Wednesday, January 20, 2010

All Language is Political: “Negro Dialect” and the Power of Words

One of the neat things about studying social linguistics is the way it makes explicit the things everyone already knows. Harry Reid’s tone-deaf comment about Barack Obama is a great example. He chose an inelegant way of saying something everyone knows is true: “Obama doesn’t talk black.” Others have made similar offensive observations. “He is articulate,” which is a coded way of saying, “he sounds white.” But it isn’t really enough to say that he sounds white. He sounds like a certain kind of white person, one who has been educated and has not grown up in a rural or poor environment; which is, in fact, true about Obama. Which brings up all kinds of questions about what it means for someone to sound “white.” 

If only Harry Reid had spent a couple of semesters studying sociology or linguistics, he could have put it in a much less offensive, more academic-sounding way. Instead of using the phrase “negro dialect,” he could have said: “One of the reasons the president is popular across racial and class lines is because he doesn’t use African-American Vernacular English.” He could have even sounded more legit (isn’t that a “black” word?) by using its acronym, AAVE.

The irony, of course, is that in his comment about Obama’s use of language, he himself made a sociolinguistic blunder. He demonstrated by his failure to use correct language that he is morally and intellectually deficient. He is not one of “us.” These are exactly the kinds of judgments racists make when they hear AAVE, what some call “ebonics.”

What is so delicious about the whole brouhaha is that it demonstrates the way language works. Language is not merely the communication of ideas. It is the communication of social status, power, and group fidelity. When we deploy language, we advertise to which groups we belong, what values we accept, and what kinds of persons we are. If I drop the g’s off of my words: “listenin’ and learnin’,” I can show that I am folksy or populist or one of y’all, the way George W. Bush and Sarah Palin do. If I borrow words from popular black culture, I can demonstrate that I’m hip - unless I deploy them incorrectly or in an incongruous style, in which case I’m revealed to be a poser. These are all “social discourses,” ways we use language to pull off being a certain kind of person. 

White people often misunderstand AAVE as being incorrect or improper English. But even if we look at language as the communication of ideas, vernaculars often use much more elegant and consistent grammars than (implicitly white) Standard Academic English. One common example is the pair of sentences “she late” and “she be late.” The first is a perfectly correct grammatical construction in many languages. The verb “is” is implied. “She late” means she is late. “She be late” is a grammatical construction which implies a continual action. To translate it into SAE, you have to add cumbersome words: “She is habitually late.” You don’t have to do that in AAVE. You just say, “she be late.”

The same thing applies to Southern and Rural English as well. “Y’all” is a perfectly good word that often serves as a class or regional marker in our language. It’s a word shared by southerners, rural whites, and speakers of AAVE. There is no second person plural in Standard Academic English except “you.” “Y’all” makes clear who is being addressed: “all of you.” “Ain’t” is likewise a perfectly good word which has been in use for centuries as a contraction of the words “am” and “not.” The only reason to shun it is for class prejudice: people who say “ain’t” have not had it educated out of them.

Now, I think it’s really important to be careful about what we say and how we say it, especially if your vocation (like mine) is built on words. But the reality of human communication necessitates a measure of grace. You have to give folks the benefit of the doubt. Rather than react to someone’s socio-linguistic failure with glee or schadenfreude, we should ask how it could have been said better, and then ask if it really makes a bit of difference. When Reid said “negro dialect,” you knew what he meant. And chances are, you’ve thought the same thing.

And if you’ve thought the same thing, perhaps that’s where the real discussion on race, language, and how we treat each other could begin. There are no absolute lines around what constitutes AAVE, and no rational reason why Standard Academic English is considered “white,” or why what is “white” is considered more proper than what is not. Yet we make these kinds of judgments all the time at an unconscious level. We even modulate our dialect, sliding into one kind of vernacular or another depending on who is around us.

All language is political, because we are always indicating through it to which groups we belong, what our values are, and where we call home. Had Harry Reid said something like this, I doubt anyone would argue. Obama uses the language of power, and it is in part his artful use of that power that won him the election.

