coreyevanleak - Tumblr blog

[coreyevanleak]

Imperial Myth

Thomas Jefferson believed that without the separation of church and state clergy would become unresponsive to the needs of their own people, and that a State sponsored religion would lead to corruption within religion itself. It can be difficult to recognize when religion, or government for that matter, has succomed to corruption. Over time, the words, phrases and ideals that once reminded us of our sacred responsibility to God and one another, undergo a sort of data corruption.  We unwittingly accept flawed ideology because it comes in the form of founding virtues. In America, our Southern border is a glaring example. The ideas that were intended to build a more just society for European immigrants have become the bedrock of injustice toward migrants  seeking asylum at our border. 

For a corrupted digital file, there can be a number of different causes both internally and externally. There could be a virus or incompatibility between hardware and software within the device itself or extreme changes in temperature, water, dust, or loss of power from outside of it. Whatever the cause, corruption changes the very nature of its host, and renders that host dangerous to whatever system it’s operating in. Today the dangerous host operating with corrupted data in our Country is unfortunately the American Evangelical Church. In these times of heated debates over the morality of how migrants, immigrants, POC, and women are treated, it seems as though today’s Evangelicals are either silent or worse yet, falling victim to partisan politics rather than human rights. American ideology was never intended to be the standard for justice for Evangelicals. 

The Jewish founder of Evangelicalism intended for his disciples to go into all the world and share the good news that God had begun to make the world new again. The essense of evangelism is to deliver a message of freedom, peace, love, and togetherness. That is what his followers wrote about in what we now call the New Testament. They were writing letters and instructions to one another that were intended to spread the news of God’s new world order into a culture that had a flawed concept of justice. They lived in a world among people who had their ideas about justice promulgated to them by an imperial cult called the Roman Empire.

The Roman Emperors permitted freedom of religion to their subjects as long as it didn’t oppose or interfere with their true religion of Emperor worship. The Romans established a long tradition of claiming that their Emperors were gods in the flesh. They would tell stories of the miraculous births of each ruler, and spread propaganda throughout the regions on coins reinforcing the idea of imperial deity. Although there was religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire, all religion was subject to the authority of the Emperor, and resisting that authority was to resist the Divine. Emperor worship was so deeply embedded in culture that it was virtually unnoticed. The ruling class instilled rhetoric that the people used to exalt the Emperor as God. Buying and selling took place with coins that reinforced the the Emperor’s deity. Rebels who resisted imperial religious perversion through violence or subversive language, were put on trial and executed publicly to show the power of the divine Emperor and discourage even the slightest rebellion. 

That was the world that the Jewish Messiah sent his disciples into as Evangelicals, which meant almost certain death as a criminal and a trader to Rome and God.

If being an Evangelical today was even a caricature of its original intent some thousands of years ago, it would be a step in the right direction. Rather than following the examples and writings of the Evangelicals before us, we have come to accept injustice in the present as long as it’s perpetrated by the Emperor leading the party we identify with. Our Emperor can do no wrong. We side with him against his enemies regardless of whether those enemies are the very people we were instructed by our founder to draw near to and help. In the name of patriotism, we curse our brother or sister and condemn them with labels that reduce their feelings and experiences to political orientations. A person who supports an athlete’s right to protest injustice or believes that foreigners should be treated with dignity regardless of what country they come from or their religion, is labeled a “leftist”. The label is usually proceeded by some demeaning adjective or slur. Somewhere along the way, loving our neighbor and the belief that all men are created equal, became associated with liberal politics. This idea seems to be most prevalent in American Evangelical Christian circles. As strange as it may sound to some, American Nationalism and the Christian faith can be mutually exclusive. It is possible to hold up American ideals and for those ideals to be in direct conflict with the just rule of God that the first Evangelicals were charged with announcing. The first people to evangelize believed that God cared about the orphan, the widow, the foreigner, and the Gentile. They believed that God was characterized by love, mercy, and compassion as well as order and law. They didn’t endorse a belief that a just God couldn’t be merciful or that a merciful God wouldn’t uphold justice. They advocated that God was love and that if human beings learned to love like God, the world would be full of justice. 

The driving force of faith is love. It’s love that was the catalyst of the gospel movement, but not simply love for ones own tribe. We were charged to love the other, and that kind of love is messy. It raises complex questions and forces us to look deep within ourselves to see how committed we are to God’s world order. The command to love our neighbors is why the early church fathers struggled with what to do with Gentiles coming into a historically Jewish faith. A large chunk of Paul’s writings are dedicated to the topic of making space for the other. Evangelism is all about making more space for people to come into an authentic community of justice and love. That’s the core of the message and the reason Christianity outlived Roman imperial religious rule. I suspect justice and love will be how authentic Christian faith will outlive American Evangelical political rule as well.

Is America’s greatness or standing as “first” in the world something to be defended at all costs?

Also, I’d like to broaden this conversation beyond what I can reach alone... 

What 3 people can you share this blog with?

[coreyevanleak]

Their Shoes

“When I was in school I had to walk 12 miles uphill both ways in the snow.” That saying was supposed to let students fortunate enough to have a ride to school know that we had it easy. If we thought we had it rough, this was a reminder that we actually didn’t. If we were to walk a mile in their shoes (feet in this case), we would adjust our attitude. Those old folks recognized what I’ve come to believe is a profound truth. If we imagine ourselves walking in someone else’s shoes - compassion, not judgment becomes our stance toward the other.

In the last several weeks there has been a great deal of discussion about what’s been happening at the Mexican border. It’s been refreshing to see the conversation about children being separated from their parents be mostly about how we can help them. People have rallied to aid them by setting up funds to get them legal representation, marching in protest, and appealing to their representatives to help. Many pastors and politicians on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against this policy of taking children from the arms of their parents (this includes pastors who are a part of the President’s Spiritual Advisory Board). It’s been nice to see that there is a “too far” for staunch supporters of this Administration. I’ve yet to see anyone be overtly callous towards migrant families being separated from one another at border, but I have noticed a bit of a disturbing trend. 

We all have experience with children fighting, either as a parent breaking up fights or as children ourselves. Inevitably when the fight is broken up and consequence is being handed out, one or both of the guilty kids will say the other one “started it”. It’s a childish thing to say, and it falls to every parent to use that moment to teach their children that “two wrongs don’t make one right”. I’ve noticed that in the midst of people expressing both outrage and good-will, there are others who feel it’s important that we all know who started this practice. There are people staring at images like...

who seem to believe that the most important thing to be noted is that the Obama’s and the Clinton’s “started it”. I suppose knowing what political party is to blame is helpful in political conversations. I imagine it even has some relevance to who we should vote for in upcoming elections, but it has zero relevance on what we should be doing right now. We should be careful as a people not to treat human rights issues as partisan issues. 

Pause for a moment to imagine how it would feel to flee your home country to seek asylum in a foreign land only to be detained and separated from your small children at the border. How comforting would facts about MS13 and smugglers or understanding whose Administration is responsible for the condition you now find yourself in be? Would you not desperately want someone to show compassion toward you and your little ones? This is the situation for TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED migrants at the Southern border.  Prior to the President signing an executive order today, it was estimated that TWENTY THOUSAND migrant children would’ve  been in the care of the DHHS by August 1st if something would not have changed. The executive order does not reunite parents with their children who were already separated. There is still work to be done, but this was a crisis that human beings responded to with compassion and righteous indignation. Here is a link to join in their efforts. People stood up and demanded something be done, and the outcry of the people lead to action from the President. 

People with and without religious affiliation tapped into a compassion that is a part of our DNA as human beings. Thousands of years ago ancient writers wrote about the affect religion should have on society.

James, who is considered by many Bible scholars to be the leader of the early church, wrote in his book that “pure religion” is caring for orphans and widows. Jesus, when pressed about the greatest commandment, cited loving our neighbors as we love ourselves from the Torah. As did the Apostle Paul. The ancient holy writings are full of admonishments for human beings to be gracious and compassionate toward foreigners. Believing in a Divine Creator should naturally be followed by compassion for all human beings regardless of their race or country of origin. 

I pray that as we continue to wrestle with the extremely complex political and social issues we are facing as a Nation, that we do so with a greater since of our humanity and not our political affiliation. Conversations that center around humanity put the focus on what we have in common and allow us to think through humane responses to the issues in our society. If we can learn to lead with grace and compassion for others, we tend to fall on the same side of most arguments no matter how complex. Something truly spiritual happens when we take a moment and imagine life in “their” shoes. 

Whose shoes do you have trouble imagining yourself in?

Have you taken a stance that would be different if you were in “their” shoes?

