I spent several years heavily involved with a certain Christian culture that stressed the appearance of righteousness and purity. 'It doesn't look good to be alone with a woman. It doesn't look good to be near liquor stores. It doesn't look good to wear shorts or skimpy clothing near the church building. So you shouldn't do it.' Why does it matter? Because onlookers may associate you with various evils and because the KJV tells us to avoid even the appearance of evil (1Thess 5:22). I myself believed and taught that approach to Christian piety for several years, and argued for it rather convincingly in the eyes of some youth who had conflicts with people over their appearances. But does this rationale accurately represent NT Christianity?
What bothered my slightly back then and what convinces me to answer "no" now is the earthly ministry of Jesus. Jesus was notorious for appearing evil. He spent time with women and spoke with them. He socialized with tax collectors--those sharply disloyal to Jewish interests. He associated with all sorts of "sinners" (Matthew 11:19) --people of low class, people who had been guilty of social taboos, people who themselves associated with the wrong kind of people, etc. He also failed to observe the customs and boundaries common to "good" and "respectable" people. He told stories that portrayed as heroes people who were publicly despised (Luke 10:25-37; 16:19-31).
Jesus frequently did things that didn't look good (and in fact looked very bad), and He was frequently harshly criticized by "respectable" people because of it. So was Jesus just a trouble maker? Did Jesus disregard appearances just for the sake of gaining a bad reputation? Did He do what He did just to upset "respectable" people? Did He do it just because He resented the cultural customs and taboos?
No. He did what He did for two reasons that I can see: (1) He broke the appearances rules for the sake of doing what's right (healing on the Sabbath, touching the "unclean", etc.). (2) He broke the appearance rules because He valued authenticity over appearances (consider Matthew 5, 6, and 23). He derided the "respectable" people for the fact that their "respectable" culture of appearanes kept them from doing the right thing and being real and genuine. "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24).
Could it be the case that religious culture in the 21st century is guilty of upholding a "respectable culture of appearances" which prevents people from being authentic and doing the right thing? i'd say yes--i fear i've been quite guilty of upholding it myself. i'm not going to give a barrage of examples here (though i think there are easily a barrage or two that could be given), but instead i just want to suggest a simple strategy for solving this problem and ask a question (that i do hope some readers will respond to).
How do we change for the better and get rid of this "respectable culture of appearances"? i can't make anyone else do the right thing, but i can certainly make myself do the right thing. So...(1) Be authentic regardless of how being authentic might appear in the sight of "respectable" people, and (2) do the right thing even if the right thing won't look good in the sight of "respectable" people. Allow how things appear to God dictate how you will and won't act or speak or think, not how things appear to other people.
A question: Does Romans 12:17 defeat the point i'm making? If so, why? If not, why?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Language and Elitism
This morning during my first class, i sat through a rather lengthy diatribe/instructional session about the use of proper English when writing papers for college assignments. i have no problem with that requirement; it has tremendous practical merits. But it got me thinking about how language can be a tool for elitism.
i grew up developing a very low view of the Southern colloquialisms common to my corner of the world. Even today i tend to think of linguistic items like "y'all" and a thick texas/oklahoma draw as a sign of being uneducated or lacking intelligence. i've even labored in recent weeks to catch and correct myself when i say "whole nother" and "real bad" as though i'm doing something wrong or unintelligent.
But today i started to question that view quite a bit. There is a culture that developed for centuries around academic institutions. And it is replete with its own linguistic elements--rules of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. That's all fine and well i think. But what i now question is why this culture should be seen as privileged or preferred. Or more importantly, why should the distinctive cultural elements (such as the language) of the academic world be regarded as "right" and others as "wrong"? Why should "proper English" (as defined by educational institutions) be taken as the hallmark of intelligence and the failure to use "proper English" be taken as the hallmark of lacking intelligence? Or to put it another way, who the hell died and made the MLA boss?
Granted-there are practical advantages to having widely agree linguistic rules. But adherence to such rules is not necessarily the dividing line for intelligence and respectability. People who speak "ebonics" or "hillbilly" are not necessarily less intelligent than those who speak "proper English." And they and their respective cultures are by no means less valuable or deserving of respect than the culture of academia.
The bottom line for me is to remember that God is no respector of persons. Christ in His personal mission and his mission through the apostles accomplished tremendous cultural unity. Christ worked hard at breaking down social barriers based on class prejudice. His church was built by people across a wide cultural spectrum. Some were highly educated and some had little if any institutional education. If i really believe in the kind of radical equality that Christ teaches, i'll seek to rid myself of the vestiges of cultural prejudices and elitism. And that may very well include admitting (and behaving accordingly) that in the grand scheme of things, it's perfectly fine for people i encounter not to use "proper English."
i grew up developing a very low view of the Southern colloquialisms common to my corner of the world. Even today i tend to think of linguistic items like "y'all" and a thick texas/oklahoma draw as a sign of being uneducated or lacking intelligence. i've even labored in recent weeks to catch and correct myself when i say "whole nother" and "real bad" as though i'm doing something wrong or unintelligent.
But today i started to question that view quite a bit. There is a culture that developed for centuries around academic institutions. And it is replete with its own linguistic elements--rules of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. That's all fine and well i think. But what i now question is why this culture should be seen as privileged or preferred. Or more importantly, why should the distinctive cultural elements (such as the language) of the academic world be regarded as "right" and others as "wrong"? Why should "proper English" (as defined by educational institutions) be taken as the hallmark of intelligence and the failure to use "proper English" be taken as the hallmark of lacking intelligence? Or to put it another way, who the hell died and made the MLA boss?
Granted-there are practical advantages to having widely agree linguistic rules. But adherence to such rules is not necessarily the dividing line for intelligence and respectability. People who speak "ebonics" or "hillbilly" are not necessarily less intelligent than those who speak "proper English." And they and their respective cultures are by no means less valuable or deserving of respect than the culture of academia.
The bottom line for me is to remember that God is no respector of persons. Christ in His personal mission and his mission through the apostles accomplished tremendous cultural unity. Christ worked hard at breaking down social barriers based on class prejudice. His church was built by people across a wide cultural spectrum. Some were highly educated and some had little if any institutional education. If i really believe in the kind of radical equality that Christ teaches, i'll seek to rid myself of the vestiges of cultural prejudices and elitism. And that may very well include admitting (and behaving accordingly) that in the grand scheme of things, it's perfectly fine for people i encounter not to use "proper English."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)