Thinking About Movies

Since I am an older white male, I don't see what the controversy is all about.

Yeah, right.

Of course I do.

Actually I think there are several issues.

• First is the diversity one and the snub of an African-American Woman director- two strikes against her. If she hadn't been both black and woman she might have snuck by. Yes, there have been a couple black directors nominated and a woman, but the old exception proving the rule holds quite true.

• Second, the problem is made worse by the few number of black actors who are given anything but stereotyped parts or good scripts to work with. Again, the few number show the problem. I don't know whether David Oyelowo's performance is equal to the five nominees since I haven't seen it yet. But nominations for Robert Duvall in a poorly reviewed movie or Meryl Streep (again and again) for a musical that doesn't come up to her normal acting chops, shows part of the issue.

• Third, and I found this very interesting, four of the seven movies nominated, four of the five best male actor and only two of the five best female actors are based on real people and events. Somehow that, I think, has a limiting factor on the roles and scripts available.

I don't know what all this means in the long run. I would like to see someone be brave and creative enough to give some of our excellent black actors roles that would normally be given to white actors in some of the high-level scripts. Think how that could shake things up. How would people react if you told a story just like the American Sniper story with a black lead. I can hear the screaming about that. Change nothing but the color of his skin and see what happens. What if a Boyhood story happened in an Asian-American family? Or, God-forbid, the drummer under the abusive music teacher in Whiplash was a young Latina girl? Sure it changes the story greatly, but it doesn't mean it would be a lesser quality movie.

None of this is meant to denigrate the quality of the movies presented. This year has been a truly bonus year of great movies. As always to bring the numbers down to the final contenders is not a task I would like. But let's keep working at expanding the opportunities for greater story-telling.

Just Thinking

When working on some of genealogical research the other week I had one of those moments when the world made a little bit of a shift. It comes with just a simple questions:

Why do almost exclusively self-identify with the "family" of our birth surname?

I was looking at my family tree and realized that just three generations back (my great-grandparents) I can potentially find as many as eight surnames and the one more generation (great-great grandparents) there would be sixteen. Does that mean I am as much a Klein and a Keller and a Freighley and a Ritchie as a Lehman? Then, by marriage I am also related to another whole set of family names on my wife's side. But without confusing it too much, just sticking with my direct ancestors, who am I?

This made me think back to a part of the Race exhibit that was here in Rochester a few years ago that was originally developed by the Science Museum of Minnesota. The basic point of it was that, at the very heart of who we are, we really are mutts. We are a mixture of ethnic, national, religious and probably racial parts. Genetic research is showing this truth at an even deeper level.

Another piece of the reality also goes to what portion of who I am is what national background. I know there are Ukrainians and Germans, Scottish and English back there. Because of ghettos in the Ukraine before 1900, that may be the greatest part of my heritage. Yet all these years I identified as of German background. And, since the Germans arrived here at least 80 years before the Ukrainians, that also makes me American, since here is where I was born. As were members of my family back at least five generations.

Maybe, then, for me it's time to even drop the hyphenated ethnicity and just be American.

See what I mean when I say it caused a slight seismic shift of self-identity.

Which brought me back to a discussion some of us were having on an ethics meeting about diversity. We finally got to the idea of self-identity. Different people talked about different ways of doing that. It struck me at that moment that my cultural identity is as much 60s Hippie Radical as it is a German-American or whatever. In fact, maybe even more so. A great deal of that ethnic identity has broken down in my life.

That wasn't true of my family. But perhaps being part of a religiously mixed marriage of the 40s and 50s helped move me the way I have.

So that's where it has taken me today. I look forward to the day when these issues are resolved in favor of being part of the one and only human race and where nationality is truly as a citizen of the world trying to keep our world from falling apart.

I think know that's what John Lennon was singing about.

The Joy of Diversity- An Example

Yesterday I wrote about the joy of living in a diverse country. After I was done I was scanning my Facebook page and came across a posting from the Del McCoury Band and the Preservation Hall Jazz Band. It is a live performance from the Letterman show of a song from their joint album. Del McCoury is one of the top bluegrass musicians of the day and the Preservation Hall Jazz Band is, well, the Preservation Hall Jazz Band. Their album, American Legacies shows the musical power of diversity at work. Here is the live cut from Letterman:

I Love Diversity

One of the fun things about living in a city like Rochester, MN, is that it is a highly diverse community. Thanks to a number of reasons there are lots of different ethnic groups here. It is not unusual to be sitting at one of my Caribou Coffee shops with people of different nationalities and languages. It keeps me aware of the incredible ways we are all different and yet all the same. Ever since I helped out on the Race Exhibit that the Science Museum of Minnesota developed when it was here in Rochester, I have been grateful for the ways we can share and live side-by-side here.

A couple weeks ago as Ramadan came to a close, Eid al-Fitr is the official name of the end, I happened to be downtown near the local Mosque. I parked across the street and did my errands. As I returned to my car, a gentleman I assume to be Muslim was walking along the sidewalk. He looked at me and broke into a big smile. No, he didn't know me. But he was excited about Eid al-Fitr and wanted to share it. He didn't speak English, but instead mimed that he was happy to be able to eat normally again- the fast was over. At first I was taken aback until I realized what he was doing. He smiled some more and expressed the joy of the end of the fast again. I smiled back and indicated I shared his joy for him.

That is what the wondrous picture of the United States is all about! The idea of a "melting pot" is a non-truth long ago disproved. While we do meld together in what we call "American" it is not a bland mixture of all kinds of different people from places far and wide. There is NOT this thing called "American." It is far more wondrous than that. It is a tapestry, a work of art that has been able to take all these different styles and ideas and personalities and ethnic backgrounds and make it into something of beauty, woven together with common desires for freedom and hope.

Which is why I get so upset at so many who think they have defined being a citizen of this country by a certain ethnic background. There was a time, and it is far less than a century ago, that the "true American" was a northern European. Oh- and Christian. Italians? Jews? Even some Spaniards? Chinese-no way. Japanese? Forget it.

Thank God we have these cross-currents to influence us. We have the ability to interact with people and cultures on a day-to-day basis. We are not diminished as a country by this. We are enriched. Perhaps we can even be a beacon of hope to a world still struggling with differences that lead to war.

As I have been sitting here writing there are some Egyptian-looking men speaking Arabic, some Muslim women wearing beautifully colorful clothing, an Asian-American studying for some exam, a guy with gray hair, young blondes, and others coming in and out.

What a beautiful place to live.

Setting Standards

Came across an interesting discussion in the book, How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'N' Roll by Elijah Wald. It is a history of popular music in the 20th Century and it's many different sides and impact. In this particular section he is talking about how differing opinions can happen. (Okay, that's oversimplified, but I want to talk about the quote.) Many of the complaints of "trained" musicians about the "untrained" musicians coming along into pop music in the 50s was based simply on the fact that these newer musicians were not "classically trained."

Wald starts by saying "different standards will produce widely divergent opinions." It's hard to hear a performer one loves "get slammed for not meeting standards one considers unfair or inappropriate." He goes on:

But to understand any group of artists or any audience, one has to understand its standards- which means accepting that although one's own critical criteria may be more rigorous, more heartfelt, more fair, or more intelligent, they are not the only ones possible.

That is the money quote for me that ties back to the post I had yesterday about civil discourse. In order to have some sense of civil discourse, I believe we have to understand the standards that the other person or the other side is using to judge the situation.

One of the biggest standards disagreements in our society, for example, is individual freedom vs. community needs. Another is an understanding of how economics works (or doesn't work.) The standards of a corporation that needs to make more profit this year to please its shareholders is far different from the standards of the person working their assembly line.

When we believe that OUR standards are "more rigorous, more heartfelt, more fair, or more intelligent" we can forget that the other side believes THEIR standards are "more rigorous, more heartfelt, more fair, or more intelligent." Both can't be true. Neither can be the only right answer when we both feel that ours is absolute.

Hence debate, and discussion, and discourse is needed.

I have never liked opera, in spite of my intense love of all kinds of music. I have never liked hip-hop, either. Therefore, by my standards, neither of those types of music are worth listening to. Don't waste your time. Neither strike ME, but that doesn't make them wrong or inferior.

Anyway, on the overall subject of civil discourse, maybe we need more opportunities to listen to the other sides "standards" and why they make their decisions instead of shouting each other down, making continually snide and nasty remarks, or sticking our fingers in our ears and singing nonsense syllables.

Can we talk instead?

Now It's Meddling

The old joke about the guy who likes what the preacher says until it hits too close to home ends with the tag- "Preacher, now you're meddlin'."

Ralph Milton's Rumors Blog (Sermon Helps for Preachers with a sense of humor) regularly gets to that point. In the post on this week's lesson Jim Taylor talked aboutthe gall (chutzpah?) of the gentiles expecting to get into the church without being circumcised. Peter stood up for them and for the incredibly heretical idea that God would accept them just as they were. Taylor said he might preach on:

the astonishment of the circumcised believers who had come with Peter, that the Holy Spirit could be poured out on uncircumcised Gentiles. As if a foreskin was sufficient to keep God out!

So I might explore some equally ludicrous assumptions many of us still cling to. For example:
* That a wedding ring entitles a husband to rape his wife.
* That having a uterus disqualifies women from making decisions about abortion.
* That church rules and traditions can’t be questioned.
* That anyone who can’t speak English can’t possibly be a world leader.
* That using the name of Jesus requires God to fulfill our prayers.
* That those who don’t attend church – or who don’t give generously to it – can’t be truly religious.
* That a gay or lesbian orientation excludes one from the circle of God’s mercy.
Perhaps things haven’t changed all that much in 20 centuries.

Talk about an approach that afflicts the comfortable.

Sounds like something Jesus would do.

Día de la Raza

While tomorrow is the "official" United States celebration, today is the traditional date of what we of the USA call Columbus Day. Here from Wikipedia:

Many countries in the New World and elsewhere celebrate the anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas.... The day is celebrated as Columbus Day in the United States, as Día de la Raza (Day of the Race) in many countries in Latin America, as Día de las Culturas (Day of the Cultures) in Costa Rica, as Discovery Day in The Bahamas and Colombia, as Día de la Hispanidad (Hispanic Day) and National Day in Spain, and as Día de la Resistencia Indígena (Day of Indigenous Resistance) in Venezuela.

Over the past decades it has become quite controversial. "Why should we celebrate what became a "genocidal" event?" many have asked. The cultural chauvinism of Europeans in regard to the "pagans" and "uncultured" indigenous peoples of the Americas has also been rightly decried.

But it is here and now what can we do about it? The website of the former President of Mexico, Dr. Ernesto Zedillo, in its culture section, commented on some of this.

In Mexico, October 12th is a national holiday known as Día de la Raza or Day of the Race. This date is honored in other countries as Columbus Day and under other names; but the event it commemorates and the way in which it is observed have become quite controversial...

In the words of President Zedillo: "Mexico's cultural strength, which is recognized and admired the world over, is the result of the very rich cultural diversity of our states and regions. Recognizing that diversity, fomenting and disseminating it, is a task of the greatest importance."

Whether one believes that the chance event which took place five hundred and seven years ago was a blessing or a curse, October 12th is an excellent opportunity for us to consider the ramifications it has had on all of our lives.
--Link

So, no matter which side of the argument you will be on tomorrow, take a moment to pause and celebrate the understanding of diversity that we have continued to develop. We can't change what happened, but we can use the lessons of history to take a different approach today.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (8)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am a denominational person. This September will mark 33 years that I have been ordained pastor of my particular denomination. Over the past three and a half years I have not sought out any other denomination to worship in. When I walk into a church of my denomination I know I am in a place that feels like home.

I know that I may be part of the last generation of era in which denomination plays such a role. Or maybe not. Pope Benedict XVI and his recent proclamation about the "one true church" and the rest of us as "ecclesial communities" may be an attempt at maintaining the prime position the Roman Church feels it has. But with possible exceptions like his, there are those who say that the era of different denominations is coming to an end.

Or at least the die-hard connections we have made to them. There is a melting pot of worship and style that is happening. There is a re-aligning along different theological fault lines. There is a new tribalism that may be at work based more on comfort than theology.

Which may be the way it has always been. It's just that we got comfortable with our own denominational styles and structures and made them basic to the faith. But does it have a place in the postModern world? Is it useful?

I would give a resounding "Yes!" to that. It potentially marks clear areas of agreement and at times disagreement. The problem is not the different theologies- the problem is when we believe that our theology is the only one, true theology. The question may be more important to consider how we can get along in spite of our differing theologies and bring a united witness to the Gospel.

Denominations give us a sub-identity. Christian- in this day and age- is far too broad a category for most of us. Different denominations give us different places where our individual and unique experiences of the faith can be lived out.

For example, I am not a Pentecostal. I have never spoken in tongues. I believe in the presence of the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues. But such ecstatic worship is uncomfortable to me. That doesn't make it wrong or bad. It just doesn't connect me to God. Is that okay? I hope so. In a postModern world where absolutes will be challenged, anything that appears to be presented as an "Absolute" will be questioned.

Denominations, then, become associations of congregations with like-mindedness on a variety of topics- worship, style, attitude, theology, history, and the like. In that they give those of us in them an identity that says more about us than it does about God. For example, my particular denomination- Moravian- has quite a singular place in history. It is where Protestant mission began. It is where music and congregational singing was introduced. It is where the roots of the Reformation were planted 100 years before Martin Luther.

It is also a denomination that is built on fellowship more than dogma; our story as evidence of the directions we take than on theology. It is a denomination that looks to a religion of the heart more than the head. It is a denomination that is clearly in the mainstream of the mainline Protestant movement and traditionally connected to ecumenism.

That means we are not Lutheran or Episcopalian or Methodist though we have strong connections with all three of them. I can appreciate them- as well as the Baptists and Mennonites, Presbyterians and Alliance churches. The rich tapestry (as one of our liturgies says) of the Christian faith needs- absolutely NEEDS- this diversity. Especially if the church is to reach out to all kinds of people with all kinds of personalities.

How then do we work this in our postModern world? Denominations will hopefully work more fully together to develop resources and opportunities for mission to their own particular groups. If we think we are in competition with other denominations and congregations, we miss the mark. By a wide mile or more. A person who feels comfortable in a Baptist church will probably not feel comfortable in a Lutheran Church. Someone who likes the high liturgy of the Episcopal/Anglican communion will feel short-changed in the Moravian Church. And that is okay!

Denominations give the smaller organizations- the congregations- the chance to do things they might not be able to do on their own and make international and national connections that they never would be able to make. What I guess this means to me is that I would continue- if I went back- to support and promote the work of the denomination as essential to our local mission and our being essential to the greater mission.

Denominational structure is not there to support its own history or view- although it will do that. It is there to support the missional nature of the church. It is essential that the denomination recognize its partnership with the local churches and the local churches partnership with the denomination. We need each other. We are not as a local church to rely solely on ourselves and do only what we want to do. The greater church - as evidenced by the denominational connection- is a way to keep us from being too ingrown.

This is a change in thinking. Not in theory but in practice. It is important as a way of keeping the world-wide witness of the church from being further fractured. If we are looking beyond simply shuffling members around from one church to another, if we are truly interested in reaching out in mission to those who have chosen to remain outside, such a willingness to work together is essential.

We will keep our individual identities and theologies. And thank God for that. I would hate to lose the richness and color of all our styles living and working together in this Kingdom of God.