[coreyevanleak]

Why “Superfly” is the Movie We Wanted, But Not the Movie We Needed

I NEVER do this. I hate when other people do this, but I’m going to do it. I’m going to give my opinion of a movie still in theaters. 

My wife randomly asked me if I wanted to go to the movies to see “Superfly” yesterday, and I said yes. I was excited to see it. We have Moviepass, so it feels virtually free to go. The previews to the movie looked amazing! It has great actors like the up and coming Jason Mitchell from “The Chi” and “Straight Out of Compton” as well as one of my favorite actors, Michael Kenneth Williams who will forever be known to me as “Omar” from “The Wire”. We both thought we were headed for a fantastic movie. I didn’t even check the reviews like I usually do. First, I was convinced I had a good sense of what this movie was going to be, and secondly because I knew this was a movie by black folk, for black folk, about black folk, set in Atlanta. How could it not be good?

With that as the backdrop I was in a good head space to be wowed. I wanted to be entertained, and for the most part I was. The movie does have some decent action, all be it way over the top at times. The costumes were fantastic. Especially on the main character “Priest”. His swag made me wonder if I could pull off perming my own hair. The story line was solid. It followed the same over arching theme as the original which was a cult classic. The problem was, once the excitement I brought to the theater wore off, I was left watching what amounted to an extended R rated rap video complete with what felt like a 12 hour shower scene that had no connection to the story at all. 

Who doesn’t like rap videos? They are usually so original!!! Clubs, iced out wrist throwing cash in the air, dancing girls, extravagant cars and houses, rappers looking down at the camera, rinse, and repeat - that’s been rap videos since I was 12 years old.

It’s my own fault for being surprised really. The movie was directed by a man who’s renowned for his work on rap videos and produced by Future. Both of these men are tremendous talents no doubt. With this film, they had an opportunity to tell not just a great story, but an important one. Opportunity knocked, and Future and Director X must have been pre-occupied popping bottles to answer.

I assumed that the overblown attitudes toward money and power displayed in the opening couple of scenes was intended to be hyperbolic. I was expecting to see the folly of worshipping money and power brought to light at some point in this film, but I was sadly disappointed all the way to the very end. It seemed to be continuing the same old, tired story of black men seeking to achieve greatness through robbing, killing, and degrading women. Some of that is to be expected from the antagonist of a story set in Atlanta, but in this story even the protagonist is caught up in believing the myth of power and money. The hero in this story has spent his life chasing the myth, and now wants to get out. I wish I would’ve seen the end game of this pursuit played out in this movie, but sadly it ends with madness being rewarded. “Superfly” suggested that after years of flooding the streets with cocaine, perpetuating violence, objectifying women, and blatantly breaking the law, a reward waits for you on a yacht in the middle of the ocean where your LTE has full bars. 

I understand that the makers of this film wanted to be true to the original. I know they wanted to mirror as many of the iconic characters and scenes from the original as possible, but cast it against our modern reality. To that end in one of the more potent scenes of the movie, a racist and crooked cop shouts “take your hand off the gun” as he fires several shots at an unarmed black man in the car with his girlfriend, a clear allusion to #PhilandoCastile. In a later scene pointing to America’s racial tension, a statue of a Confederate soldier is knocked down during a car chase. Lastly, in a scene that fed my own carnal craving for vengeance, the policeman who killed the unarmed black man and his girlfriend in the aforementioned “police shooting” scene is shown being beaten to death by “Priest”. All of this would have been great to add to a story if only it didn’t feed into a false narrative. 

I’ve written before about how some people refuse to believe that an unarmed black man could possibly be the victim of injustice. They believe there is always more to the story no matter how much video evidence there is to the contrary. This movie surrounded important issues of racism with the kind of foolery that fuels the fires of ignorance. The unarmed black man in this movie had cocaine in his trunk and a couple scenes earlier killed three men himself. The confederate flag was knocked over by a black gangster driving a gaudy Lamborghini on his way to his death. This film fails to contrast evil vs good. It prefers to spend it’s frames contrasting evil with not that bad.  

The glorification of sex, drugs, and money along with the myth of power have been a plague to the black community. Black people aren’t solely responsible for the plague, but I’m really disappointed when I see and hear black artists and film makers cooperate with oppression by telling stories that propagate destructive ideas. 

With just a little bit of attention to detail and a conscience, Superfly’s creators could have told a powerful story exposing the folly of chasing superficial joys and still spoke to the injustices of American culture. Instead they chose to bury a conscious message beneath cheesy villains, gaudy portrayals of black culture, and dangerous notions of vengeance and escaping consequence. 

I wish I could have found the movie more entertaining. I was willing to suspend my disbelief and just let it be like Empire or a Tyler Perry movie, but once they introduced important issues like police brutality and America’s history with racism I held them to a higher standard. Maybe I’m being overly sensitive or expecting too much from a movie or from rap videos for that matter. Perhaps I’m being too harsh, but the times we live in demand more from all of us who are using a platform. Whether that is social media, music, movies, or sports. If you use a platform, use it well. 

Do you have a platform you use for sharing values that make the world better? 

If not, why don’t you?

If so, how have you used it?

[coreyevanleak]

Equal Opportunity

One of the oldest tricks in the book of parenting is to put cookies on the top shelf so that your small children can’t reach them. Cookies don’t wind up on the top shelf so that no one eats them. They are there so that the people who were in the house first (the parents) can decide how they are distributed. While children aren’t denied access to cookies, they don’t have the same access adults have. Children live in the same house, eat mostly the same food, and have the same legal rights to stay in the home, but kids don’t have the same cookie privilege that parents do. American history has a similar arrangement.

If you do the math since 1619 in America there are only 64 of 399 years that black people are granted full legal standing as citizens.

  If you do the math since 1619 in America there are only 64 of 399 years that black people are granted full legal standing as citizens. 

I felt that bore repeating. For 246 years black people weren’t considered fully human, and then for another 89 years after emancipation, blacks weren’t considered as human as white people. By 1954 white Americans had a 335 year head start on black people in this country. Segregation was declared unconstitutional in 1954, but that declaration by no means put black people on an equal footing with white people. Imagine if tomorrow Congress declared bacon unconstitutional. Would bacon lovers lose their appetite for bacon over night or perhaps ever? I imagine that in 1954 white people who believed they were superior to blacks didn’t change their minds once the government changed it’s position, and many of those people had children and grand children. Those children and grand children grew up to be law makers, business owners, politicians, police officers, CEOs, and POTUS. 

Those children and grand children were privy to education, land, business deals, and other opportunities that the newly “enfranchised” black Americans had no access to. About a year ago I sat on vacation listening to black men and women in their sixties talking about the class reunion of their segregated High School in Tennessee. When we talk about America’s history with race, we aren’t talking about a history that is ancient. We’re talking about a history that people still walking around today lived through. We’re also talking about a history that still profoundly affects our present.

In a recent interview Van Jones talked about being the NINTH generation of his family, and the first to have full rights in this country. That means Van and others are forging ahead in their lives and careers without the benefit of ancestral succession. It’s estimated that 35 to 45 percent of wealth in America is inherited. Some would argue it’s closer to 50. A study conducted by Stanford University found, in most cases, children’s future income is directly correlated to that of the household they grew up. Needless to say that with the opportunities lost to generations of black people, it is a much more difficult path to career success and independent wealth. It’s far less likely that a black person in America today would be the recipient of family wealth, education, land, or businesses passed down from generations of success. Again, I’ll turn to a man who can articulate what I’m trying to say far better than I can.

Everything great was built on an equally great foundation. We all know that heritage matters, and those who were here before us impact us today, but it seems like when we apply that universal truth to conversations about race, black people are accused of dwelling on the past. I’ve written about that in previous blogs, so I’ll not go into that any further. However, I would like to give you another word picture to help expound on this idea of equal opportunity.

Many of the races at track metes start off staggered to curb the advantage of the runner on the inside lane. It doesn’t look fair to the eye because some runners are so far ahead of the others, but it is the only fair way to start the race. Imagine if a race started without staggering the runners. It would be unrealistic to expect those in the outside lanes to keep up and compete with the people who had been granted the advantage of the inside lanes. If the runners on the inside lanes recognized mid race that they were given an advantage, how would they feel? They could feel guilty. They could feel like they didn’t do anything wrong. They could look down on the runners behind them and consider themselves better. They are winning, and they aren’t winning because they are cheaters or bad people. They are at the front of the pack due to a mix of their effort and the way the race was set up. 

It would help us all to consider how the “race” started in America, and what we can do now that the race is underway to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to win. Even in a competition the thrill of being the champion is rooted in the fact that the other competitor had an equal opportunity to win. 