————————

[edit 1-23-10]: I should have pointed out that President Obama obviously gets some of his excellent speaking skills from black preachers, and I think he demonstrates a skill at “code switching” - the ability to “pull off” multiple social discourses at the same time. For a great movie about code switching (and its perils), I recommend Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Playing Whack-a-Mole

I realized some time ago that if I spent my energy smacking down every instance of bad theology I encountered, I’d be playing Whack-a-Mole the rest of my life. The assertions are too frequent, too outrageous to deal with them seriously on a regular basis. For example, I think it’s pretty clear that Fred Phelps is pretty wrong about who God is. His church’s music video “God Hates the World” is a flat contradiction of one of the most basic tenets of Christian faith, found in John 3:16.

I feel a little awkward even linking to the above video - as though by the very act of posting it I’m raising it in the global consciousness, when that’s actually the last thing I want to do.

It’s much the same with Pat Robertson’s and Rush Limbaugh’s comments. Should I even acknowledge that they exist? Or, like the braying and barking of barnyard animals, should I just consider their words background noise? Their breath vibrates vocal tissue, and the fleshy movements of their tongues give shape to their exhalations. Commenting on the supposed meaning of those noises, I feel a bit like I’ve called attention to the fact that someone farted.

The difference, of course, is that flatulence cannot always be helped.

Still, giving them attention almost lends them credibility in the eyes of their followers. I would prefer to let them talk themselves into irrelevance if it were not for the fact that in recent years they seem to have gained an even larger audience.

The Bible acknowledges this dilemma. The book of Proverbs is ostensibly written to teach “wisdom.” The idea is that by examining its aphorisms, readers can come to a greater sense of who God is and what God’s wisdom looks like. But some of those aphorisms are contradictory because wisdom involves the recognition of paradox. Here is the relevant passage:

Do not answer fools according to their folly,
  or you will be a fool yourself.
Answer fools according to their folly,
  or they will be wise in their own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5

So what’s the answer? Do you answer a fool according to their folly? Or do you let them blather on? Do you descend to the level of folly? Or do you upbraid the fool in the hopes that he or his hearers will see wisdom? Does Socrates spend time arguing with idiots? Or does he seek out conversation with peers? The wisdom here may be that dealing with fools is a no-win situation. If you answer them, you become a fool. If you don’t answer them, they think they are wise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s just damned foolishness.

There are a couple of other aphorisms that follow these that may be appropriate:

The legs of a disabled person hang limp;
  so does a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 7)

Like a thornbush brandished by the hand of a drunkard
  is a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 9)

In other words, even these proverbs, aphorisms of the wise, can be misapplied by fools. It is not the sayings themselves that indicate wisdom, but the context in which they are applied.

It is like binding a stone in a sling
  to give honour [or a television or radio program?] to a fool. (v. 8)

My addition may sound cheeky, but the fact is that giving honor to someone in the ancient world often meant giving them time and space for a speech. To give a fool honor, or money, or a forum to spew their vomit, creates a situation in which someone is going to get hurt.

Like a dog that returns to its vomit
  is a fool who reverts to his folly. (v. 11)

Just in case you thought my use of the word “vomit” or “fart” was harsh or un-Biblical.

Do you see persons wise in their own eyes?
  There is more hope for fools than for them. (v. 12)

And that’s really the problem, isn’t it? Because I can recognize fools, does that make me wise? Or does it take one to know one? I also have a forum in which to use my words. I have a pulpit and an audience. I pray that God will help me to use it wisely, that I will not be like a drunkard with a thornbush, or a fool shooting his sling into a crowd, or a dog that returns to its vomit. The desert fathers and mothers used to pray, “Oh Lord, him today, me tomorrow.” I hope that when (not if) I mishandle my words, I only look like an idiot, and that it won’t cause others to get hurt.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

UMCOR Aid for Haiti

You can contribute directly to relief efforts by donating through UMCOR. 100% of donations go directly to relief. I’ve frequently been impressed with the United Methodist Committee on Relief. It’s one thing that our Connection does really well. Charity Navigator also gives them a good rating.

Surely one does not turn against the needy,
when in disaster they cry for help.
Job 30:24

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Faith and Foreskins

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Mr. Not-Nice

The conversation went something like this:
Young woman: I’ve heard that you should always say “see you later” instead of “goodbye” when you part, because if you say goodbye you might never see them again. Do you think that’s true?
Me: I wish that were true. If so, there are a few church people I’d say goodbye to.
Older woman: DA-vid! That was not nice! And you are supposed to be a minister!
Me: What difference does that make?
Older woman: You’re supposed to be like Jesus!
Me: Jesus was loving, but he wasn’t always nice.

I’m surprised at how often I have to say this. People seem to think the most important characteristic of Jesus was that he was nice. Let me make this perfectly clear: Jesus was not nice. He called respected leaders of his day “snakes,” “pagan actors,” and “fools.” On one occasion he even obliquely referred to a woman as a “bitch.”

Yes, he did.

“Oh, no,” you object. “Jesus would never use profanity. He said he wouldn’t take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

See, the problem is that you think of a dog as a cute little puppy. You think of Lassie and Benji and Marley. But in most of the world they are simply large, mangy rats. In today’s America, calling someone “dog” is a term of endearment. But if you if you call someone a “dog” in any other country today, you will start a fight. A hundred years ago, you would get the same response in our own country. “Dog” and “bitch” were equally offensive, since they were two words for two genders of the same animal. But for some reason “bitch” has retained its negative connotation in our culture, while “dog” has lost its offensiveness to our modern ears. So when Jesus uses the word “dog,” we don’t even blink. It doesn’t strike us as offensive. In our culture, if you really want to call a man a “dog,” you use a more elaborate term: “son of a bitch.” And what would the son of a bitch be? A dog.  Ergo, Jesus calls the woman a bitch.

“Fool” has the same problem. Because we do not live in a culture that values wisdom as Jesus’ culture did, when we call someone a “fool” it has very little offensive power. But “fool” was harsh back in the day. We have our own versions: moron, idiot, retard, dumbass. Substitute any of those for Jesus’ words when he addresses the man in the bigger barns parable: “You dumbass! Tonight you will die, and all those things you’ve accumulated - whose will they be?”

“Hypocrites,” again, is just the Greek word for actors. But Jesus uses it describe religious leaders who prided themselves on being distinct from pagan, uncircumcised Greeks. He is saying that they are Greek actors, and you know about actors - those libertine celebrities who get paid to pretend on stage. He is saying to those religious leaders that their religiousness is a sham, their righteousness a fake righteousness, and there is no distinction between themselves and the pagans. So imagine going into any church of fine upstanding fundamentalists and referring to them as actors in a porno movie, willing to sell their virtue to paying audiences… and you’d probably get a similar reaction to the one Jesus got.

And “snake?” Remember, it was a snake that got Adam and Eve into trouble in the first place. People used to die from snakebite a lot more frequently than from automobile accidents. Snakes were unclean, though they were used a symbols of healing in pagan rituals. So to convey the same sense of contempt and outrage, try using the word “rats,” or “parasites,” which we associate with disease, and imagine Jesus applying those words to preachers, pundits, and politicians. Can you see why they killed him?

I think part of the reason the church has lost the urgency of the message of Jesus is that it has lost touch with his outrage. Jesus is more than a little disturbed by the leaders of his day. He is livid. He expects justice and righteousness from people who claim to represent God. He does not expect business as usual. He expects radical change.

But what we expect in the church is nice.

Don’t get me wrong. People in the church need to be adults. They should treat each other with civility. But they should not tolerate childish behavior on the part of other Christians, and they should not be silent in the face of injustice and religious hypocrisy. When Jesus preaches to those in power, he usually says something like, “hey, you dumbass!”

