I'VE MOVED!

Or at least, everything's in process... It won't feel like home until I get all my pictures up.

I've decided to consolidate my web presence (more to the point, I finally found someone who knew how to set it up the way I was hoping to). Soon usefulperhaps.melvinbray.com will redirect to the new spot. For the time being (and thereafter), find me at MELVINBRAY.COM.

The Day After

published on God's Politics...

As the 2008 Presidential campaign draws to a close, I've become increasingly less concerned about the specific outcomes of election night and more concerned by what we will have positioned ourselves to accomplish the day after. What are our prospects for success in meeting the tremendous challenges we as a country now face, when we've painted our countrymen and neighbors out to be devils and villains? How do we commit ourselves to meaningful action for the good of all God's creation and not become immobilized in our bickering over who is most right? I'm almost afraid that too much damage has been done: the fear mongering and race-baiting and name-calling and prejudice rationalizing. How do we begin to engage one another and work together if indeed I am (by your definition or my own) a tree-hugging, homo-loving, abortion-permitting, other-embracing, terrorist-empathizing, socialist-leaning un-real black man, whom you've been socialized to resist at all costs?

As I write, a song invades my consciousness, refusing not to be heard. I believe it echoes a way forward through this mess we’ve made for ourselves. The song is "Belfast to Boston," by James Taylor (listen). It's been my prayer for peace for about two years now…

There are rifles buried in the countryside by the rising of the moon.
May they lie there long forgotten, 'til they rust away into the ground.

It's a song of grace: blood bought, divinely inspired, blessed assurance that as followers in the way of Jesus we are not condemned to give as good (or as poorly) as we get. We can give better. Yes…

Who will bend this ancient hatred: will the killing to an end?
Who will swallow long injustice: take the devil for a countryman?

We can. This is the grace that is ours. "Freely you have received; freely give," Jesus says.

continue reading on GP>>>

Good Art Gives--But Doesn't Always Sell

published on God's Politics...

I've been on a real art binge of late. Reading, watching, listening to, experiencing and creating as much as I can. Good art isn't just creative, it's generative, that is it inspires creative acts in others. It gives us hands to shape the world in new and living ways. And I've been thinking a lot about how much this world we share needs more of it.

Like any other act of love, I believe art is fundamentally contributive, not transactional. It's not an if-you-do-this-I'll-do-that proposition. By my experience, as soon as it becomes transactional, art more often than not simply becomes entertainment. The difference is the bottom line. The bottom line in entertainment is to perpetuate the transaction. At least they're honest about it, those who transact in performance art. They call it "the biz," show business: business being the operative word. I was chatting with an Atlanta-based artist friend of mine, Patdro Harris, who used to choreograph for Stevie Wonder. He mentioned Stevie once noted that the great thing for him was that when he broke on the scene in the '60s the industry and the public were transacting for the very art that was stirring inside of him. Sadly, that is not often enough the case. More often, people transact for (give back to) that which affirms and leaves them right where they are, good, bad or indifferent. Art—love—says, "Even if you don't give back to me I'm going to give to you, and it's going to be an attempt to seek your best."

read more on God's Politics blog>>> Part 1 / Part 2

Exorcising Our Demons

published on God's Politics...

If properly understood, Senator Barak Obama's remarks today at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA, constitute one of the most significant and honest public addresses ever made on America's 400-year struggle with race. Had we heeded DuBois' 1903 prophetic warning, The Souls of Black Folks, it may have found voice in the 20th century. There is a conversation America has, literally in some cases, been dying to have. That conversation is not in favor of any particular presidential candidate. Please don't relegate and dismiss it on those grounds. However, it is unlikely that we would be so inescapably confronted with such issues outside of a person of color experiencing some measure of success in a bid for the highest elected office in the land.

In her God's Politics post, "Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective," Diana Butler Bass implored us to listen better to one another. Now let me suggest something to listen for. The thought is simple, but the lesson is not: Not everyone has experienced America in the same way. And we must lay down the self-absorption that makes us think this doesn't matter, if we are ever to begin to appreciate each other.

Permit a timely example. If you are not Black, you may not know that the Black church is the theatre in which Blacks have historically exorcised their demons—with the pastor as both theologue and thespian embodying the collective process of redemption for his/her people every week. Initially, church was the one place we could go that we weren't under massa's whip, which is why we relish it. Eventually, it became the center and sustainer of our community. So most of us understand Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a way that may escape others.

