed that blacks were just inferior and that's just the way it is. You can change the laws but you can't change the culture. That takes time.

And OF COURSE if society is run by white people who don't think black people should have freedom and equality, then they're going to do everything in their power to control and limit black people. Even though slavery is no longer an option. That's what happened during Reconstruction.

Again, how did I miss this when learning about US history in school? Maybe the problem is that "colorblind" white Americans see racism as something so horrific and bad that it must exist only in some faraway time and place that we can't relate to at all. We don't think about the motivations of those racist caricature people in our history books. We don't realize that the reasoning they gave for their racist ideas is very similar to debates happening today.

Cone describes how lynching became more and more common after the Civil War ended, and became a racialized form of violence specifically directed at black people (whereas originally it wasn't necessarily directed at black people, but was seen as "the only way a community could protect itself from bad people out of reach of the law"). Lynching became a way for whites to terrorize blacks- and they knew they could get away with it. On page 7, Cone says:
Lynching was the white community's way of forcibly reminding blacks of their inferiority and powerlessness. To be black meant that whites could do anything to you and your people, and that neither you nor anyone else could do anything about it. The Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had said clearly in the Dred Scott Decision (1857): "[blacks] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." For many whites, whether in the North or the South, that conviction was unaffected by the end of slavery.
And that's horrifying. But... it's also horrifyingly similar to news stories I've seen over the past few years. #BlackLivesMatter has been calling attention to cases where black people were murdered (often by police) and the murderer totally got away with it. "To be black meant that whites could do anything to you and your people, and that neither you nor anyone else could do anything about it." To give just one example: Philando Castile was killed by a police officer, who was then acquitted of all charges. I remember reading accounts of lynchings in my history book in high school, which always seemed to end with "he was acquitted by an all-white jury." And I remember it was scary and shocking to read that, in history class, to think, "how could this happen?" Even more scary and shocking to realize it still happens today.

Another quote from the book:
A black Mississippian recalled a lynching with these words: "Back in them days, to kill a Negro wasn't nothing. It was like killing a chicken or killing a snake. The whites would say, 'Niggers jest supposed to die, ain't no damn good anyway-- so jest go an' kill 'em.'"
Yeah, again, holy crap, that's horrifying. But. There was a GoFundMe page for Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed Mike Brown- and The Guardian reports that it received racist comments:
“Don’t let the savages win,” wrote one donor, calling himself Timothy Flagg. An anonymous donor told Wilson: “We appreciate your service in the animal control division of the Ferguson police department.”
And I remember seeing stuff like this, comments like this in support of various people who had killed unarmed blacks. When I first saw them, I had trouble even understanding- why would someone say something like that? What were they even talking about? But that's the reason right there- "N*****s jest supposed to die"- there are literally people who actually believe it would be better if black people just died.

GoFundMe was criticized for "collecting 'reward money for a lynching'". I've come to realize that lynching is about getting rid of black people- the actual reason given in each specific case is just an excuse. And wow, this is horrifying.

(This also explains why the N-word is so bad and we must never say it. It was a word that was used back when society believed that black people should be killed for not "staying in their place." Like yeah I always knew it's a really bad word, but HOLY SHIT it's way worse than I thought.)

I remember maybe about 10 years ago, there was drama because some radio host called a local black politician "a monkey." People were all angry and said it was racist. But the good Republicans- including me- said no it's not racist, he called him "a monkey" because he thinks he's not very smart and disagrees with his political views, it's certainly an insult but it doesn't have anything to do with race. The idea that "monkey" would be an insult specifically directed toward black people, to claim they are less than human, was just unimaginable to me. What nonsense! Who would think something like that? With my "colorblind" racism that didn't know anything about history, I believed that the people who called it "racism" were the ones introducing race into a situation that really had nothing to do with race at all. Why on earth would they interpret "monkey" as being a reference to the fact that he is black? That's just ridiculous! Why would anyone imagine that those things would be connected at all?

I didn't know about the history of black people being treated like animals, like their lives didn't matter. I didn't know about white people who used their power to restrict black people's rights and freedom- even to the point of murdering them- because they believed they weren't really human. Or, I learned about it in school, but I believed it was some long-ago-and-far-away thing that doesn't have any relation at all to any modern ideologies. Maybe a two-dimensional caricature in my history book might say that black people are animals [in some sense other than the scientific definition that says all people are animals], but obviously no one would believe such nonsense now. Right?

Back to the book. Cone also quotes this passage from Benjamin E. Mays:
A crowd of white men ... rode up on horseback with rifles on their shoulders. I was with my father when they rode up, and I remember starting to cry. They cursed my father, drew their guns and made him salute, made him take off his hat and bow down to them several times. Then they rode away. I was five years old, but I've never forgotten them.
And Cone also says this:
Should a black man in the South lift his hand or raise his voice to reprimand a white person, he would incur the full weight of the law and the mob. Even to look at white people in a manner regarded as disrespectful could get a black lynched.
Just like all the blog posts about how unarmed black men wouldn't get shot if they'd just respect police properly. Just like Sandra Bland refusing to put out her cigarette and then mysteriously dying in jail. Just like the black people I follow on twitter, talking about how they are very very very careful to never ever take any action that could be interpreted as threatening or disrespectful when talking to police- even though they're innocent, even though theoretically they have rights.

And here's what I want to know: Why did we learn about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in church, but we never talked about our own history of threatening black people with death, continually, if they don't "stay in their place"? Why was that bible story presented as a one-time thing, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had lives just like us until one day this whole statue thing came up, and then when it was over life just continued as normal, free and happy? Why didn't I ever hear about the fact of entire groups of people living under continuous threat of death if they assert their rights- and no, God doesn't save them like in the bible. Some of them do get killed, and it sends a message to the rest, to keep them afraid and "in their place."

In the second half of the chapter, Cone talks about how blacks dealt with their trauma through blues music and church. Through blues songs, they asserted their humanity and expressed the pain they suffered and their hope. In church, they found meaning in Jesus' suffering and Jacob's struggle with God. Lots of song lyrics in this chapter- both from blues songs and spirituals. Here's an example:
Nobody knows the trouble I see,
Nobody knows but Jesus,
Nobody knows the trouble I see,
Glory Hallelujah!
Cone says,
Because of their experience of arbitrary violence, the cross was and is a redeeming and comforting image for many black Christians. If the God of Jesus' cross is found among the least, the crucified people of the world, then God is also found among those lynched in American history.
They could relate to the accounts of Jesus suffering unjustly, being beaten and mocked, being tortured and executed publicly. I'm struck by how lynching and the crucifixion of Jesus were basically the same thing, but white Christians see them so differently. We romanticize and ascribe symbolic meaning to every aspect of Jesus' suffering and death, while essentially ignoring our history of lynching, or treating it as nothing more than a bad thing that KKK members did way back then, which has no connection at all to our lives in the present.

(At the same time, though, Cone mentions that black Christians also questioned how God could allow atrocities like slavery and lynching to happen.)

In conclusion, Americans (especially white Americans) should all read James Cone. We've forgotten our history, and that means we're not able to recognize the racism and systemic discrimination that still exists in the present. I believe white people should learn about the reasons and motivations behind what "those racist people" did in the past- because we will recognize some of our own biases there too. It will reveal that, even though we call ourselves "colorblind," we are also guilty of racism and we need to change.

-------------

Cone starts out chapter 1 with these two quotes, which I'll reprint here because they're quite powerful:
They put him to death by hanging him on a tree.
-- Acts 10:39

Hundreds of kodaks clicked all morning at the scene of the lynching. People in automobiles and carriages came from miles around to view the corpse dangling from the end of a rope. ... Picture cards photographers installed a portable printing plant at the bridge and reaped a harvest in selling the postcard showing a photograph of the lynched Negro. Women and children were there by the score. At a number of country schools the day's routine was delayed until boy and girl pupils could get back from viewing the lynched man.
-- The Crisis 10, no. 2, June 1915, on the lynching of Thomas Brooks in Fayette County, Tennessee
-------------

Posts about The Cross and the Lynching Tree (by James H. Cone):

Reading US History Inerrantly
Ending Slavery Didn't Address the Real Problem
For the Sunday School Kids Who Never Heard About "the Curse of Ham" Or "Black Simon"
Dr. King and What Taking Up the Cross Actually Looks Like
"The South is Crucifying Christ Again"
"Strange Fruit"
"The Cross and the Lynching Tree": Conclusion

Monday, February 19, 2018

Perfect Number Watches VeggieTales "Rack, Shack, & Benny" (1995)


---------------------

To see all my VeggieTales reviews: Perfect Number Watches VeggieTales (Master Post)

AddThis

ShareThis