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Prayer for Christmas Eve

God, we often pray for strength, for comfort, for financial security. Yet on this night you answered our prayers for strength by being born the weakest and most defenseless of all creatures – a human infant. Unable to walk, like other animal babies, and unable to speak like grown humans. The very Word of God, you were wordless. You answered our prayers for comfort by spending your first night in a feeding trough. You answered our prayers for financial security by choosing a poor couple living in occupied territory. We pray for our homes: you were a refugee. We pray for success, popularity, family harmony. You were born to a teenage mother, you were rejected by your family, you were humiliated. How, then, Lord, should we pray? God, we bring to you all the things we think we want for Christmas. The desires of our hearts, our minds, and our flesh, we bring them not to your throne, but to your feeding trough, and we lay them in the hay. Infant king of our world, our words fail before your wordless word, this abstract and omnipotent God wrapped in its tiny package of human flesh.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Shut Up, and Know That I am God

Psalm 46:10 says “Be still and know that I am God.”

I’ve always heard those words spoken in a devotional way. I cannot count the number of times I have used them to introduce a time of silence during worship. Stillness seems so peaceful, so contemplative. We read “be still,” and we think of these words as calm and serene.

But “be still” doesn’t mean just quieting the soul. It is a command and a rebuke. In Mark 4:39, when Jesus addresses these words to the storm, the author says it is a rebuke. It’s as if Jesus looked at the sky and said, “shut your mouth!” In Isaiah 23:2, the prophet uses “be still” when he addresses wicked cities in the same way he uses “be ashamed” in the very next sentence. Psalm 31:18 likewise uses it in the context of judgment: “let lying lips be stilled.”

When I transpose these other uses to Psalm 46:10, it gives the Psalm a new meaning: Shut up and remember who is in charge! In fact, this reading fits better with the rest of the Psalm, which is partly about the judgment of nations who war against ancient Israel.  “My voice is louder and more authoritative than these petty princes,” says God. “Shut up.”

There is a more comforting usage of the phrase in Psalm 37: “Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him; do not fret over those who prosper in their way, over those who carry out evil devices.” But I do not think the Psalm 46 “be still” is meant to be comforting. I think it’s meant to be intimidating.

It’s also a word I think we need to hear. God says to the principalities and powers: “shut up! I’m bigger than you.” Read it with that attitude, and the psalm makes more sense:

He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
  he breaks the bow, and shatters the spear;
  he burns the shields with fire.
‘Be still, and know that I am God!
  I am exalted among the nations,
  I am exalted in the earth.’

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Bible Timeline

This is a timeline I made for my Wednesday night Bible study class.

click for full-size version

Friday, September 11, 2009

In Alabama? Seriously?

I was a bit stunned by Nate Silver’s blog post on the data on Obama’s approval rating in Alabama. According to the survey, Obama’s approval has gone up at the end of August among white voters in Alabama. 

You could never tell it from the chatter I hear. Of course, I spend most of my day around white middle-class people. Mostly it’s parenthetical, politically-loaded statements like, “if we still have medicare,” or “if inflation doesn’t get us.” But I can tell that there’s an undercurrent of fear for our country’s future, anxiety about national debt, etc. I would have figured that if anything, overall support for Obama would have gone down, given the tenor of media coverage. I live in Homewood, which in some ways is a model of the dynamic of Whitopia (people here even refer to it occasionally as “Mayberry”). There is plenty of diversity here, but there is also significant class and geographical segregation within the community.

So for you Alabamians and southerners - regardless of your political orientation - I’m curious about why you think this might be. 98% of black men and men voted for Obama back in November, and only 10% of whites. Yet according to the above survey, Obama’s approval rating is at 28% among white voters at the end of August.

Now, I know that approval ratings don’t always carry a lot of long-term significance. I’m just curious why. Thoughts?

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Favorite Fair Trade Shopping Sites

Since the Halloween decorations are already appearing, and since as soon as Halloween gets here the Christmas decorations will be up (ick!), I thought I’d get the jump on the retail shopping season by pushing fair trade shopping. We’ve been doing fair trade shopping for the last several Christmases, in addition to trying to spend less on crap that nobody needs.

So, here are some of our favorite shopping places:
Trade for Change: This is the retail site for Global Mamas, which we have used several times. One of my favorite Sunday shirts is from Global Mamas.

Global Exchange: Pretty extensive site with lots of products. We’ve gotten a soccer ball and other miscellaneous gifts from this site.

Atfaluna: This is a school for deaf children in Gaza. They support themselves by making crafts. Get some nice gifts and support a great cause at the same time. We have given several dishes from Atfaluna as gifts.

