WASHINGTON – African Americans are statistically likely to be religious, but their worldview is shaped by their race more than their faith, contends a born-again black author in her new book.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Mary Ann Chastain)Supporters cheer as Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen.Barack Obama, D-Ill., takes the stage with his wife Michelle and talk-show diva Oprah Winfrey during a campaign rally Sunday, Dec. 9, 2008, at Williams Brice Stadium in Columbia, S.C.
Long-standing social and political patterns in the African American community have molded black Christians to behave like secular black society, said former journalist Pamela G. Wilson in her book entitled, Finding Soul Brothers: Dismantling Black Christian Racialism.
Wilson defines the race-focused mindset, which is now expressed through political and social loyalties, as “racialism.”
On issues such as abortion and homosexuality, biblical principles are often sacrificed to support race agendas like social equality and economic justice, she contends.
“Most of the time, people (black Christians) are supporting a candidate for the sake of how they feel they will advance the race,” Wilson told The Christian Post.
“They want to put their support behind the candidates that will help the causes they’ve been fighting for over these last few decades – which there is nothing wrong with – but there is also a Christian standard and I don’t think you should support anything that makes you turn away from the Bible if you truly believe what the Bible says.”
Black Christians tend to be “stuck” in the civil rights mindset and not look beyond those issues even if they say they are a believer.
“People just jump on the black bandwagon at the expense of their faith,” Wilson said.
“There are examples after examples where Christians have chosen black unity over their Christian faith and I call that being unequally yoked.”
Wilson challenges fellow African-American Christians to stop focusing on their race and instead assume a faith-based agenda, which would more closely align with their spiritual beliefs. A faith-based agenda includes family values, morality, and spiritual authority – issues traditionally associated with conservative white Christians.
“It is very painful to say ‘if I let this go, what about my civil rights as a black person?’ But then you got to get to the point as a Christian to say ‘I can do all things through Christ and depend on God to be my deliverer and overcome injustice,’” advised the black born-again author.
Wilson’s book comes at a time when Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is vying to be the first black U.S. president. In December, his campaign unveiled a new committee of top African American religious leaders, which Wilson calls liberals and criticized for “turn[ing] their back” on biblical issues of abortion in exchange for a civil rights agenda.
“I believe as Christians, and definitely as leaders in the Christian community, they should be pointing people towards what the Bible says on these issues and then endorsing people who believe and want to support what the Bible says about that and other issues.”
She considers it problematic that Obama – who is ranked as the Democratic candidate that speaks the most about religion by Beliefnet.com – says he is a Bible-believing Christian but is pro-abortion and pro-gay “marriage.” Continue >>
RSS
I am so glad that this issue is being debated in the black community. I just wish that I was smart and dynamic enough to write such a book.
The time is coming when each one of us will have to give account to God of how we voted in the 2008 election. Are we going to support for President an individual who openly advocates abortion for any and reason and advocates same sex marriages? Both of these choice are absolutely opposed to Christian ethics. We as Christians must stand for the Word of God no matter what the cost.
African American Women's
Triumph Over Media Slander
A Must See On Your Campus
This Fall -- 2008
Brenda Verner's
Exquisitely Beautiful, Innovative and
Groundbreaking New Visual Production that --
Meticulously Analyzes and Refutes Slanderous
Historical and Contemporary Images of Black Women in Both African American and American Popular Culture
Includes The Current Media Image Assaults Upon
Michelle Obama and Her Triumph Over Them
19th Century Degrading Images of Black Girls
Labeled: The Ugly Black Girl/Woman
Mammy: The Most Beloved Stereotype for Black Women
Television Transforms the Image of Black Women
The Black Girl Taboo for White Boys/Men
Black Women - The World's Most Talented and Stylish Singers
Black Women's Cultural Tradition of Accomplishment
The Image of the Women of Hip Hop
The Black Comedian - No Friend to the Image of Black Women
The Dignified Cultural Image of the Everyday African American Woman
Ongoing Insult and Injury
Michelle Obama's Triumph Over Media Image Assaults
And much more ...
