Stereotypes

I know they are unavoidable, but it still strikes me when I detect stereotypes being blatantly used. Perhaps they aren't blatantly used, perhaps the user is not fully aware of the fact that it is a stereotype being employed, but lately I ran into two being used to communicate a broader message and it made me pause.

First is in The Shack (yes, that again). This one is definitely a spoiler, so if you haven't read it and don't want it ruined, go away. Otherwise, you probably know (or don't care to be told) that one of the persons of the Trinity is portrayed as a heavy set African-American woman. There are some good literary reasons for this, such as breaking the idea that God the Father is white, or necessarily male. But my purpose here isn't to go into whether or not it is valid to portray Papa as anything other than a man, but rather to point out that once the initial break from the stereotype from God is made, the author moves smoothly into another stereotype. Namely, heavy set black women 1) love cooking as much if not more than they love eating 2) love mothering people and caring for them, especially when they hurt 3) are sassy 4) speak their mind and 5) do things that no one expects or that are perhaps considered mildly socially inappropriate. I've seen this on TV, in movies, in books, frankly it just isn't impressive anymore. Those mediums often use stereotypes to set a character, it's just easier that way. What bugs me is that people seem to be wow'd by Young's use of this image for God, but Young is stereotyping just in a different way. I mean, that stereotype I learned in "How To Think Like A White-Boy 101." They offered that in high school, I think. Collard greens, fruity chicken, please. Try a little harder. She doesn't quite talk right to match the stereotype, but I don't know if that's because I'm missing the boat here or because Young doesn't actually know how his stereotype talks. I dunno.

Second one that bugged me recently was in a Newsboys song ("He Reigns") that we sung in church last Sunday. I like the song, not sure it works in our church because I think it takes a certain style and energy to pull that off, but the theme was appropriate for the occasion and it's not a bad song. Luta reminded me what I'd noticed in the past, however: it relies on stereotypes. Asian believers are, of course, on fire with the Holy Spirit. Duh, right? And it's naturally the plains in Africa that sing out redemption (slaves maybe?), because duh, Africa is nothing but plains, right? And 1) the Amazon is the only place with heavy rain and 2) The amazon best summarizes South America. Guess they ran out of space, either that or figured mentioning their home continent of Australia would look self serving, and those of us in the so-called West don't need to be referenced because we all assume we're the standard for comparison anyhow. And the song is all about the variety of God's People worshipping God, so mentioning the people who are assumed normal just doesn't do it. Like I said, I do actually like the song. But it seems a bit ridiculous to rely so much on stereotype. Simple artistry and imagery, yes. And apparently they aren't painting a picture of the depth of variety in each culture and each place, but instead highlighting the shallowness of variety across the Earth. Why not drop the location-worship connection? List the worship verbs, and then the geographic nouns, separately? And list a few more, please, because I love the mountains in Africa, and I'm sure someone somewhere loves the plains elsewhere.

To Know

Merriam-Webster has this to say about the word "know":

know
Pronunciation: \ˈnō\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): knew \ˈnü also ˈnyü\ ; known \ˈnōn\ ; know·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnāwan; akin to Old High German bichnāan to recognize, Latin gnoscere, noscere to come to know, Greek gignōskein
Date: before 12th century

transitive verb
1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of
2 a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive verb
1: to have knowledge
2: to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech.

In The Shack, the argument is made multiple times that if people really knew God's love, and knew God's nature, then we wouldn't doubt God's goodness when bad stuff happens. God tells Mack that the reason Mack is mad at God, has distance in his relationship with God and others, and keeps getting hung up on the brutal murder of his young daughter Missy, is Mack's lack of understanding of God's love. If Mack just knew God loved him, Mack would be cool with the whole thing. Not to say Mack wouldn't hurt at all, or miss Missy, but he'd understand that God was still good and in control and wouldn't be so upset about it. It seems in part that Mack would be ok because he'd also know that God was hurt by the whole situation as well.

I'm hung up on this "knowing" God loves us. Seems that Young is using it in the sense of 1-a-3, 1-b-3, or some sense of 2. In other words, "knowing" is connected to experience, and is a deep and profound trust in the knowledge. In this case knowing God loves means truly trusting God loves. This is a fine definition of "know" which is often used. I think it was Plato who said that people who know what is good, do what is good; those who don't do good don't really know it, because anyone who knows it, does it.

Call me postmodern, but I have problems with this. "Know" seems like it can be a looser term than that. I think this use of the term places too much reliance on the idea that knowledge based on fact or experience is somehow very solid and reliable. However, someone can come along and debate the truth of that knowledge; a new experience can alter one's perception and interpretation of prevoius experiences and thus question the reliability of former knowledge; memory can get distorted, screwing up one's sense of knowledge... over reliance on "know it means you trust it" drives me nuts. I'd prefer to just throw "trust" or "belief" in there and clear up the whole mess.

Why? I think it's just cleaner than talking about multiple kinds of knowing, like "head knowing" vs. "experiential knowing." A common example uses a chair: I may declare that I know the chair can hold me, and yet not trust it enough to sit in it. On the other hand, I can choose to sit in it, and find through experience that it really can hold me. I think to clarify "knowing" in this case just is confusing. Call the first "think" or "think I know" and the second "trust" or "believe" or "experience." Just drop knowing right out of it. Try this out: I may declare whatever I want about my cognitive acceptance of the chair's ability to hold me, yet until I park my behind in it and let the chair keep me from crashing in embarassing manner onto the floor, I leave room for others to doubt that I trust or believe the chair can actually hold me. If I refuse to sit in it, because I fear crashing, then I don't believe it will hold me.

And now I think we can talk about why it isn't as simple as "knowing" God loves us. Here's the problem: if God loves me, why does bad stuff happen to me? Young's answer is: See, idiot, you don't know God loves you, or you wouldn't ask such a stupid question. Sorry, forgive me, but I'm human. When I think a human loves me, I think that other person 1) won't hurt me and 2) will try to prevent harm from happening to me. When I percieve that person to hurt me, or to fail to protect me, I often question his or her love for me. There's many ways to reconcile this, including: recognizing that people aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean he or she doesn't love me as much as s/he can; recognizing that people are not powerful enough to stop all harm, but again that isn't always a reflection on the reality of love; realizing that my perception may be off, and this spanking could actually be for my good and an act of true love. Thus, my trust in their love may temporarily fade, but I can correct that as I realize it wasn't an issue of their love or lack of it, but something else.

This, however, becomes sticky when I relate it to God. Because if God is perfect, and God is powerful enough to accomplish anything, that leaves only the problem of my perception. But it is incredibly difficult to reconcile certain pains with anything good or loving. Say, the murder of a little girl: how is eternity going to be better because she got raped and slaughtered than it would have been had she led a long, fulfilling life? Sure, people can attempt to answer that question, but the most predictable response to most answers will be a solid fist to the face, delivered by the wounded parent. "How dare you suggest that my daughter would have caused damage enough that her death now is better?" "How dare you suggest that God can love my daugher more than me?" or something along those lines. So, the issue, for me, becomes less a matter of knowing God loves me than God loves me. Somewhere in there, I need to figure out how I can continue to trust and believe in the love of God, when God doesn't demonstrate it the way I expect a human with God's powers were. Or, to put it more personally: I need to figure out how I can continue to trust and believe in the love of God when God doesn't do what I think I would do if I had God's powers in that situation.

Know whatever you want to know. Trust, however, is harder. And in a postmodern world where the ability to know becomes more and more debated, perhaps we should switch the conversation to Trust. Maybe if Mack quit trying to figure out how he could know God loved him even when Missy got killed, but instead decided to trust God anyways, he'd have gotten over it sooner. Not blind trust, but perhaps putting the testing aparatus on hold until the pain quieted down enough to allow a careful inspection of God. Then, perhaps, trust can return.

The Shack and the Problem of Evil

I just finished reading The Shack by William P. Young. WilmoreUMC, the church we attend, is doing a book club as part of the Wednesday night programs, and this is the first book being discussed. I'd heard about the book before a few times. The first time was at the Community Life Interns retreat when students who were taking classes that had the book as a required text were talking about it (the class was Christian Psychodynamic Therapies, which may give credence to criticism that the book is more about using counseling/therapeutic language than it is about making a theological argument). They also were talking about the fuss created in a Christian bookstore where one of them worked, all over whether or not this book should be on the shelf. Personally, I think it should just stay on the shelf! Let people decide for themselves.

In any case, I enjoyed the book. Not the best I ever read, and when it comes to literary style, it was good, but not great. Fairly predictable, and for all the talk in the "forward" about Mack being such a bright guy, he sure was dense. Show me, don't tell me, please. I don't have major beefs with the theology/philosophy laid out, though it definitely relies more on personal relationship and feelings than it does on scripture to make its points. I don't think this has to reduce the strength of the argument, rather I think Young does an excellent job of discussing what are often thorny and confusing theological issues in a way that is very down to earth and understandable. At the same time, however, I was a bit frustrated with how easily he blows by disagreements with his theology. Not that I disagree with him, but the other ideas about God are not formed soley by people trying to control others, but sometimes people have struggled long and hard, and developed strong Biblical proofs for their positions. Doesn't mean I agree with them, but I think certain respect to their intentions should be made.

However when all is said and done, I don't think The Shack is about soteriology, ecclesiology, or anything like that; and only barely about theology. Instead, I think it's about theodicy, that is, the Problem of Evil. What do we do with God in the face of horrible evil? Is God good? Strong? Powerful? Trustworthy? When little girls get brutally murdered, the answer to some or all of these questions may seem to "no, definitely not." Young definitely explores how God can be good and love and powerful, and yet evil can happen. The exploration of the relationship of the Trinity certainly is a good way to do this. But in the end, the answer is the same as it often is: from Human eyes, on this side of eternity, we can't know what's truly going on. So just trust and believe, already! While I understand this argument and think it has strength, I still find it profoundly personally unsatisfying. It is hard to consider how eternity will be better because little girls get raped, or millions of people get executed, or because we have had two miscarriages.

Ok, fine, Young says it isn't; that's not God's plan; God is just letting us be free humans. Yes, the freewill argument does hold strength. But the question on God's character remains because of this: God says pray and ask and we shall receive; Jesus says that God is a good Father who loves us and gives us good gifts. Yet when we pray, people still die. Yes, I understand the point of prayer is relationship (Young hammers the relationship point to death) and not a cosmic vending machine. Yes, I understand that God gives good gifts, but doesn't always intervene. But when we know God can intervene and does intervene, it makes it hard to understand why certain evils remain while others do not. If that family was blessed with healthy pregancies, why not our family?

Yes indeed, it is about trust and belief. But that becomes hard because humanly we expect trust in a relationship to mean that it benefits us. Utilitarian, I know, but I think it is true. People intentionally build relationships that benefit them. The benefit may be through building community, through learning more about love, through satisfaction in helping others, or in knowing that when hard times hit, I have loving, caring people who will help me. We can't go it alone in this life, we definitely need others, and we fill this need through building relationships. That's not bad, it's God ordained. Yet with God, we ask for protection and don't always get it. We ask for good things, and don't always get them. I do not doubt that in eternity, questions will be answered, we'll see the greater picture, and understand why it all happened the way it did. But here, now, in the midst of pain, that answer fall short, sounds horrible, and seems to suggest that our job in life is to quit asking questions and engage in blind faith. I do not think that The Shack successfully combats this shortfall.