Church equaled life for us. Where else could we go to exorcise the demons of injustice and intransigence? Where else could we go to exorcise the marginalization and invalidation, the defeat and depression, the struggle and scorn? Where else could we go when our children asked—as my daughter did while coloring just the other day—if Jesus were brown or white? My answer was that he was born to Jewish parents, people of color, whom we usually refer to as olive-skinned. And her heartrending response at 5-years-old was: Why can't he be white? In all the pictures, he's white!

Where else could we give cathartic voice to our inner demons in hopes of being transformed like the phoenix into "the better angels of our nature?"

Continue reading on God's Politics blog>>> Part 1 & Part 2

An Inward-Outward Strategy for the Black Community

Is it me, or is any other Black person sick of the polarized debate over what exactly it is that Blacks need to overcome in America in the 21st century?

On the one hand you have the black neo-conservatives—the first beneficiaries (young and old) of the rights, privileges and opportunities gained in our struggle to overthrow American apartheid—who are convinced that the only things now holding Blacks back from upward mobility in America are self-destructive habits, the refusal to assimilate and an unwillingness to work hard enough. On the other side are your dyed-in-the-wool liberals who, having waged war and won some hard fought legal and political battles to tear down the overt trappings of institutionalized racism, are fully persuaded that what continues to hinder Black upward mobility in America are the more covert inner-workings of a die-hard racist social, political and economic order. Does anyone else see how much of a false dilemma this debate creates? The debate itself, for Blacks, is totally counter-productive and beside the point.

As long as the debate is either/or, Blacks will never make progress. As long as its "self-reliance" versus "societal restitution," the black community will be a house divided against itself. The dominant culture is the only one that benefits from this either/or strategy—either Republican or Democrat; either liberal or conservative; either middle-class or poor; etc. The African-American community needs an "Inward-Outward" strategy.

I must be honest and acknowledge I was not chiefly compelled to write this out of a mounting distain for liberal politics. Although I believe liberalism has some very real, even dangerous, limitations, at least it's oriented toward social and economic benefit for all (okay, most). Conservatism on the other hand seems unapologetically more and more oriented toward social and economic benefit for those "who deserve it". That is what compels me to write. I am dismayed by the homage Black conservatives pay to the politics of the corporate- and power-elite in hope of or reimbursement for the privilege of aspiring to the ranks of either.

Don't get me wrong, Black conservatives' concerns regarding the impact of self-destructive behavior on the Black community certainly have merit: in an internal discussion of our community's impediments to success. But to continue to paint with broad strokes upon the imaginations of the American public images of a self-serving, pathetic, lazy Blackness that references less than 20% of who we are; to imply that this is the only, or even primary, public discourse that needs to be had; or to imply that internal improvements can somehow satisfy our legitimate concerns regarding external economic opportunity is in a word—self-defeating.

Conservatives have a lot to say about the Black condition in America:

• They often say that the economic limitations thwarting blacks in America are rooted in the much touted statistic that 70% of black children don't have both parents in the home.
• They often assert that the breakdown of the family and the erosion of personal responsibility can be historically linked to the rise of big government.
• They often argue that civil rights automatically translate into adequate, if not equal, opportunity.
• They often purport that everyone regardless of race or creed has the liberty and freedom in America to chart his/her own social, political and economic destiny.
• They often reason that regardless of how this country was founded, now that Blacks can hold office, own property, start businesses and otherwise be in positions of authority, there are no real impediments to legitimate societal improvements.

Let me pose a few questions that I hope would cause one to re-examine the unqualified veracity of some of these claims:

1. When exactly was it that the black family was considered "intact" in America, and what was our social/economic status at that time? How has that status changed since then?
   
   
2. Before we chalk up the break down of the family to the often rehearsed but never substantiated (except anecdotally) detrimental rise of big government, can we even consider the more easily documented impact that the 2nd World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the return from each might have had? Black males were disproportionately represented in each; significant numbers were indisputably denied medical/mental-health care; and many were systemically deprived of promised educational benefits and employment opportunities upon their return.
   
   
3. What does "equal rights" to a piece of pie really mean when the entire pie was divided up before you were even allowed to sit down at the table?
   
   
4. What does economic "liberty" mean for a person starting at zero who needs capital just to provide for his most basic of human dignities—food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, work, education—and is constrained by the laws that govern the place where he finds himself to solicit each of these necessities (or at least the first 5) from the very society that made a conscious decision to start him at zero? How is that "liberty" different than that of those who started with an inheritance, flat out stole one or were sustained until they amassed one? (Not that the first person just can't do for himself, but how is it different?)
   