Brenda Verner
Verner Communication
author:"Why Black Men Should Protect Black Women"
and producer of "Black Women's Triumph Over Media Slander"
bjverner@aol.com
(708) 355-1365
BRENDA J. VERNER, ED.M., Harvard University, president of VERNER COMMUNICATION, is a nationally known media analyst who specializes in stereotyping research, human resource development, and is a dynamic public speaker. Brenda Verner has extensive experience in the areas of Women's Studies, media arts, and Africana Studies and is noted for her riveting and incisive visual presentations. She hosted the radio talk show, Brenda Verner's Cutting Edge on the Salem Broadcasting network. She also, hosted the television shows Africana Thought & Africana Woman consecutively via Chicago Cable Access.
Brenda Verner has designed and taught the course Black & White Women Since Slavery via the Cornell University Women's Studies Program. Her insightful article Africana Womanism: Why Black Women Have Rejected Feminism has been published in several of this nation's newspapers, and her essay, The Power & Glory of Africana Womanism appeared in the Chicago Tribune. Brenda Verner has made guest appearances on local and national television broadcasts, including ABC's Good Morning Show, Womankind (Boston), PBS's Tony Brown's Journal, BET's Our Voices, Chicago Tonight, and has been a guest on countless radio broadcasts across the nation. Ms. Verner has lectured at many of this nation's most respected universities and colleges: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Amherst College, MIT, Brown University, University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Sarah Lawrence, Notre Dame, Spelman, Northwestern University, Columbia University, among scores of other institutions.
The problem is how whites view black people in America.
From the very beginning we have been a color to whites.
Black overwhelms white genetically, therefore we have always been a threat to whites, despite the fact that they brought Africans to these shores for their own economic benefit. African Americans are not a color - they/we are a culture. The color comes with the culture.
Just as a Chinese's color comes with the culture. When John Kennedy ran for president, he got 80% of the Catholic vote, and an even higher percentage of the Irish/Catholic vote. Catholics were proud to have the opportunity to see a Catholic as president. They were not accused of racialism nor separatism. If both whites and black people would view African American through the prism of culture, rather than color; they would understand black cultural pride, just as they accepted the cultural pride the Irish and Catholics experienced when Kennedy won.
The author of this article only seeks to impress white people. I am the grandson of two Christian ministers yet there are churches in the south I cannot visit because of the color of my skin. Most churches in South Africa fought to maintain apartheid way after the secular white community had chosen to abandon it. Why not talk about the white images of Jesus that black people are forced to sing praises to? Why do most Africans consider names like Dennis and Hamilton Christian names? Generational sin was used to justify slavery, but what about the grandchildren of slave owners who whipped people into submission in the name of the very white God named Jesus? Who is making any effort to reach out to the millions of Africans who converted to Islam because they were tired of the racism of the Church and the images of Jesus that they are selling? Being a Christian never helped a single black person when they were facing the hatred of Christian societies. I am not the son of Ham and I swear that Christianity has no future in Africa. One day our children will ask us why we infected them with low self-esteem.
I am Black and I am not surprise that a person who has not been a Christian very long is allowed a voice for an entire people. She does not speak of me and she does not know me. She is trying to sell a book by telling the masses what they want to hear or believe. No one person speaks for all and knows all. How do you become an authority so quickly, I guess next she will be preaching, by-pass divinity school she knows it all in a short time. Shame on you - who buy into this type of hype to keep kingdom building further apart.
Sounds like it boils down to if Christians (in this case African American) love the Lord with ALL their heart, soul and mind, and love their neighbors as themselves. How much more simple could it get?
I spend a bit of time as a lay advocate for special needs children and education. It isn't something you do. It's something you stand for and your actions are a result. Jesus was quite a social activist. Our government is a reflection of our people. If we don't like what we see in the mirror we need to change what's in front of it!
Poverty and social inequality is a result of the church not believing the gospel. It's that simple. This is where it gets fixed. It's a grassroots sort of thing.
The perspective of this article is being subjected to the mentality pointed out by the author. Subjective rationalism or moral relativism seeks to present acceptable alternatives to fundamental obedience to the Word of God.