UPAVIM: UPAVIM is a cooperative of Guatemalan women who are often the main breadwinners in their families.

SERRV International: We’ve gotten lots of stuff from SERRV, mostly through sales at local churches, gift shops, and at Lake Junaluska. Angela has a cool apron that I think we got from a SERRV sale.

No Sweat: We get shoes and T-shirts (like I need anymore T-shirts) from these folks. My favorite is the black “Human” T-shirt.

It’s nice to see that a lot of these websites are much more professional-looking and easy to navigate than they were several years ago. When we first started doing fair trade shopping, many of the sites we visited had downloadable .pdfs of scanned catalogs, or product lists and separate price lists.

Of course, another good alternative to buying crap that nobody needs is giving gifts in honor of people. The Heifer Project gives the gift of sustainable agriculture and encourages recipients to pass on the gift to others when their animals reproduce. You can give a gift in honor of someone to UMCOR, and help an area of the world that is struggling with disaster. Of course, it’s not as flashy, but you can always make a donation to your church or a local organization that does good work in the community in honor of someone.

If you remain unconvinced of the importance of shopping differently, allow me to point you toward this wonderful 20-minute online video, The Story of Stuff. The irony is that this Christmas, there will be lots of people buying plastic crap to put under the Christmas tree for their children, which was likely made by children who live in environments contaminated by the factories in which they work. I think there are better ways to celebrate Jesus’ birthday. Merry Christmas!

Monday, August 03, 2009

Monday Morning Bible Haiku: Genesis 22

Walking together
He asks the question I fear
“What about the lamb?”

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Curmudgeonly Lectionary Reflections - Feeding the 5000

Speaking as a fairly mainstream liberal white Protestant, I am so sick of this story and its typical liberal white Protestant allegorical interpretation. In the usual reading, we (the church) are the disciples, and Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, and we think we can’t, so Jesus says try anyway, so we try and lo and behold, a miracle! Blah, blah, blah. Because, you know, it’s all about us. 

Another problem I have with the usual reading is that we have to pretend to be surprised, and it becomes a story about how much we believe. Really, you know about Jesus, don’t you? He heals people, walks on water, and raises the dead. Are we supposed to be wowed that he can produce pita bread out of thin air?

So I want to put on my curmudgeonly preacher persona and wave my cane and yell at the kids singing Kum-Ba-Yah to get off my lawn. I really like Mark’s version more than John’s so I’ll start there.

1. In Mark’s version, Jesus invites the disciples to come away to a deserted place all by themselves. Mark says this twice, in 6:31 and in 6:32. Mark has a fairly conservative economy of words, so when he says something twice, he means it. Dripping with sarcasm, his disciples say, “hey, teacher. Since we’re here at this deserted place of yours, how about sending them away to get something to eat?” Nice relaxing spot you picked, Jesus! I love that Mark lets us see the disciples get sarcastic with Jesus.

2. Now, most preachers will say that this crowd is made up of the poor and downtrodden, and they don’t have any money, and the miracle is about feeding the hungry. Hogwash! These people have money. The disciples say plainly, “send them away so that they can buy themselves something to eat.” The text does not tell us they were poor, sad, chronically hungry, or anything of the sort. It says they were like sheep without a shepherd. I suppose because we think of sheep as fleecy white innocent creatures, we automatically go into churchy mode and think that the sheep need someone to take care of them and feed them.

But the “sheep without a shepherd” comment is a reference to 1 Kings 22:17, in which Israel’s army without its king is compared to “sheep without a shepherd.” This crowd is not a bunch of hungry people looking for food. This is the army of Israel looking for a king! They want leadership, not bread. Also, the feeding of the masses recalls Elisha’s feeding of his own disciples in 2 Kings 4:42. These aren’t a bunch of poor downtrodden people. They are a prophetic army.

3. I’m glad I wasn’t there. Had I been there, I would not be thinking charitable thoughts. Here come all these people, interrupting my intimate spiritual time with Jesus. I mean, they just ran around a lake in order to go hear this guy talk. Is there not a sensible person among these 5000 who thought, “hey, maybe I should pack a lunch?” This is Galilee, circa 30 AD. There are no drive-thru windows, people! Plan ahead! It’s part of being a grown-up!