In America we talk a lot about equality, but maybe we should start talking more about equity. What does it look like to truly give equal opportunities to blacks and other POC in this country? I recently witnessed a white man grumble about being passed over for a job because the business he was applying to work for needed to fill a quota of minorities. That doesn’t seem “fair”, but it is a practice that is birthed out of the idea of equity. Practices like that are flawed. They can certainly be improved for sure, but let’s not lose sight that the idea that drives them is sound. We as a people have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of our history. I’ve heard great leaders say: “it may not be your fault, but it is your responsibility.”

 If you were to apply for a home loan, a car loan, a small business loan, or a job, you’re likely to discover that you’ll need approval from a white man or a group of white men to get what you’re reaching for. It’s entirely conceivable that a white person could go their entire life and never have to go to a POC for approval to move forward in their career or life plans. Of course, every American has access to equal, legal rights and freedoms, just as children have access to the kitchen and probably the pantry. 

I’m not comparing black people to children in terms of maturity, intelligence, or ability. However, I am in relation to American history. America has kept her cookies on the top shelf throughout history, and white people have been reaching up and taking as many as they want. It’s time that we bring those cookies down where everyone can reach them. That is what equal opportunity looks like. 

Are there real life scenarios in which you’ve seen equality vs equity play out?

What are ways that we can ensure that every American truly does have equal opportunity?

[coreyevanleak]

Lenses

Earlier this week game one of the NBA finals gave us one of the most entertaining sporting events of the last decade. The game had everything! It had an all time great performance from Lebron James, late game heroics from both teams, big shots, taunting, fighting, ejections, and of course…

This game gave us all the meme and gif fodder we could ask for. I’m sure you’ve seen this image about a thousand times over the last few days. I laugh every time I see it. I’m actually laughing now as I write this. 

However, the most talked about moment from the game, was a call the referees made late in the fourth quarter when the outcome was certainly still in doubt. The refs called a charging foul on Lebron after initially calling a block on Kevin Durant and then reviewing the call in slow motion. The overturned call has been talked about ad nauseam from that moment until now. It was a subjective call, and as with all subjective situations, it really could have gone either way, but try telling that to a Cavaliers fan. Cavs fans see this issue one way and one way only. They were robbed. How can you blame them? Their favorite team eventually lost game one, and maybe if that call goes differently they would’ve won. Ask any Warrior fan on the other hand, and they’ll tell you that the referees made the right call. Neither one is wrong I suppose, but both have limited views.

Sports fans can debate charge or block, and still maintain respect for one another. Two art lovers can walk into a museum and look at the same work of art, and have two drastically different opinions about them. Two friends can watch the same movie and give two totally different reviews. All of this is because we all see the world through different lenses. I know that’s not some deep revelation. We all recognize that we are free to think how we want, and for the most part disagreement doesn’t bother us. We are fine with disagreements over sports, art, or entertainment, but when we put our political or religious lenses on, things can get a little more volatile.

We seem to lose sight of the fact that everyone doesn’t wear our lenses when issues of racism, guns, sex, or religious theology come up. I know that there is much more at stake for humanity when we start talking about these issues, but  even in heavier matters we’d all do well to remember that there are other lenses to see the world through. In fact, my lens is not the only lens that has a beautiful view of the world. 

We tend to believe that our view of things is right, and any other view isn’t, especially when there are religious writings, data, or facts that support our view. Some of us treat anyone who doesn’t view the world through our religious or political views as less intelligent or uninformed. I’ve seen people try to discredit the personal experience of others in light of the “facts” they read on the internet. There seems to be a tendency in our culture for us to become too enamored with our own lenses. We are comfortable with them. They have served us well in life. They are passed down to many of us like precious family heirlooms, but I wonder what would happen in our world if people started asking to borrow each others lenses?

I have to be honest, I’m extremely guilty of picking up my lens every day and being mad at other people because they don’t see what I see. I do try to offer my lens to people through what I write, and what I share in person, but I know I fall short in taking the time to lay my lens aside and looking through some one else’s sometimes. My connection to my lens doesn’t mean that it’s the only lens of value in the world. It just means I’ve grown attached to it, and the more I keep  my limited views safely tucked away and guarded the less I’ll see all the beauty that is in the world around me.

We all fail at times to pause long enough to see the world through someone else’s lens. Sometimes we fail because of our fear, other times because of our insecurities. Most times we fail because of our pride. Pride won’t allow us to entertain the idea that an opposing view point could possible be valid. One of the ways you can tell if you’ve become too proud of your lens is by gauging how emotional you become when you encounter a view that is not just different than yours, but actually in adversarial contrast to yours. Are you able to pass by a social media post without commenting or judging the writers when you see something you strongly disagree with? Have you entered into a dialog around subjective religious or political material and actually changed your mind? If not, then you may be too in love with your own lens, and it’s probably time you asked a friend or two if you could borrow theirs.

One last REALLY IMPORTANT thing before you wrestle with what you’ve read….

It was totally a block!!! Suck it up Lebron!!! 😂 

When was the last time you intentionally put effort into seeing the world through some one else’s lens?

Who can you reach out to today to exchange lenses with?

[coreyevanleak]

Victor’s Mentality

In the past couple of days I’ve had some serious shade thrown my way. I have been accused of race baiting, having an agenda, causing division, and dwelling on the past. These accusations didn’t come from the same person or in the course of an argument. They were in response to how I choose to use my voice on social media.

Most of the above was in response to me posing a question I was personally wrestling with. (The top two were sent to me direct message, and I chose to respect the fact that they wanted to speak to me in private.) I posted: “I wonder what our news feeds and weekend religious gatherings would look like if the majority of the victims of racial injustice were white”

I’ve chosen to be vocal about issues that affect society with this blog and other social media platforms, and on FB I usually pose a question for people to wrestle with and dialog over. People have varying degrees of maturity, and that shows through some of the comments. However, most times there is very healthy conversation happening about extremely sensitive topics of race, religion, and political issues. I’m convinced that open dialog about polarizing issues is necessary if there is every going to be genuine unity. It seems like when the subject of that dialog is race, a dangerous and subtle idea tends to rear it’s head. 

The idea is this - that bringing up issues of racial injustice is holding a “victim’s mentality” versus the “victor’s mentality” which is held by those who choose not to acknowledge that there is any racial inequality or racial injustice in America. I’ve literally been told that if we stop talking about racism it will go away. (Again, I’ll point out that none of the people who have thrown shade recently or made statements like this to me are POC.) Juxtaposing the victim’s mentality against the victor’s mentality as an argument against speaking out about racism is a cryptic way of telling POC to get our Jim Crow on. 

Somehow speaking up about false arrests, police brutality, disproportionate incarceration rates, or any other violation of the civil rights of black people is “playing the victim”. This binary approach isn’t helpful for moving forward in how we as Americans learn to live together in true harmony. It’s possible to lament systemic oppression AND take personal responsibility for living a successful life. People who call out injustice or racism aren’t looking for a hand out or living in the past. Both are fallacy.

First, looking for a hand out implies that POC are seeking something undeserved. I think a revolutionary from days past speaks to this better than I can.

Secondly, when I or someone else speaks about a current event that involves racial injustice, how is that “living in the past”? 

Racism IS ancient. It is also a present day reality, and if talking about racism is living in the past, then so is celebrating the greatness of America for it’s past victories over tyranny. It’s unfair to celebrate America’s victories while attempting to mute the voices of those lamenting her sins. Both are part of our history and our present, and both inform who we are and how we behave toward each other today. I’ve heard it said that people who forget their past failures are doomed to repeat them. If we refuse to take glances into the past and see the patterns that developed, we will never break the cycle of division that has plagued us for far too long. When something happens today that is eerily similar to something we’ve seen in our history it’s irresponsible to ignore it. Acknowledging the similarities between past and present events is a necessary tool for us as a people to move forward. If the past is painful to the descendants of the oppressors, how much more painful is it for the descendants of the oppressed? We all have to be willing to endure the pain of looking at our history if we desire to write a better story for future Americans to read about.

Only truly evil people want hatred, fear, and war. We should be careful not to label anyone whose words or actions make us uncomfortable as promoting those three. Sometimes we all need to be spurred to wrestle with our beliefs. We need to examine where they come from and why we hold to them still periodically. That’s what growth looks like.

I’ll leave you with this week’s question, but you’ll likely need to wrestle with this one with the help of a friend. 

Are there any beliefs you have about race or racism that need to be challenged?