   
5. If white proprietors take some land, borrow money from a white-owned bank (where they will later invest their earnings), start a business on that land, put together a majority white board that writes the bylaws and establishes all organizational policies, establish exclusive relationship with virtually only white vendors, market to primarily white customers, produce a product that is of use or can only be afforded by the middle-class, nonetheless hire a black CEO and CSO, integrate middle management and even employ 70% black labor, WHO IS IN POWER (racially speaking)? To whose economic benefit will the operations of this company accrue? How many people—not just of color, but of a mind to recognize and want to rectify the power disparity—would have to be brought into the organization (and on what levels) to affect change? How is this analogy different from most predominantly black cities (i.e., New Orleans)?

Some conservative assertions are insidious. They are repeated so often that over time they become uncritically regarded as truth. Conservatives' attempts to draw a straight line between two-parent homes and economic prosperity are what teachers of rhetoric would call non sequitur. The fallacy of logic is that there are too many variables and too many exceptions. Two unemployed or underemployed married parents can make just as little as one unemployed or under-employed parent. To put it in mathematical terms: having two parents in the home may be a corollary to economic prosperity (in as much as brushing one's teeth might also be :-), but it's not a postulate.

The same critique applies to the often repeated Black conservative appeals to the greater "dignity" of our progenitors. Though we honor and learn from our grandfathers who would rather have worked menial jobs than accept what they believed to be a "hand-out," the fact that they did is part of the reason why their grandchildren are still struggling today for those 6 human dignities. To argue any differently is to engage in another fallacy of logic known as ad homonym. What might have been different if our grandfathers saw "hand-outs" as "grants" or "subsidies"? Our economic system has seldom rewarded folks for their "dignity". The truth is simply that our economic system needs someone to do the menial tasks, and our grandfathers obliged.

Conservatives' concerns, though very valid considerations of internal realities, overlook the answers to most of the questions above. These questions have to do with how the Black community has in the past or might better in the present engage the external realities that also impact its socio-economic well-being in America.

America OWES... (it may never pay up, but) it owes the African-American community some things: only because it has systematically denied them those things. Freedom is precious, but it was only a beginning. The vote is important, but it was only a small lateral step. Access to the same institutions as whites was only a small lateral concession as well. The equality that America owes (but may never pay) all historically disenfranchised persons within its borders is a redistribution of all real property that those same persons worked to generate. That's where "equal rights" and "liberty" in a socio-political sense actually begin. That's the external work that must continue to be done while at the same time we tackle our internal concerns. Neither may ever be achieved, yet both must never be overlooked.

The home-training that seems particularly applicable here is that the oppressed should never allow their oppressor to dictate their agenda. Or as I once heard a Jamaican mother say, "De spida caun't tell de grashoppa how high jump an' where." Grasshoppers should also probably be leery of advice from those who climb into spiders' webs of their own accord.

Step in the Name of Love

I never had any intentions of making Home-Training a political series. So allow me to make a hard right and touch on a subject that speaks more to the heart than to the mind. Love.

When I watch movies or TV shows or listen to the radio, I am usually dumb-founded and often disgusted by what it seems most of us call love. Anyone on the outside looking in would think we were Neanderthals the way we treat one another in the name of love. It's pitiful. It's sad. Nonetheless, we celebrate our emotional depravity in our music and our movies and our other so-called art. It reminds me of something Frederick Douglass wrote about music on the plantation where he was raised:

"The thought that came up, came out—if not in the word, in the sound;—and as frequently in the one as in the other. They would sometimes sing the most pathetic sentiment in the most rapturous tone, and the rapturous sentiment in the most pathetic tone."

That's often how I feel when I encounter the mess that we try to pass off as love—whether it be friend to friend, man to woman, church to community or nation to nation. I just want to shake my head. But then I realize that's no kind of responsible reaction to the degredation and ignorance, arrogance and cynicism, hostility and violence we've already begun to pass on as a legacy to our children... in the name of love.

Understanding the interactive, relational, cooperative nature of love, we would do well to be more intentional about how we raise our kids to live love. The Good Book initially refers to the first two lovers as simply man and woman. Maybe such simple designations were used not by chance. Maybe they reveal more about who we were created to be than meets the eye. Maybe they represent an ideal towards which we would do well to strive.

Consider what happens when we raise our children to be other than simply men and women. Many parents want their little ones to be always 'ladies' and 'gentlemen'. They raise them to be oh so proper and oh so mannerly, with a very good sense of their own ‘specialness’. But notice how this can adversely affect their practice of love. They often think that all they have to offer is gold… to be treasured and guarded, easily hoarded or used as currency to secure the desires of their hearts. Quite often, with no malicious intent whatsoever, gentlemen and ladies find themselves sitting back waiting for love to be given to them, not realizing that love is only received by those who involve themselves in it. Their love is a favor to be earned or rationed out in pity. But real love is moved with compassion, not pity. And 'love' that must be earned is not love at all: it is a feeble imitation at best. For when anything is done that displeases or disappoints or sorrows or angers, which quite often happens, even more often when one has a sense of entitlement, favor masquerading as love soon vanishes.

Something equally disastrous happens when our little ones grow up to think they are THE MAN or THE WOMAN. They begin to think that their stuff is much too good for anyone to ever deserve. Yet in them is little of the inhibitions of propriety and decorum that characterize gentlemen and ladies. They freely “use what they got”—albeit to the same selfish end—“to get what they want.” THE MAN and THE WOMAN just happen to be a little more honest—or maybe it’s more aware—of their selfishness. What they may by chance call an act of love might be better described as a reward or a return on an investment. Eventually every relationship gets evaluated and re-evaluated through the same cynical prism: “What have you done or what can you do for me?” And when the answer comes back, “Nothing,” dead weight gets cut loose.

In the beginning God created the first two lovers as simply, honestly a self-accepting, self-respecting man and woman. Having just come from the hand of their Creator, they were able to grasp—or maybe unable to overlook—a truth about themselves and their purpose that the gentlemen and the ladies, THE MEN and THE WOMEN of this world just don’t get. They recognized themselves (all that they had and all that they were) as gifts created for each other’s happiness and pleasure. And it seems to me that only in the sunlight of this very simple acceptance of one’s self as no more and no less than just a man or just a woman can love blossom and thrive between two people.

Here’s some home-training for us. If we would raise our children to see themselves as gifts who will only find meaning and significance “making love” with others (please recognize that the context in which I am speaking has nothing to do with sexuality), they may actually have a chance to share the joy that Adam and Eve abandoned when being a gift ceased to be enough for them.

If we're going to sing about love... let's sing about that.

Those Most Pivotal "Moral Values"

The term "moral values" strikes me as a strange yet deceptively accurate expression.

The word "moral" usually refers to humanity's universal sense of imperative concerning what we ought and ought not do. In a phenomenally perceptive collection of radio addresses bound as the book Mere Christianity, atheist turned theologian C. S. Lewis (one of my favorite writers) describes morality as "the directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule," he contends, "is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine."

Morality is not solely the purview of religion. Our understanding of morality tends to be most informed by our religious beliefs, but is seldom completely defined by them. Thus, many persons who recognize the moral imperative have no specific religious affiliation nor ascribe to any one set of religious doctrines. Though people may have very different takes on all the specific rules that make up this code of conduct we call morality, I would suggest (and I'm in good company when I do so) that morality is a very definite thing.

This business of values, however, is quite a different thing. There is no accounting for what one may value. In fact, many value things that are not very good for them.

Take for example my father. In a conversation we had about two weeks ago, my father told me that his doctor would like to see him lose some weight. Dad went on to say that he has no problem with the idea of losing weight. His problem is, he confesses, that he likes his cake and ice cream just a little too much. My father values his sweets—I can't blame him—but his experience does reveal something about the nature of values. Values have no intrinsic connection to that which is right in preference to wrong, nor to that which is healthy in place of unhealthy, nor to that which is noble rather than cowardly, nor that which is just as opposed to unjust. More often than not Values are quite amoral, sometimes even immoral.

The confusion over and blending of morality and values is, I believe, often perpetuated by well meaning religious leaders and public figures who command some measure of moral authority. Take for instance Dr. James Dobson, renowned for his work on behalf of families. Dr. Dobson, keenly aware of the corrosive impact that immorality has played in the breakdown of the family, has made it his business to combat that immorality, even in the political arena. Instead of continuing to define morality in legitimate familial terms, Dr. Dobson has also tried to define morality in terms of a narrow set of political outcomes he personally values. Can you begin to see where the confusion occurs? This moral authority using moral terminology tells the millions of families who have come to trust his moral judgment that the moral thing to do on behalf of their families' moral health is to put people in public office who will legislate a selective set of family, cultural or religious values that he happens to approve of. By doing this he only undermines the relevance of a real morality in the political arena.