4. In John’s version (6:5-7), the disciples’ testy exchange with Jesus’ is replaced with this laid-back Socratic dialogue. “Where are we going to buy bread for all these people?” Because in John, the disciples aren’t idiots and jerks (which is why I could never have cut it with John’s crew).

5. John gives us a little kid who has 5 barley loaves and 2 fish. In pulpits all over the country on Sunday, this little boy will be the hero of the story. I’m sorry, but does nobody else think that 5 barley loaves and 2 fish is a LOT of food for a kid to eat? Maybe if the kid is 6’2” and weighs 240 pounds, this would be a reasonable dinner. Right, right, someone is going to pull out some obscure historical reference that they were small loaves. Whatever. Just consider this: what if it isn’t his food? Is he the only one out of 5000 adults who packed a lunch? Or is he supposed to be delivering this food to someone else? I like to imagine that there’s one guy in the crowd saying, “hey! that’s the kid who I hired to go get my takeout!” Or maybe the kid drives up in a beat-up Honda hatchback. He gets out and approaches the crowd of 5000. He looks at the order slip in his hand and asks, “hey… somebody order a pizza?”

6. Preachers are going to be falling all over themselves to allegorize this story and explain what the miracle means and will miss possibly the most obvious part of the story: Jesus eats with 5000 people. He shares food with an army. Eating together is a sign of friendship, and sharing the same piece of food is way of declaring eternal loyalty, as when Judas dips his bread into Jesus’ dish in John 13:26. If you break your Twinkie in half and give me part of it, you have just declared that you and I are like family, and we have a bond that cannot be broken. The one who eats with hookers and seditionists and thugs just made himself friends with 5000 people at once, because they all shared the same food.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this is THE point of the story. I don’t think there is only one right reading, and I don’t think it is simply a eucharistic allegory. But the militaristic language is there, the reference to Elisha’s disciples is there, and John ends the story with the people saying, “this is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.” The very next line is, “When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” The prophet shows up, recruits an army, and leaves.

Edit: Ooh! Ooh! I’ve got another one. In Mark they sit on the grass in groups of fifties and hundreds. Go ahead, look up “fifties and hundreds” in your concordance. You’ll find it’s a reference to leadership and military organization in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Kings.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Hymn Lyrics

The art of fitting lyrics to a melody is tough
You have to have a certain sense of timing
If you must stre, eh, etch your word for half a measure more
please find a better phrase to fit your rhyming.

If you want a congregation’s tongues to follow with your tune
And sing and sway and give your song their best
Consider where emPHAsis on sylLABles will fit best
And avoid using… ... rests.

Don’t string clichés together and then call that a song;
Let metaphors connote a kind of grace.
So if you’re writing lyrics and you must rhyme “eyes” with “skies,”
I hope you stab your pencil in your face.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Monday Morning (Belated) Bible Haiku: Genesis 21

There’s no “ours” and “theirs.”
Children are not property;
we belong to them.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Sexist Praise Songs

There’s a song titled “More Precious Than Silver,” which goes:

Lord you are more precious than silver
Lord you are more costly than gold
Lord you are more beautiful than diamonds
And nothing I desire compares with you.

Which is all fine and good, and it certainly has a pretty tune. But it struck me today as I was reading Proverbs that it’s an appropriated metaphor. The original text is a praise of Lady Wisdom:

Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding
for her income is better than silver, and her revenue better than gold
She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. (Proverbs 3:13-15)

Most congregations, of course, are far more comfortable addressing our hymns and love songs to THE LORD, who we will refer to in the masculine gender. I wonder, how many congregations would be comfortable singing a love song to Lady Wisdom? Look, it’s more Biblical, and it even fits the meter just fine. So why do the lyrics substitute THE LORD for Lady Wisdom?

Wisdom is more precious than silver
Knowledge is more costly than gold
Wisdom is more beautiful than diamonds,
And nothing I desire compares with her.

Egad!