In Acts chapter 6, shortly after the founding of the church, a group of Grecian widows in Jerusalem were being overlooked by the Hebraic majority in the daily distribution of food. While the church sought to imitate Jesus by caring for these marginalized and often defenseless widows, they did not take in to account that some of these women were marginalized on more than one front.

The Hebraic widows were Jewish women who had grown up in Israel and spoke Aramaic like the majority of the people in Jerusalem. They were ethnic insiders, culturally locals. The Grecian widows (or Hellenists, depending on your Bible translation) were Jews whose ancestors had been impacted by Greek culture through the influence of Alexander the Great and the Jewish diaspora. Even though they were living in the same city and worshiping the same God, they were outsiders in Jerusalem, and outsiders in the church.

This may be the very first appearance of multiplicity in the long history of Christianity. According to theologian Patrick Cheng, “multiplicity refers to a state of having multiple co-existing and overlapping identities, as opposed to a singular dominant identity.”[1] While both Hebraic and Hellenist widows were marginalized by society, the Hellenist widows had a second strike against them—they were culturally “not Jewish enough.” This multiplicity in their identity led to them being excluded even though they were part of a marginalized group (widows in need) that the church had intentionally tried to embrace.

The wisdom of the twelve apostles prevailed somewhat in Acts chapter 6, and a diverse group of men (wait, no women? #stillaproblem) were appointed to ensure that all widows were included in the distribution of food. But this story illustrates the complex nature of marginalization, and in particular, the need to recognize multiplicity in our efforts to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Some may object here, pointing out that we all experience multiplicity to some extent. For example, I am male, but that is not my singular identity. I am also cisgender, straight, white, American, educated, and so on. However, in my case, most aspects of my identity contribute to a sense of power, control, and privilege in my society. It is rare for me to be in a situation where I experience any of these aspects of my identity as a disadvantage, or where I feel threatened, left out, or overlooked because of them. Multiplicity as Cheng defines it refers to a combination of identities that push one further from the center, isolating them from others who share only singular aspects of their identity. The multiple aspects of my identity work together in most situations to create a favorable atmosphere for me, but as a gay Asian Christian, Cheng is often marginalized by other gay men for being Asian, and is ostracized by other Asians and Christians for being gay. If he was merely gay, Asian, or Christian, he would experience more singularity instead of multiplicity and would likely find more people willing to accept him, much like the Hebraic widows, who though still categorically “other” (widows), were brought to the center of the community and cared for, while the Greek-speaking widows remained at the margins.

Rainbow Theology: A Solution for the Church
Cheng’s experience as a gay Christian of color leads him to propose a “rainbow theology” that can radically disrupt the monochromatic theologies that currently hold sway in the church. This rainbow theology consists of three themes—multiplicity (which we have already introduced), middle spaces and mediation. These he contrasts with the three themes of monochromatic theology: singularity, staying home, and selecting sides. He explains these contrasting themes in the following way:

Monochromatic theologies focus primarily on liberation from a singular oppression, as opposed to challenging the interplay of multiple oppressions. Monochromatic theologies also assume that there is a single, metaphorical “home” that consists of others who experience this singular oppression. Finally, monochromatic theologies urge those who are oppressed by this singular oppression to “choose” the side of the oppressed as opposed to the oppressors).[2]

In Acts 6, church leadership initially took a monochromatic approach. They recognized that there were people in need in their community, and believed that “widowhood” was the singular cause of marginalization and oppression (to be a widow in the Ancient Near East was to be defenseless in society, with few protections, and few means of gaining livelihood). They therefore grouped all widows into a single category and began providing food and assistance. But monochromatic solutions are never sufficient for everyone, as this church discovered. Marginalization is complex, and requires complex solutions. It must have been tempting to simply shift the focus of their monochromatic solutions from widows, to Hellenist widows, but taking sides like this would have created even more problems. Marginalization cannot be solved by simply elevating the most marginalized above the rest. This simply moves the vicious cycle of discrimination to a new location. Instead, the church recognized that the Hellenic widows existed in a middle space, what Cheng defines as “a state of being perpetually suspended in a third space between two poles,”[3] and began their transition to rainbow theology through the theme of mediation. They did this by appointing a new group of leaders that not only included both Hellenized and Hebraic Jews, it also included at least one member who wasn’t Jewish at all, thus ensuring a “common ground upon which both sides can co-exist.”[4]