Christ told us to to "seek the kingdom and God and His righteousness First", and "deny ourselves" and follow him. We have been warned about calling good evil and evil good. Paul warns about having a "form of godliness but denying the power thereof". I believe God is leading Christians to be willing to suffer for the sake of righteousness. This tends to trouble my mind, but I cannot avoid the similarities between how christians are being persecuted in the public square by being asked to denounce the faith in subtle ways and the persecution of the first christians subjected to persecution in the colluseum by gladiators and lions.
It is not hate to stand for righteousness. It is not bigotry to maintain the standards of the Bible. Peter told us that it is better to spoken of as being evil by the world when we stick to the righteousness of God than to compromise so the world will not condemn us. Hate wants to see other perish. Hate shows indifference to those living in sin separted from God. Love declares the Gospel in word and deed to shed the light and love of Christ on those in darkness.
John told us not the love the world or the things in the world because if we love the world then the love of the Father is not in us.
Finally, Paul told us that we will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. That statement alone should compel believers to purify ourself from the stain of the world and be clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
I agree with the author, that we as Christians should not abandon the Word of God when outside of church. However, as others have stated (jermyemilio etc), how do you choose a party when both are ignoring part of the Word? These are man made parties they will not cover everything. I choose normally to vote Democratically because;how can I speak of God when you can't hear me over your need of food?
Pammie you are right, but what do you do when you have received a business of econ B.S. degree, have work experience, but have not been hired in the year you have looked. Thank God he sent me a good provider for a husband who is also understanding.
48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Because the sodomites had plenty it caused them to oppose God. Pride was the root cause of the others sins being committed in Sodom. These Old Testament Scriptures you are using cannot apply to me today as New Testament Believer. In verse 49, if taken at face value, seems to say I am committing sin if I do not give to the poor and needy. This verse is basically saying they had a careless ease about them. They were secure in their abundance. In addition, their pride caused them to despise the poor not help them. God will never condone oppressing the poor or treating them inhumane because of their situation. Pride lead to many things and is cruel. This is what was going on in Sodom regarding the poor. Despising the poor for their condition and helping them are two different things. I will say this, as believers we should give to those who are less fortunate, but there is not scriptural mandate either way. I understand the humanity of a person will probably say because I am not sinning why give? I do not operate that way. What ever you give, give because of love for God's creation, whether or not they are rich or poor. Don’t give because you fear a punitive retribution from God.
Secondly, if this scripture is applied to me today, there will be a counter part for it in the New Testament. There isn't one. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself stated you will have the poor with you always.
Thirdly, regarding homosexuality,
Lets look at Jude 1:7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange F2 flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
The key words here are fornication and strange flesh. We all know fornication is the Unlawful sexual act outside of the confines of marriage right? Now, the strange flesh means to have a sexual relationship with men not women. It speaks to the order of nature. The order of nature in Gods eyesight is a man and women cohabitating together in a marriage relationship. This was not happening in Sodom. They were going contrary to the nature of God’s order .Men were having sexual relationships with other men. Jude is the New Testament counter part of Ezekiel 48-50. This gives a broader picture of what the pride and security in their abundance actually lead them to do as well as the other things mentioned.
Hey pammie, good post.
I actually agree with much of what you say. My only quibble is that you buy into the conservative myth that there are a bunch of lefties out there with signs and placards lobbying for increased welfare payments for the lazy.
Let me preface by saying I’m very familiar with both sides. I’m a PhD student in English Literature and I’m also a very active member of the very conservative Pentecostal Church in Canada. Here’s the disconnect as I see it:
Conservatives view poverty in terms of charity (i.e. giving to people who are in need). Liberals view poverty in terms of social justice (i.e. leveling the playing field so that everyone can succeed). Thus, when Liberals demand we address poverty, conservatives assume they are calling for an increase in the amount and/or scope of charitable giving. In reality, though, liberals want to empower the poor to escape their situation. It is the conservative approach that leads to institutionalized poverty.
Don’t buy it? Here are a couple of examples:
1. Wheelchair access: I’m not that old, but I remember when this was a controversy. The left came up with the idea that if we made buildings, businesses, and transportation accessible to the physically disabled they would be empowered to achieve their own success. The right, though, insisted this was unreasonable. Not everyone is able to do everything. Besides, if you’re disabled you have a good excuse so don’t worry; that’s what charity is for. It sounds far fetched in hindsight, but that’s how it went.
2. Subsidized childcare: This one is still playing out. The left believes if we provide free childcare, single mothers will be empowered to support their families, rather than being forced to stay home to care for their children and collect welfare. The right has a different solution: workfare. If you make single mothers work for their social assistance they'll be forced to find someone to care for their children (maybe a schizophrenic grandma, or a drug dealing brother… they’re not doing anything). It’s not our responsibility to pay for the care of your children (until they’re 18, when their upbringing catches up with them and we have to foot the $50,000 per year bill for keeping them in prison).
This isn’t an indictment of the right, though. The liberal approach has problems as well. Go to a liberal institution and tell them your family is homeless and they’ll lobby the government for low cost housing. Go into a church and they may well build you a house.
Christians need to apply both perspectives. We must work to relieve immediate hardship through charity (something the Church is good at), but we must also work to empower the poor through social justice (something the Church is just catching onto now).
I heard that Huckabee has more support in the black community than any other Republican ever has.
On Poverty - 2
While the church and the government should help the poor, that help should be tailored to specific situations. Some people require TEMPORARY financial help, some need help with budgeting, some need job-skills training, and some need drug treatment or psychological therapy. Still others need mentorship programs to keep them motivated. Researcher Randy Alcorn says: I know a man who (hasn't worked for 10 years)...He still lives off the misguided “help” of society. Meanwhile, he has lost both his self-respect and his family. A nation, church, or family that subsidizes the lazy spawns laziness. Since laziness (can lead) to poverty, supporting the lazy breeds poverty. from Finding Soul Brothers
On Poverty - 1
The much-quoted Matthew 25:35-40 speaks of serving “the least of these,” referring to society’s obligation to serve people who are hungry, imprisoned, and poor. The scripture describes one mission of the church. But it is often misused in the rhetoric of racialists, liberal politicians, and the Christian Left, who cite it as justification to help a broad range of people. But could they be misapplying this scripture? According to the Bible, our benevolence is necessary and appropriate for people who are unable to attain life’s necessities, such as food, clothing, and human interaction. These people are described as “the least of these” because they are least able to provide for themselves. Among them are children, people with mental or physical disabilities, and people with language barriers, those who have lost hope behind bars, and those who have been forgotten in hospitals and nursing homes. They are the least competent members of society, and because of that they need our help.However, the “least of these” does not include people who are able but unwilling to work, people suffering from their own financial mismanagement, or people who neglect common sense planning. These are choices that lead to poverty, as noted in scripture: “He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows frivolity will have poverty enough” (Prov. 28:19). The Bible has many admonishments about being lazy and slothful. While there may be some cases where poverty is an inescapable station of life, those cases are few, particularly in the United States of America. from Finding Soul Brothers
cont. (for real this time)
To clarify: you can’t begin with a premise (“scripture is important”) and then drop the premise when it works against you (“scripture is not so important”) and then expect folks to stand by complacently when you pick the premise back up again to reiterate your original argument (“as I’ve stated, scripture is important”). Such tactics lead to blatant logical fallacies.
The bottom line is that Wilson’s thesis is wrong in its implication that one side is in keeping with scripture and the other side is not. The truth is the right is in keeping with scripture on issues like homosexuality, but out of touch with scripture on issues like poverty. Likewise, the left is in keeping with scripture on issues like poverty, and out of touch on issues like homosexuality. Thus, who to vote for is not a toss up between parties, but a toss up between not voting at all (because each side is wrong on certain Biblical issues) or being free to vote for either (because each side is right on certain Biblical issue).
On your final point, I confess that I am not an African American and it would seem that you are, so I certainly won't argue with your idea that race should not come before faith. As a long time Christian and the son of an evangelical pastor (not to mention my having an evangelical pastor as a wife) I concur. What I’m tired of is the idea that Christians (of any race) who lean left politically are somehow denying their faith while those who lean right are defending theirs. Like many, I’m a liberal BECAUSE of my Christianity, not in spite of it. That’s not to say that I don’t believe that it’s possible to be a Conservative Christian for the same reasons; just that Christians are hemmed in on BOTH sides by movements that attempt to appease us on some issues just so they can get a free pass from us on others.
cont.