[coreyevanleak]

Color Blindness

Last week in our dialog about resistance, the idea of color blindness came up in discussion. It was presented as a form of resistance to racism. We’ve all heard the phrase “I don’t see color.” That and phrases like “we’re all one race, the human race” seem like loving and inclusive statements on the surface. Upon closer examination, they ring as hollow as Michael Scott’s famous words in season two of “The Office” when he said he didn’t see “collars". He said he was “collar blind” while on a field trip to the warehouse to see what life was like for the blue collar workers in the basement.

What I find interesting about color blindness is that in my experience, the people who claim to have this honorable ailment have always been white. It seems to be a condition that ails only the privileged. People whose skin tone has a darker hue tend to be immune to the disease of color blindness.

For POC, the color of their skin, facial features, and hair texture are all reminders of their heritage. It isn’t something to be blind to, but rather something to be proud of. Our color is something we celebrate as a God given gift. It is part of how we identify the beauty of who God made us. There is great dignity in recognizing who we are and how we are created. Recognizing, making space for, and celebrating the beauty of culture is how genuine love and inclusion are expressed in society. However, POC are also aware of the cultural taboo that can accompany our pigmentation.

I rarely walk into any space outside of my home without feeling the weight of being a black man. A few weeks back I drove to a neighborhood I didn’t live in to pick up some shoes my wife was purchasing from a stranger through social media. She told me she ordered shoes for her sister. My instructions were to drive to the address, go to the front porch, pick up the shoes, and leave  $20 under the mat. This sounded simple enough.

It was after 9pm and obviously dark (here in the suburbs of SF) when I drove into this neighborhood and parked my car on the street. I was having trouble finding the house so I started walking around the dark cult-a-sac looking for the address my wife had given me. I walked to one end of the street and didn’t see the house number I was looking for. As I turned to go back to my car, I began to fear that someone would see a 6'3 black figure walking around in the neighborhood at night, and call the police.

After growing increasingly anxious about being in this neighborhood alone at night, I quickly jumped back into my car and drove down to the end of the cult-a-sac. I found the house I was looking for and walked up to the dark porch looking for shoes. I didn’t see any shoes, so I rang the doorbell. No one answered, and I stood their on the porch feeling more and more angst as I didn’t see any shoes. I was reluctant to investigate too much for fear of looking like I was breaking into the house, so I went back to the car and called my wife.

The reason I had to go back to my car to call my wife was because I purposely left my cell phone in the car in case someone did call the police. I didn’t want to have anything in my hands or pockets that could have been mistaken for a gun when they arrived. This happened not long after Stephon Clark was shot by the police in Sacramento (which is just an hour and a half East of where I was standing). The incident was fresh in my mind. I didn’t have the ability to conjure color blindness to still my anxiety as I began to see myself in a similar scenario as Clark.

I called my wife. She told me I was looking for baby shoes for her sisters newborn, and I walked back to the porch and found them. I put the $20 under the mat on the porch and left. The police never showed. Possibly no one called or I got out before they arrived. Who knows. The point is, I did not have the luxury of behaving as if the world is blind to my color and that stereotypes don’t have life-and-death consequences for people like me.

I’ve heard more than a few white people share stories of their own feelings of fear simply driving through certain neighborhoods. I wonder if any of my color blind brothers and sisters are suddenly "healed" of their condition when faced with these scenarios. I’d imagine their blindness is a lot like Denzel’s in “The Book of Eli”, it comes and goes as needed.

 (If I spoiled the movie for you, you have no one to blame but yourself. That movie's been out for like 100 years).

When faced with real world scenarios, shallow ideology like color blindness prove to be less than helpful. It is not a stance that helps rid the world of systemic racism or implicit bias. Ethnic and cultural sameness is a tyrannical way of seeing the world. Democracy and freedom is about being able to exist in the same space with diverse cultures being fully recognized, not disregarded. Being proud of your culture and celebrating differences are not evil. Racism is, and continuously denying the  beauty of diversity is a form of racism.

Blindness has two definitions.

the state or condition of being unable to see because of injury, disease, or a congenital condition.

lack of perception, awareness, or judgment; ignorance.

Which of the two definitions most applies to the people you know (including yourself if appropriate) who are “color blind”?

[coreyevanleak]

Resistance

There is a story of religious and political leaders that approached Jesus with the intent to throw him into a political conundrum. They asked him a question they thought would force his hand and make him share his political views on Roman oppression and Jewish resistance.

“Is it lawful for Jewish people to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor Caesar?”

There were groups of Jewish resistance fighters who were violently resisting Roman occupation and subjugation. Many Jewish leaders profited from collaborating with Roman officials in the oppression of their own people. These were the tax collectors the gospel writers spoke so lowly of. Lastly, Caesar and the Romans themselves were quite fond of levying heavy taxes on the Jewish peasants that they had made their slaves. These are the people who would’ve had a keen interest in how the famous Jewish Rabbi Jesus would answer the question.

The trap is set. A yes or no has significant political connotation for Jesus. If he says “yes” he aligns with the Romans and the hated tax collectors. The resistance would have then known that Jesus didn’t support their cause. If he said “no” he would have been openly opposing Rome, and the people that hated him would have all they needed to have him put to death right then and there.

Most of the teachings I’ve heard in my lifetime about this particular story use the answer that Jesus gives as an example of apolitical religious wisdom. Like this was Jesus’ way of being clever and not taking a side in a political debate because the “Kingdom of God isn’t about politics.” I hope you see the irony in that statement.  I’ve recently come to realize that Jesus’ answer was far more political than I’d ever thought. You can read this story in Mark chapter 12 in the New Testament of the Bible.

Jesus realized that he was being set up, and responded by asking for someone to bring him a coin. They did. He looked at it, and asked: “Whose picture and title is this on the coin?” They told him it was Caesar’s, and he said: “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s.”

That’s a brilliantly clever response and on the surface pretty apolitical. However, this is like a magic trick being performed by a master magician. It’s a beautifully executed slight of hand. It’s astounding the way Jesus hid what was truly happening from everyone with how he answered their trick question.  

Notice that Jesus didn’t reach into is own bag to grab a coin. He didn’t ask one of his disciples to go get one out of the mouth of a fish as he did when asked about the Jewish Temple Tax. He asked the people trying to trap him to provide a coin for examination. In their anticipation of Jesus getting tangled  in a political web, they missed the most significant thing happening in this interaction… JESUS DIDN’T EVEN CARRY CEASAR’S COINS! He doesn’t go back and forth about whether Jewish people should or shouldn’t resist Roman oppression. Jesus resisted by not carrying the coin in the first place.

Caesar’s coins were used as propaganda to remind everyone that Caesar was deity. In the most subversive way possible Jesus communicated that he wasn’t cooperating with Caesar’s system of oppression. He knew who God and His people were, and he wasn’t going to give dignity to Caesar’s claims about himself by carrying his coin around. It was so sly that his adversaries missed the statement he was making.

I share the above story to show that all forms of resistance to oppression aren’t the same. I would argue that most of the women and people of color you know are resisting marginalization and oppression in their own way. Whether they are demonstrative with their voice or actions or they chose more covert methods of combating stereotypes - they are resisting. Below I’ve listed a few of the silent ways that I’ve known POC and women to resist oppressive stereotypes:

Learning to swim.

Interracial dating.

Growing dread locks.

Out performing white men at golf.

Being obsessively professional.

Tipping above 20 percent.

As I wrap this up, two final thoughts:

First, ask a woman or person of color if they do things to resist the cultural stigmas associated with their race or gender. See if these or any other come up, and feel free to message me with their responses.

Secondly, a question for you.

How do you resist systemic oppression in the world around you?

[coreyevanleak]

Free Ignorance

The Kanye West comments and the fall out from those comments created a bit of tension for me. I was left thinking about the idea of “free thought” and what that phrase means. We all have the right to believe what we want, say what we want, and post what we want on social media. That is freedom. I paused to meditate on Kanye and Candace Owen's ideas about free thinking, and how all black people don’t have to be democrats or hate Donald Trump. I couldn’t agree more, and I don’t hate Donald Trump. I have black Republican friends who are brilliant thinkers and share some of my beliefs about racism both in the church and outside of it. I’ve voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in my life, and I haven’t pledged allegiance to any political party. That being said, I think the “free thinking black human” card is horse-sh**. 

No one is suppressing Candace or Kanye’s beliefs. They’ve been on TMZ. Twitter didn’t delete their accounts, and contrary to what you may have heard, Kanye did not lose nine million Twitter followers (according to a Twitter spokesperson). There is no need for them to act like free thinking is dead -  because it is not. I however would like to see the death of free ignorance, but I suppose that’s the ugly offspring of free thinking and privilege.  We probably will not see that die for a very long time.