Values, everybody has them; we live by them, but no reasonably modest person would ever seek to equate his values with that which is ultimately the measure of all values—morality. That would be preposterous. Values are too susceptible to variables such as time and place, public opinion and IQ, what one may have had for lunch today and whether or not it agrees with him. Some parents may encourage their athlete sons or daughters to jump at the first opportunity to play professional sports. "You can always go back to college," they may say. However, for my friend Tennessee who was scouted by the Major Leagues coming out of high school, it was the same as it was in my own home, "You're going to college," no questions asked. "Education first" may be a "family value," but few would call it as a moral precept. There was a time in America when slavery and Jim Crow were the law and the religious custom of the land. That was definitely a "cultural value" at the time, but God forbid that it would be considered part of a morality. People value what they want to value, what they like, what serves them. Thus, to talk in terms of "moral values" at best merely denotes a few virtues one particularly appreciates. More dubiously, however, it often refers to the one or two ethical concerns that one wants to highlight or prioritize above all the rest—making so-called "moral values" little more than a selective morality.

According to exit polling, the 2004 election hinged on voters perceptions of the candidates "moral values". Those who voted for the winner, President Bush, said they did so primarily because of his "moral values" as they relate to abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the place of religion in politics. Consider each issue in terms of its moral content. Abortion is undoubtedly a moral issue, but not one that can be completely legislated against without violating at least three other moral principles. Homosexuality may be a moral issue as well, but discrimination, not validation, is the issue that homosexuals are asking their politicians to redress at present. Although I own one, I concede that there is absolutely no moral mandate for gun ownership. And religion and state have always made immoral bedfellows. Whereas anxiety over these four issues may in some cases be predicated upon moral concerns, these four issues don't even begin to constitute a majority of the moral concerns for which there could be an effective political response. Nonetheless, because of the generous interpretation of this sly terminology, "moral values," conservatives are currently seen as having a monopoly on morality in the political arena which I believe presents a lopsided view of reality.

C. S. Lewis suggests that we may be able to better understand the importance and workings of the whole of morality if we think of ourselves as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. "Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on." Liberals seem particularly preoccupied with the first and at times concerned with the second, while only occasionally giving lip-service to the third. Conservatives—particularly those whose conservatism is inspired by religious conviction—seem primarily worried about the third, leading them to want to legislate the second, while giving little more than lip-service to the first. Both miss the necessity of the whole.

I do not believe conservatives and liberals are as far removed from each other as it sometimes appears. They're just approaching the matter from opposite ends of a spectrum that has, if acknowledged, much common ground. Again Lewis is extremely insightful (and says it so much better than could I):

"You may have noticed that modern people [most likely the liberals of Lewis' day] are nearly always thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, "It can't be wrong because it doesn't do anyone else any harm," he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural, when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick with the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing—the tidying up inside each human being—we are only deceiving ourselves.

What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all? What is the good of drawing up on paper rules for social behaviour, if we know that in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realize that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality inside the individual.

But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviour. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all sensible people agree about. But can we? Remember that religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body, or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself."

How can one help but see why liberals and conservatives continue to annoy and collide with one another. To use Lewis' metaphor, Republicans seem clear on where their going and the importance of tidying up their own ships—both admirable qualities. In fact Republicans are so concerned with tidying up that they're willing to legislate it for others. (Sailors have a name for seamen who seek to dictate the terms by which other men's ships should run. I believe they call them "pirates". I don't believe piracy is such a good thing.) Democrats, on the other hand, seem almost exclusively concerned about us all getting to our destination together and treating each other well along the way.

Despite the disconnect, I see some real potential for synergy here. We just need to determine which moral imperatives are best served in a political context. Whereas, like it or not, making abortion the least attractive choice for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is most effectively handled in the religious and social arenas, we should recognize that poverty in a society as rich as ours is indeed a moral concern that can be mitigated politically. The first step then is to assess where we are. Next we must describe how we believe things should be. Then—and this is the crucial step—all parties have to voice the values that they would like to see upheld in creating the desired outcome. From that point it's just a matter of setting public policy that gets us from where we are to where we want to be. The synergy occurs when the laws are written so that they don't violate the deeply held convictions of either group. This kind of cooperation is itself an act of morality.

It is my Uncle Ralph who I have to thank for the specific piece of home-training that comes to mind as I write on this topic. My uncle taught me, "Don't miss the forest for the trees." I'm not sure those are words he ever used, but the sentiment was definitely conveyed. The idea as it applies to this topic is simply that morality must be honored as a whole. Unless we are willing to deal with morality as a whole—honoring all three aspects as best we can in any and all situations—then we haven't really demonstrated the respect we claim for select pieces and parts. I believe our individual understandings of morality, however flawed or incomplete, must continue to play a substantive role in our public policy decision-making. At the same time we must recognize that selective morals used as political footballs are not really morality at all. They are quite the opposite.