Conclusion
Rainbow theology is rooted in the practices of the earliest church, and offers a way for the people of God to listen more, and assume less about the people we try to help and the problems we try to fix. It is a framework that could only have come from those on the margins who experience multiplicity, live in the middle places, and are experienced mediators. Finally, rainbow theology is a reminder that the church as a whole needs the voice of all those on the margins if it is to continue being the body of Christ. In the words of Brother David Steindl-Rast, “Only when our sense of belonging is all-embracing can we speak of love, the lived ‘yes’ to mutual belonging.”[5]




 


[1] Patrick S. Cheng, Rainbow Theology (New York: Seabury Books), 89.
[2] Cheng, xviii
[3] Cheng, 91.
[4] Cheng, 91.
[5] David Steindl-Rast, i am through you so i, 33

Last time, I mentioned that to be secular is not to lose faith in God, or even to make ontological claims about God (if you're just joining, you may want to start reading here). Secularism is simply a lived statement of disenchantment: We no longer conceive of God as “outside” the universe in a primitive sense, dragging the sun through the sky with his chariot, nor “outside” in the sentimental sense, sitting on a golden throne in the sky looking down on us. Formerly mysterious and magical occurrences like freak weather patterns or catastrophic disease outbreaks are no longer attributed to magic or the supernatural, but rather to natural patterns of cause and effect.

In a letter dated June 8, 1944, Bonhoeffer put it this way:
The movement that began about the thirteenth century (I'm not going to get involved in any argument about the exact date) towards the autonomy of man (in which I should include the discovery of laws by which the world lives and deals with itself in science, social and political matters, art, ethics, and religion) has in our time reached an undoubted completion. Man has learnt to deal with himself in all questions of importance without recourse to the "working hypothesis" called "God." In questions of science, art, and ethics this has become an understood thing at which one now hardly dares to tilt. But for the last hundred years or so it has also become increasingly true of religious questions; it is becoming evident that everything gets along without "God"--and, in fact, just as well as before. As in the scientific field, so in human affairs generally, "God" is being pushed more and more out of life, losing more and more ground.

When Donald Trump trademarked Ronald Reagan's "Make America Great Again" slogan in 2012, his marketing strategy was intentional and insightful. For older conservatives who had lived through the Reagan years, the slogan hearkens back to an era of supply-side economic policies and the restoration of national morale after the Vietnam War. For younger voters and those unfamiliar with Reagan's speeches, the slogan is less historical than it is rhetorical. In the interest of understanding where this rhetorical power comes from, let's break the slogan down one word at a time, starting with "Again." 

Again: The dictionary definition is fairly obvious: “once more; relating to a previous position or condition.” Again is nondescript, unspecific, and precisely because of that, inspiring. It rallies supporters to charge bravely towards something once held, like King Henry V rallied the troops into battle:
                         Once more [again] unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
                         Or close the wall up with our English dead.

This presidential election is by far the craziest that I've witnessed in my 30 years on this planet. If you've been around longer and can remember another election season that comes even close, please leave a comment, I'd really be interested (apparently some of the Founding Father's could have held their own with Trump). But despite the name-calling and theatrics happening in the Republican debates recently, there have been some bright lights. 

-JEB!, regarding dialogue and treating others with respect, even across party lines:

 JEB!: "I don't think Barack Obama has bad motives. I just think he's wrong on a lot of issues... If you start with the premise that people have good motives, you can find common ground."

JEB! also points out that the divisiveness we've been seeing in Washington isn't present at the state and local level.

America needs more leaders who can admit this. I suspect that behind the scenes even Washington politicians get along better than the media portrays. 

-Bernie Sanders on religion:

"I worry very much about a society where some people say spiritually, 'It doesn't matter to me. I got it [right]. I don't care about other people.' My spirituality is, we are all in this together. When children go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street, it impacts me."

I'll leave it to the economists to prove whether or not Democratic Socialism has any real possibility of remedying these problems, but you don't have to agree with Bernie's politics  to agree with his sentiments (I would point you to JEB!'s quote above). This idea is at the heart of Christianity:  "Religion that God accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27). And as Bernie has pointed out in other places, it's also present in Judaism: "Love your neighbor as yourself; I am the L-RD... The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the L-RD am your God." (Leviticus 19:18, 34). And in Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself" (An-Nawawi’s Forty, 13, 56, Hadith); "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer" (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, Teheran, 1938). To see examples from other religions, click here.