Because these individuals have freedom of expression they can say things like:

“Four hundred years of slavery sounds like a choice to me” - Kanye West

“I kind of like the word ‘Coon’ ” - Candace Owens

We, however, don’t have to agree with them. We have the right to be emotionally disturbed by the damage their words can do to the world. I got into a debate with someone this week who disagreed with me when I said that ideology like this can have potentially long term consequences for POC. This good friend of mine was totally on the free thought train, and subscribed to the ideas Candace and Kanye have been sharing - which is his right. I’m not mad at him for it. He’s not alone. I’ve seen more than a few people saying that if you watch the full TMZ video of Kanye’s 30 minute stream of consciousness, you’ll see that he made some good points…

There in lies the danger - he did say some things that on the surface, and in a vacuum, are valuable for society. His comments about love are true. We should love everyone. The context is the problem. Kanye and Candace, in an effort to move black people forward and “out of slavery”, are trying to ignore history as if it has no affect on the present. They are propagating the same old “pull yourself up by the bootstraps message” to black people that Dr. King lamented as fallacy. Packaged in the message of love and equality, it sounds like what Candace and Kanye are saying is what we should all want - but it is hollow. Any forward movement that does not acknowledge that America is built on a system that traditionally suppresses people of color, doesn’t create a more fair system for black people because we are still 250 years behind. In order to recreate a system that is equitable, effort has to be made to elevate those who have been systematically oppressed. Otherwise, black people in America will forever be living in the "hand me downs" of white privilege. 

Statements like “Let’s just forget the past and move on” are words that I’ve only heard people with privilege say, whether that person was white or black. It’s a much easier statement to make when you have advantages. I’m not saying that people don’t work hard to get where they are. People do. However, not all hard work is equal. There are plenty of hard working black men and women in America who will NEVER have the advantages that their white counter parts can achieve. Kanye and Candace seem to have forgotten that, want us to forget it also, and just hold hands and sing songs together. I would love for every American to hold hands across all 50 states and sing a beautiful song together like “Just Wanna Worship You”  or something like that, but first we have to acknowledge what’s broken, commit to fixing it, and do that work together. Then we can sing. 

Lastly, the comment “slavery was a choice” isn’t as crazy as it is incredibly irreverent to the memory of black men and women who were slaves in this country. To insinuate that these people were cowards for not fighting back is beyond asinine. Kanye’s words weren't wrong, everyone does have a choice. Again, they were dangerous because they give power to a belief system that shifts culpability from the oppressor to the oppressed. It says that slavery was the fault of slaves. That sentiment dishonors our ancestors, and it is heartbreaking because for people who lived and died as slaves, calling them cowards strips them of justice again. It strips them of the dignity of being remembered affectionately after a lifetime of terrible oppression. It’s unfair to judge people who lived under the physical and psychological trauma of slavery, from our place of freedom and relative ease. None of us, including Kanye West and Candace Owens, could have handled 400 years of dehumanization any better.  

Has “free thought” ever become dangerous to society? How can we show honor to the ancestors that Kanye dishonored?

[coreyevanleak]

Left to Right

Last week I asked people on my FB page if they believed that the conversation about race was picking up steam in American religious circles. In the dialog that followed I promised a friend I would share a theory I have about the race conversation in America. Often when I’m sharing I ask myself the following question… “Is this BY me or ABOUT me?” Today what I write is a little of both.

I have to admit upfront that I have a severe case of “FOMO”. If I’m not careful I can spend hours on social media gazing at where other people are and what they are doing. When I see people doing things I enjoy doing and believe I do better, I can get in my feelings. I was this way as an artist, and I’ve continued to wrestle with the same issue as an outspoken social activist. It’s hard to watch people who have been silent on issues of race suddenly become an expert on the subject. That is how what I’m about to share is partially “about me”. How’s that for vulnerability?

In a previous blog about MLK I wrote about how revolutionary leaders are rarely celebrated in their lifetime. I believe it’s because their voices are saying something that most people don’t want to hear, but their persistence and the truth of what they are saying make the message they carry irresistible. People can’t argue with the validity of the issues that pioneers raise, but the truth can make humans extremely uncomfortable. That feeling of discomfort typically has 3 outcomes.

Seeking shelter by ignoring the issue altogether, and thereby muting the voices that are saying uncomfortable things.

Combating the legitimacy of the message or the messenger.

Finding a kinder, gentler, more palatable version of the message from someone they are more comfortable listening to.

The latter is what I believe is happening today with the recent, slight increase of conversations about racism within Evangelical organizations. Voices like Shaun King, Michael and Ben McBride, Eric Reid, Colin Kaepernick, Shane Claiborne, Bree Newsome, and Andre Henry make the noise about racial injustice relentlessly. People like them are deemed “far left extremist", but the issues they raise cannot be ignored. 

The race conversation continues day after day because people like them are driving the conversation. They endure insults from low key racists trying to belittle them with name calling and arguments against their stances and comments, while other leaders who agree with there principles remain silent.

Eventually, once the noise gets so loud it can’t be ignored, some of those less outspoken “right leaning conservative" leaders are asked to give their take about “diversity”. They are positioned in such a way as to be celebrated because they were given permission to speak on the subject. They were asked to speak about injustice and therefore the message was delivered the “right way”. People applaud, share their words, and say things like “you gotta hear what… said at… conference.”

I understand that hard words are easier to hear in the context of relationship, so I’m not lamenting the process. It’s been around for many moons. Every Martin needs a Malcolm as they say, and John the Baptist was a wild man in the desert saying the same things Jesus was saying in houses with tax collectors and religious leaders. I suppose that’s just how social change works. Some voices scare us, and others saying the same words make us feel safe enough to hear them out.

It’s fine that we praise the voices we respect and resonate with. We all have a preference of style and tone, but I’d ask that we re-think how little credit we give the voices that were brave enough to start and stay in the conversation daily. They’re the ones in the fight on a daily basis, and putting their livelihood and reputations on the line to move us forward toward a more just society.

For those of you wondering, I do consider myself a voice crying out in the wilderness about social issues. Yes, I have been in my feelings watching people I’ve never heard talking about racism before become overnight experts on the subject. However, once I’ve taken my emotional elevator to the top floor of my consciousness, I’m thrilled that the conversation is happening.  I pray it continues on every platform and in every venue possible until we have made every change we can make in our lifetime.

What voices on social change have you listened to the most?

Do you believe the conversation about racial injustice would be where it is today without people like the ones mentioned in this blog?

[coreyevanleak]

Starbucks Musings 

Today I’m on location. I’m writing from what has recently been a hot bed of controversy, and even though I just left the bathroom, I haven’t purchased anything. I’m at ground zero. The spot of the crime. The epicenter of the most recent incident sparking debate about racism on the internet. Alright, I’m being hella dramatic (Bay Area term meaning “very”). I’m not sitting at THEE Starbucks in Philadelphia that started all this conversation or the store in Los Angeles that had a second incident days later. 

I am sitting at a Starbucks, and I couldn’t help but share my thoughts while sitting here. 

First, I am at Starbucks. I haven’t spent my money here today, and the jury is still out on whether I will. I’m not mulling over whether I want to boycott Starbucks or continue to be a customer. I’m just not sure I want coffee right now. I’m not angry at Starbucks. I’m satisfied by the fact that Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson issued a public apology, personally met with the two men, and is closing ALL EIGHT THOUSAND US stores to educate employees about racial bias. Stated here.

I have been impressed with how quickly Johnson and Starbucks have identified that what happened was wrong. Starbucks came to that conclusion much faster than some of the people I’ve seen pontificating on social media about “waiting for all the facts.” 

I think there is great wisdom in not jumping to conclusions. I think it’s human decency to give the benefit of the doubt. Humans do and say wrong things. I can forgive people for that. I’ve been forgiven for that. Chances are you have too. I can’t forgive however the kind of arrogant supremacy that doesn’t allow a person to see the obvious racial bias right in front of their eyes or in their own hearts. Not because I don’t want to, but because people in that position don’t want it. How do you pardon a transgression that isn’t being confessed but denied instead? 

It’s interesting to see denial at work. Human beings have an ability God didn’t give other animals on this planet. We have the ability to deny the reality of what our senses and intellect tell us are certainty. It’s actually a very healthy part of the grief process. It helps us absorb the emotional blow of something traumatic happening in our lives. There is nothing wrong with being in this stage of grief provided we move on to the other stages in the grief cycle. 

It seems that denial is the only stage America’s dominant culture knows when it comes to traumatic incidents of racial bias and inequality. People in the majority seem to struggle with the notion that people are still mistreated, oppressed, and targeted by human beings and institutions in America. When faced with video evidence, “we should wait for all the facts”. When faced with the stories of personal experience from POC some from the majority culture present data to discredit the experience. That, my dear friends, is D E N I A L, and it’s probably time to come outside of that emotional fortress and face the ugly truth.

That reality is POC are still struggling for equal footing in America. A quick google search can reveal statistics of incarceration, unemployment, household income, or home ownership rates that are asymmetrical when compared to the same rates of those in the dominant culture. You can also hear or read it in the subtle comments people make about POC when there is an incident that makes National news. I’ve heard things like: “If things are so bad here, why don’t those people go back to where they came from”. Those words are stooped in the idea that the people who “belong here” are those whose European Ancestors “built this country.” It reinforces the belief that those in the majority are native and everyone else is a foreigner in America. Most people wouldn’t tell the co-owner of their house to leave over a disagreement. In fact, because they are co-owners it’s incumbent upon both parties to figure out how to come to a mutual understanding of how to live together. 

Kevin Johnson sat down with the two young men who in his own words didn’t deserve what happened to them. I listened to him express something I’ve said many times. Proximity to another human being whose ethnicity is different than yours gives you a more compassionate perspective. 

Philadelphia police and others from the dominant culture took a more sadly predictable stance. It was more denial and shaming of the victims in this story. I suppose in our lifetime this will be how the story goes, but we took step forward this time by how proactive Starbucks has been. That is encouraging. Often times the injustices that happen to people have a more tragic ending where culpability unfairly rests on the shoulders of the victims. That wasn’t the case this time. Well done Kevin Johnson and Starbucks. Oh, by the way I did buy a cold foam cascara. I didn’t really like it. 🤷🏾‍♂️ 

As always, I’d like to leave you with a couple of questions. 

Who do you typically give the benefit of the doubt to when you hear stories like the one coming out of the Philadelphia Starbucks? 

How do you feel Starbucks has handled this?

[coreyevanleak]

MLK50 

 It’s been FIFTY YEARS since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King on that now infamous balcony in Memphis, TN. Speculation as to why he was murdered runs along a wide spectrum of theories. James Earl Ray has been deemed responsible for Dr. King’s murder, but it’s no easier to hold one man responsible for his death as it is to hold one man responsible for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Many people were likely involved in what happened on April 4th, 1968. In the months preceding his death, Dr. King was wire tapped by the FBI, received death threats, and was radicalized by the media (who had once been his allies). It is nearly impossible to identify one person or institution responsible for what happened, but it’s not hard to find a similar story of another revolutionary who’s story parallels Dr King’s. We need only to look at the stories of Jesus’ life shared by the gospel writers of the Bible. 

 Jesus came on the scene at a time when Roman imperialism created unjust class systems that caused civil unrest among the people of his day. He like King, was deemed a radical by the people of His day. His ideas and declarations were not popular among people with power and privilege, but wildly popular among the poor and needy. Jesus’ message frightened the powerful elite because it was moving the poor to the front of the line in a culture that was built to remind those without power or wealth that they weren’t rich or powerful. The “Kingdom of Heaven” is a system of governance that isn’t ruled by human power, but by God himself as it’s ruler. God, who created all people in His image, doesn’t discriminate based on gender, race, status, or influence. A Kingdom ruled by God would, according to Jesus, elevate the destitute and bring down the oppressive rich and powerful. 

 This is a message that Dr. King brought forward during the last years of his life. He began to be outspoken about government that favored the rich at the expense of the poor. The reason he was in Memphis to begin with was to fight for better pay for poor sanitation workers. Dr. King came to see that many of the people below the poverty line in America weren’t all minorities, but many white people fell beneath that line as well. He identified that economic discrimination was as big an advisory to justice as racial discrimination. He devoted his later years to fighting for a government that redistributed wealth and power equally for all Americans. A just system of governance would in essence elevate the poor and bring down the oppressive rich and powerful. 

 People with privilege, power, and wealth have historically been reluctant to make space for more people to share in that wealth and power. As Jesus' message about the Kingdom of God gained steam, those with power plotted to kill the message and the messenger. They ultimately did kill the messenger, but the message can never be killed because it came from the Creator. Jesus carried forward the message of YHWH that was established thousands of years before He lived. Moses (before Jesus) shared instructions from God about justice, peace, and love in society. Jesus moved that way of living forward in a time that resisted the idea of equal justice for all. 

 Thousands of years later Dr. King found himself fighting for the same fair and just system as Jesus. King fought for the justice, peace, and love that God told Moses to establish as values for His people. He became a beacon of hope for the poor and oppressed, and as his movement gained steam, those with power… 

 Once again, a messenger was killed, but the message lived on. 

 Today we remember the death of MLK days after we remembered the death and resurrection of Jesus. We remember why both men were executed. Both fought for the weak against the strong. Both had a picture of a system of governance that made space for the impoverished to have the same human rights as the wealthy. Both men believed that if it cost them their lives to move the message forward to the next generation, they would willingly give their lives. We all respect that kind of courage and fortitude. We all want to be on the right side of history, so I’ll leave you with two questions.

 How can you move the message of Jesus and Dr. King forward today? 

 Are you willing to move it forward even if it cost you?

[coreyevanleak]

A Problem to Solve | Part 5 | (Who’s Responsible?) 

 This blog series has been written for leaders in faith-based organizations, and more specifically written for leaders in the Evangelical Christian world. I hope the series’ stories and ideas shared by myself and others have been unsettling - because it’s not until we become discontent with our circumstances that we move to change them. People with privilege and power have the ability to help those without either. So, to conclude this series, I’d like to share a story. 

 A newly married husband and wife save for a year and buy a 65 inch Samsung QLED television and mount it on their wall above the fire place. The couple never imagined sports and entertainment could be seen in such vivid color. They spend every evening cuddled up together watching movies, sports, and tv shows. It is how they spend quality time with one another, and it draws them closer every day. They never miss an episode of their favorite shows or a single minute of their favorite team playing. Watching tv together is not their only bonding, but it is the primary way this couple connects with each other. 

 One day the husband asks if he can invite a friend over to have dinner and watch a game. This friend has just moved his company to town and they are old college buddies - it would be great to catch up. The wife agrees, and they invite the friend over. The friend has just moved into his home, and has yet to get a tv. He remarks several times throughout the evening about how amazing the television is and how he’s going to get one for his house. After the game is over the friend leaves, the couple cleans up, and goes to bed. While they are sleeping, the friend breaks into the house, takes the tv off the wall, and takes it home. 

The newlyweds wake up the next morning to find dangling chords and holes in the wall where their precious television once was. The couple is rattled and angry, but also confused because nothing else was stolen from their house. The wife, who had never met this friend of her husband’s until the night before, shares that she had a weird feeling about the guy. He seemed a little shady to her. She’s sure it was him that stole the tv, and the husband should confront him. 

At his wife’s request he calls his friend and tells him what happened. Before he could finish telling his story, his friend cuts him off and says “I’m so sorry that happened to you. I know that it probably took you and your wife a long time to save up to buy a television like that. Come work for me. I’ll pay you a fair wage, and you can save for another year to buy another television just like the one you had.” The husband discusses it with his wife and agrees to leave his job and work for his friend. 

 After six months the couple starts to have issues in their marriage. The television is gone, so they have lost the quality time that was once at the center of their lives. The wife is still suspicious of the friend and still believes he’s the one who stole their tv. She quietly resents her husband for not standing up for their family. Now, instead of watching tv together every night, they argue. A few months later the husband’s work begins to suffer. 

His friend/boss calls him into his office and asks why his work is suffering. He’s upset because the friend he hired isn’t pulling his weight. The husband shares that he’s having marriage problems that began shortly after their television was stolen, and he doesn’t know if their marriage will survive. The friend responds: “Man, that’s awful. I’m so sorry for you guys. I wish there was something I could do”. After work he goes home turns on “his” tv, and begins to feel sadness for the couple. He wonders what he can do. He comes to the conclusion that something has to be done, so he calls the couples house. The wife answers the phone. The friend says: “Your husband told me you two have been having a rough time. Is there anything I can do?” 

 The wife tells him that she knows what he did, and that if he really wants to help, he should bring their television back and mount it back above their fireplace. The friend confesses. He apologizes profusely. He recognizes that his actions were the catalyst for the distress in their home. After apologizing over and over again to the wife on the phone he asks, “Do you think you and your husband will have some time this week to come by and take your tv off my wall and remount it in your own home? I’m really busy, and I’m not sure I’ll get to it for quite a while.” 

 Who do you believe bears the responsibility for solving the problem these people now find themselves in?

[coreyevanleak]

A Problem to Solve | Part 4 | (Not Just a Black and White Issue) 

After writing Part One of this series, I got to hear the stories of women and people of color trying to find a fit in a church environment that they felt marginalized in. I thought it would be important to share a couple of their stories to allow us to see the scope of the problem we can solve together. The first story was Part 3 of this series, written by Stephanie Zibell, about what it has been like for her as a woman in ministry. This week, I share a conversation I had with my friend Jensen Abraham. He is a first generation Indian American who served as a full time leader and mentor at at faith-based leadership school in Atlanta. He has also helped manage a non-profit organization that mentors thousands of youth and young adult pastors from across the Nation. He has recently married and spends his time developing an entrepreneurship school for middle and high school students in Dunwoody, GA.

Me: When did you begin to feel like you were limited in your potential to lead within the American Church? 

Jensen: A few years ago, while I was a part of ministry school.. striving to be a youth pastor.. I had a class where the instructor was talking about how to reconcile cultures in the church. As an Indian in the church striving to be a part of church leadership one day, I was thrilled to hear this lesson. As the instructor continued talking about how white people lean towards white churches and black people lean towards black churches, they started talking about how difficult it is to have a multicultural staff in the American church and how churches needed to be intentional about having a staff with a mix of white people and black people. When this was said, a thought dawned on me that changed the course of my “journey to ministry”. If we, as the church, are just starting to integrate staffing to white and black people, what happens if you are an Indian? This thought then led to, “Even if an Indian winds up on staff to have more races represented, would it even be possible for an Indian to have an actual pastoral or teaching role? Would an Indian always just be a part of general staffing just to meet "multi cultural staff” quota? Do I even want to be a part of a place hiring me just because I am different? How often would a church be comfortable having an Indian representing them on stage? Would we ever be able to do more than give announcements from time to time? Even if I get a youth pastor position somewhere, would the pastor ever feel comfortable handing the church off to me one day if I had aspirations to be a senior pastor?“ 

Me: How common of an experience is this among Indians in ministry?

Jensen: I’ve had discussions with other Indians that had desires to be a part of church leadership. The ones that had any kind of success seemed to only be the ones that went to an all or majority Indian church. The ones that didn’t have success were the ones that tried to venture out and start multicultural churches and ended up becoming majority Indian before slowly dwindling away. There were a few that did manage to rise to real leadership, and I can count that number on one hand. 

Me: What do you believe contributes to the low number of Indians serving in significant roles in ministry today? 

Jensen: The percentage of Asian-Americans is slim in the church world. Many young Asian-Americans today are 1st or 2nd generation Americans in their families. They are taught early on that education and financial success are vital to their future. Without realizing it, often times the message of real faith and trust comes after education and financial success. This is not because Asian parents are money hungry. It is because either they or their parents came here from their home countries, had a HARD journey to get to America (coming with almost nothing) , and came here for better opportunities for the generations that follow them. Asian-American Christians make up a slim percentage of Christians in the U.S. So a slim percentage of this slim percentage have a dream or aspiration to be a part of church leadership.. of course it’s going to be tougher for them to find a real spot in church leadership… not impossible, just tough. And if you are an Indian, unfortunately, the way we look can prevent the types of roles that are offered to us in the church world. 

Me: Why are we talking about "Asians” now? 

Jensen: Because India is in Asia. 👀 

Me: duh… I knew that. 😳 

Me: Do you still feel called to church leadership?

Jensen: Yes… but not exactly what I once thought it would be. My wife and I are a part of a house church network that is doing a great job at raising disciples of all sorts of cultures.. not to meet a quota.. it actually just happened pretty naturally because the people in the group naturally live a life that create friendships with all sorts of cultures. However I am less than a year married, and my wife and I want to do whatever it takes to ensure a marriage for the long run. So we’ve taken a step back to focus on that. So for now, we love where we are at.

[coreyevanleak]

A Problem to Solve | Part 3 | (Because I’m a Woman) 

Written by Stephanie Zibell

“Pastors, the lack of women in executive level leadership positions in the church is incredibly concerning to me and it should be equally concerning to you.”

This is the statement that I wanted to use to end this blog post.

My intention when I began to write this was for men working in church leadership to see the lack of women being represented in the church, and for them to decide to act on it. They would walk into their next meeting, look around, and begin to notice if the room had equal representation of both men and women.

Then I remembered my own journey towards advocating for women in leadership. It wasn’t until I stepped out of the context I was accustomed to and became curious, that I began to place a high value on the diversity of gender in leadership.

So, I decided not to write this as a persuasion piece for men who hold roles of leadership in the church, and who might be blind to what’s at stake…. I wrote it for the curious.

THE FACTS.

Recent findings in Outreach’s report on “The 100 Fastest Growing Churches in 2017″ show us that of the 100 fastest growing churches in America, ONE of them has a woman leading it, and that woman co-pastors the church with her husband.

“The National Congregations Study”, a 2015 comprehensive report conducted by Duke University, found that on a National scale, about 11% of congregations are led by women. This percentage has stalled, and remains unchanging since 1998.

You don’t need a myriad of studies and reports to believe me. Any one of us can Google search “churches near me”, click over to a staff leadership team page and confirm these findings.

To take it one step further, “The 2017 Women in the Workplace” study found that nearly 50 percent of men think women who work in companies are well represented in leadership - where only one in ten of those women are senior leaders. A much smaller but still significant number of women agree: a third think women are well represented when they see one in ten in leadership. The Pew Research Group completed a “Religious Landscape Study” and found that the gender composition of the Evangelical Church congregation is 55% women and 45% men.

What this tells us is that over half of the people who walk through the doors of a church are grossly under-represented on their church board, executive team and from the stage. And as we saw in the Women in the Workplace report above, there is a large group of both men and women who are currently “okay” with this notion.

THE WHY.

There are many reasons why churches are run by mostly men. I will focus on only one.

Like Corey has already mentioned in Part One of this blog series, there is a popular movement in many church environments where the staff holds a high value of “hiring people to do life with”. To be honest, for years I thought this was a pretty great approach.

What’s unfortunate about this approach is that churches who adopt this notion don’t realize the wealth of information, experience, perspective and wisdom they are missing out on when they choose to surround themselves with people who are a lot like them. They might not even realize that by hiring people who are friends and people they “do life with”, they will more than likely end up with a lot of other like-minded men on their staff.

I have come to believe that this hiring practice is actually a dangerous idea. The problem is, although it is veiled in community and the desire for belonging (which are both beautiful things), it breeds exclusivity.

Unintentional exclusivity is every bit as dangerous as intentional segregation.  

Corey asked me to speak about my experience as a women in church leadership, but I would be re-miss to not take a moment to say that as a women who is strong-minded, extroverted and unafraid of conflict, I am also white. Relatively speaking, it has actually been a fairly easy road for me to have a voice.

I cannot speak on behalf of the black community, hispanic community or the whole of any community for that matter, but if I have felt dismissed and small and like I need to fit into a perfect little package to fit the narrative of a woman in church, I cannot even imagine the exhausting burden and disappointment a person of color, or more specifically, a woman of color, feels when entering a church with little to no representation in leadership.

THE PERSONAL.

As a woman who has worked in both Corporate America and the American Church, I have always felt that in order to get a seat at the table, I needed to downplay my womanhood.

Don’t be too strong or you might come across bitchy.

Don’t be too soft or you might come across as sensitive.

Don’t crack a joke or you might look like you are trying too hard.

Make sure you laugh at the weird joke or you might look like you are a prude.

And the list goes on…

I have spent too much of my adult life trying to sit at the table despite being a woman. I’ve positioned myself as the expert on various platforms, but never on the platform of my womanhood.

This feeling of inferiority was validated over and over by the words and actions of mostly well meaning men and the values they held.

When I am told that my income is supplementary because I was married and therefore, the offer is a lower amount.

When any administrative task is tossed my way, regardless of my job description, because the assumption is that I will be good at it.

When I am asked to co-lead worship with a man because “men can’t sing along when its in a female key”.

When I was the only female in a ministerial internship to become a pastor, and also the only person asked to baby-sit, run errands, and be a support to the wives of the men leading.

Although I was never told that I was less than because I was a woman, the narrative that I believed was this: In order to become one of the few females running a department, board, or executive team of a church, I had to be more like a man.

However, the more I became fully alive in and aware of who God created me to be, I became empowered to believe that I need to sit at the table because I am a woman. Coupling my expertise and ability with my unique female perspective and experience is the golden ticket. This perspective is needed in decision making  rooms in the church.

THE SOLUTION.

I think there are two critical keys to becoming a gender and racially diverse church.

Value and Exposure.

When something is a core value, it becomes an integral part of how you operate and make decisions. It is a guiding light of sorts. Something you will fight for even if it isn’t expressed.

If it is a personal and organizational core value that the perspective of both men and women is vital to the transformational work of the church, then how you hire, how you develop your staff, and how you create weekend programming will align with this value.

While many churches fill their meeting rooms with men, there are a lot of churches who are truly egalitarian. The church we currently attend is one of them and I am grateful for their strong example. Outside of the church, there are many organizations who are playing an important role in the advocacy for women leaders.

Find them. Read their work. Reach out for a conversation. Think of a women you respect and ask her to be your mentor. Expose yourself to people, churches and workplaces who think differently than you.  

Exposure is one of the most beautiful gifts we can give ourselves and the people around us. By exposing ourselves to new ideas, thoughts, experiences, perspectives and cultures, we have the opportunity to grow in empathy, advocacy, and understanding. Exposure breeds inclusion, so expose yourself to the churches and organizations that are already there and learn from them.

I don’t think that we will experience the highest level of transformational change in our communities until we make diversity a value in the church. Inclusion and representation matters to an individual and it is time that it matters just as much to the church.

[coreyevanleak]

A Problem to Solve | Part 2 | (Limited Experiences)

By the year 2044 America is projected to be a majority-minority country. That means Caucasians will no longer be the majority. If the projection proves true, and current church attendance trends continue, American Evangelical churches have a problem to solve.

The often unintended message communicated by Evangelical churches is that the most important people in the audience are white Christians. This isn’t something that is part of our mission or vision statements nor is it discussed in our board rooms, but in subtle ways it is expressed.

Every good organization has a target audience, and churches are no different, even if only by default. Attending a weekend service, visiting the website, or following on social media can quickly reveal to a guest who a church is targeting with their message.

Who is the target of humor? What are the common names used in illustrations? What events or people from culture are referenced? The answers to questions like these reveal the target audience of every church. Organizations bend towards its audience like a plant toward sunlight. Decisions are made with that audience in mind. Although the decisions and presentations are often extemporaneous or the result of long standing tradition, they do speak loudly to both those targeted and those not targeted.

Almost two years ago I was extremely privileged to go with a church on a pilgrimage to Israel. The history and imagery of that country is breathtakingly majestic. While we were there we toured dozens of historic sites and learned more about the rich traditions that made them significant. One of the stops on the pilgrimage was of course, the Western Wall.

The Western Wall was every bit as awe-inspiring as I could’ve imagined. People who pray there are joining millions of others over thousands of years who have prayed on that sacred ground. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and those not affiliated with any religion are all welcome to take part in the tradition of praying at the wall. The wall has written prayers stuffed inside its crevices from Presidents, kings, athletes, and celebrities from all around the world. All are welcome at the wall, but are all treated equally?

I knew that the Western Wall had segregated areas for men and women to pray. It was a memorable part of the trip to have our group split when we arrived at the Wall. However, I wasn’t truly aware how much of a lesser experience the wall was for the women with us until after returning home and watching a reality tv star make a visit. It was on television, looking at the Western Wall from the outside, that I noticed the stark difference.

The men’s area is much larger than the women’s. Men are allowed to read the torah, wear a prayer shawl, and pray out loud. Women are not. Women are welcome at the Western Wall, but reminded by the space and limitations of their experience, that the wall is mainly for men.

In Evangelical churches across America, people of color and women have a similar experience. They are welcome. Pastors are thrilled when they come, but their ability to deeply engage is limited by the fact that intentionally or unintentionally, they are not the target audience of the weekend programming. The pre and post service playlists, the worship songs, the sermon illustrations, and the over all feel of the service, all communicate that they are there more to observe than to participate.

I recently shared the story of the Western Wall with a group of weekend planners and asked them to begin searching for areas of programming within their services that leaves minorities with too little space to have a rich experience at their churches. It’s remarkable what they began to identify as barriers once that dialog was opened to them. Asking people of color what they have observed is also great way to discover areas within a church that have catered too much to only white Christians.

The year 2044 is not a long way off. What changes does your organization need to make today to remain in existence tomorrow?

[coreyevanleak]

A Problem to Solve | Part 1 | (Space at the Table)

Years ago I learned that everything rises and falls on leadership. Whether it’s the law of the lid, or the idea of the leadership umbrella, the principle remains the same – leadership drives culture. Culture drives habits, and habits drive who you are as an organization. These principles make who you have sitting at your leadership table of vital importance. 

“The 3Cs” is a great formula to determine whether someone is fit for a leadership table. Competency can be seen on a resume, and character through conversations with mutual acquaintances and reference checks. Chemistry is harder to determine. 

It is virtually impossible to know purely on first impressions who could grow to have long term chemistry with you. The kind of chemistry it takes to trust the instincts of a leader takes a substantial amount of time to develop. It’s hard work, and it’s even harder when trying to develop that chemistry across race and gender. Perhaps that’s why in so many churches and  denominations across America the “leadership” is overwhelmingly white and male. I will not presume to speak for women, but I can share from the perspective of an African American male who has served in ministry in predominantly white environments for almost twenty years. 

Some time ago I started hearing several lead pastors express the sentiment that they aimed to surround themselves with people they wanted to “do life with”. That’s certainly an understandable tendency. We all want to surround ourselves with people who bring us joy. One unintended consequence of that desire in the American church is that too often the people who bring joy to white male pastors are other white males. I’ve seen far too many photos of church boards,  church leadership teams, and denominational presbyteries where people of color nor women are represented. I see this as a very real problem that the American church can no longer afford to treat as a manageable tension.

To address this issue requires acknowledging that a lack of diversity at the decision making table is in fact a problem. White male leaders within organizations have to reject the inclination to deem the exclusion of minority voices as an acceptable organizational practice. To quote a good friend of mine “it doesn’t have to be this way”.

Leaders have to wrestle with what it means to welcome female and minority voices to speak. Historically, leaders and churches that are looking to be more diverse look for minority or female singers to put on stage. When people of color or women are seen speaking or leading worship it can send a message to weekend attenders that diversity is a value of that church. While that is an important message, that practice is incomplete. It’s window dressing. That narrative does not tell the full story of whether or not people of color or women are given a platform to influence the decisions  that determine the course of the organization or church. When an organization is looking for diversity, some questions must be asked. Do we want minority faces or do we want minority culture? What happens when a person of color on our leadership team sympathizes with their culture and becomes vocal about it? How will we handle the fact that black people typically feel a sense of responsibility for their culture? These are the types of questions that white leaders have to wrestle with before engaging in the hiring of minority leaders.  A lead pastor interested in welcoming diversity into their organization has to be prepared to develop minority leaders. The finish line for an organization is not hiring a person of color, but developing them into a leading voice within the organization. If that end result is not in view the goal of diversity will prove to be elusive as the inevitable struggle for chemistry emerges and cultural barriers arise.   

It’s 2018. We are less than sixty years removed from black people in America being legally considered equal citizens for the first time.Schools, restaurants, and yes, even churches were all segregated and therefore people of color are relatively new to attending churches with white people let alone working in them. Church leaders today, whose ancestors excluded black people from their churches, would do well to wrestle with whether or not they should feel a sense of responsibility to work toward reconciliation in light of that exclusion. In Luke 11:47-48 we see some hard words from Jesus about building on the sins of previous generations. That passage is worth examining to discover how it applies to America’s history with race and how we can move forward together.

Living in the Bay Area of San Francisco I’ve had the opportunity to meet people from and visit places like Google, Facebook, Apple, and GoFundMe. I once had a conversation with an African American who worked in Silicon Valley who talked about how very few black people worked at some of these organizations. In fact he told me that you could fit all the African American’s who work at Facebook and Google on one large airplane. The two companies employ almost 100 thousand people.   

A week later I visited the campus of Google to have lunch with a friend who had recently been hired there. At lunch I found it remarkable how many ethnicities were represented on the campus, but also how few black people worked there.  I referenced the conversation I had a week prior, and we talked about some of the factors that lead to the small amount of black people working at google. It’s not good hiring practices to hire unqualified people solely to fill a quota. It’s a bad practice for Google, and it’s a bad practice for churches. However, I was blown away by what my friend told me Google was doing to be proactive to solve the issue of qualified candidates coming out of minority communities. He told me that Google was working hard to engage in minority communities before a potential engineer ever walked through the door, as well as influencing the cultural and systemic biases that prevent minorities from applying. For an example of how Google has done this click here.  This is what it looks like for an organization to see a problem and be proactive to solve it. Sometimes the best thing we can do about the past is to secure the future.   

Leadership is responsible for the message organizations send to the world, and if the church is going to send the right message to the world about equality and equity then church leaders have to look at themselves in the mirror and do the hard work of examining their own hearts for racial and gender biases. After that, look around your leadership table and be honest about what you see. Who have you made space for at the table?