These are the bright lights I've seen this election, I'm sure there are others. Let's learn from them how to respect people on the other side of the aisle, and let's work together to care for those who are most vulnerable in our country, and in our world.

I started this post right after the State of the Union Address back in January, but before I could finish it, my economics class amped up and I haven't had a chance to finish it until now. With all the craziness going on in the political arena right now, it somehow seems important again...

The ongoing presidential debates mark the perfect time to take a brief look at logic and statistics. On any given issue, statistics are often used to create a bulletproof case, but things aren't always what they seem. In fact, statistics are tricky little buggers. They are used to strengthen arguments and make them appear logical, but how good is a statistic if you can't fact check it? Most of us aren't equipped to go beyond the basic steps of fact checking, even if the Internet makes it possible. 

My rule of thumb: Do a quick Google search and look for multiple perspectives on the issue involved. If it's political, look for both conservative and liberal voices. If a study is mentioned, try to find the original and decipher it on your own, or look for a .edu website explaining it. 

Here's an example from President Obama's 2016 State of the Union Address:

According to this speech, the U.S. spends "more on our military than the next eight nations combined." Presented this way, the numbers seem outrageous. Why are we spending so much on national defense when no one else even comes close? (By way of comparison, in 2009, U.S. defense spending accounted for 40% of global arms spending, and in 2012, our defense budget was 6x larger than China's).

The holidays threw me out of the habit of writing, but I promise to have regular posts again soon. In the meantime, watch this video from Evelyne Reisacher. I studied under her during my M.A., and she became one of my favorite professors for her compassion and insight.

Dr. Reisacher is professor of Islamic studies and intercultural relations, and this video (from an evangelical conference) is a must-watch for Christians concerned about the future of Christian/Muslim relations, Islam and the West, or Muslims in America... especially this election season.

Memorial Day is a day to honor and remember those who have fallen while serving in the armed forces. It began shortly after the Civil War as survivors on both sides gathered to commemorate the dead. Those of us who have never served, who have never faced the threat of death from enemy fire and IEDs may never fully grasp their sacrifice. ​Nor will we know the world that might have existed if they had lived. How many dreams went unfulfilled? How many children were raised by single parents when a mother or father was cut down? What gifts would these men and women have brought to the world?

We lay flowers and plant flags on their graves to remember... and to hope that these tragedies will not occur again. 

This Memorial Day, let's do more than honor those who have fallen.
 
Let's make today the day that we stand up and say “War is still too frequent” and work for a world where there are less combat veterans and less combat casualties because there is less combat.
 
It’s time to make a change. We can no longer focus on whether we are justified in putting boots on the ground or sending drones into the air. When violent events have gone that far, we have already lost. Instead, let us focus on how we can promote a more just and peaceable society where every nation and every people group flourishes together.
 
It begins in peacetime, with how we treat our own poor, with how just our own society is, with who we vote for in the next election. It begins with our international relations, with our foreign aid. We must keep our promises, we must never exploit the disadvantaged, we must encourage healthy sustainable growth, we must build trust and use our power to heal. A rising tide raises all ships: the way forward is not found in policies isolationism, tariffs and closed borders. To make the world a better place for ourselves, we must make it better for others.
  
The late Dr. Glen Stassen, my former ethics professor, coined the term “Just Peacemaking” to describe this way of acting in the world. He learned nonviolence marching with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who learned it from Gandhi… whose nonviolent revolution in India was based on the Sermon on the Mount.
 
These are the ten practices of Just Peacemaking, as taken from Sojo.net:

• 1. Support nonviolent direct action.
• 2. Take independent initiatives to reduce threat.
• 3. Use cooperative conflict resolution.
• 4. Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness.
• 5. Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.
• 6. Foster just and sustainable economic development.
• 7. Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system.
• 8. Strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
• 9. Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade.
• 10. Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.

From Just Peacemaking, edited by Glen Stassen (Pilgrim Press, 1998)
- See more at: https://sojo.net/magazine/january-2005/ten-practices-just-peacemaking#sthash.HNmeioOp.dpuf

​​In Reflections on the Psalms, C.S. Lewis points out that westerners have been largely spared an age-old experience regarding our legal system. 

In the dark about the Syrian refugee crisis? Here's a short video explaining how it started and what it means: