If you have the chance, follow @jimwallis (one of the faith leaders participating in the fast) and #WWJC (What Would Jesus Cut?) on Twitter. The twitter feed raises questions appropriate for discussion in the public arena:
- “Do we cut $2.5 bil for low income heating assistance or $2.5 bil in tax breaks for oil companies?”
- “Do we cut $747 mil from WIC, a program that feeds about 25% of U.S. children between the ages of 1 and 4?”
- “Do we sacrifice the lives of 70,000 children and keep tax breaks for the rich?”
- “What would Jesus Cut?”

These are certainly questions that people of faith should be asking. In fact, asking these kinds of questions is exactly what people of faith should be doing.

As I look around our house and reflect on all the symbols that we have come to associate with the Christmas season in the West, I am struck by just how very few of the decorations actually speak directly about the birth of Jesus in a little town in Bethlehem. In fact, when I observe the decorations that I now associate with Christmas, there are more pagan origins to our décor than there are actual Christian origins.
For example, the timing of Christmas is attributed to the pagan festival of Saturnalia and a celebration of the winter solstice more than the actual date when Jesus was born. Jesus was probably not born in the winter time. It is highly unlikely that the shepherds would be so jubilant tending their sheep on a cold winter’s night. The date of December 25th was chosen because of pagan festivals that coincided with the winter solstice (December 22nd), which was a significant time of festivals for many of the cultures that Christianity first encountered, particularly in the Western expression of the church. The date of the celebration of Christmas, therefore, has pagan origins.

The Roman tradition was to celebrate the divinity Mithra on December 25th. On that day, bulls were sacrificed and their blood was spread on the fields. The December 25th event celebrated a new-born child as well as celebrating the return of the Sun. Since the winter solstice was the shortest night of the year, the following days would now begin to get longer. It was believed that the Sun was returning and drawing closer. The winter solstice festival called Saturnalia was named after the Roman god of agriculture and celebrated on the longest night of the year. With the days now starting to get longer, there were a series of celebrations for the coming of the sun. Torch-lit processions, exchanging of gifts, and general merriment were the order of the day. During the festival, homes would be decorated with greenery as a symbol of new life. The festival would extend over a twelve day period; hence, the twelve days of Christmas.

The prominent use of greenery during the Saturnalia festival by the Romans is mirrored by pre-Christian Germanics, the Celtic tribes, as well as the Scandanavians. The pagan nations would also hold a festival in honor of the winter solstice. They worshipped the sun deity that is at its farthest point from the earth’s equator, but after the winter solstice would get closer and return to them. Worship of the sun through this winter “Yuletide” festival would insure that the Sun deity would return to them. As part of the festival, the participants would burn a decorated log, the Yule log which was a symbol of the burning heat of the sun. The plant life, such as the evergreen trees and wreaths that decorated their homes were symbols of perpetual life in the winter. Evergreens were hung to ward off wandering winter spirits and as a symbol of life. Holly and mistletoe were also symbols of life in the dead of winter. Holly was seen by the Druids as sacred symbol of life and peace, keeping the earth beautiful in winter. Mistletoe, which in Celtic means “all-heal,” was also a symbol of life and peace. The mistletoe was used by Druid priests in healing ceremonies.

If I were to examine all the evidence presented on the pagan origins of Christmas, I may never want to celebrate Christmas again. Christmas seems to have some unholy origins. In fact, more pagan and ungodly elements seem to be at the root of our Christmas celebrations than Christian ones. These revelations call the entire institution of Christmas into question. How can we taint a holy celebration like the birth of Jesus with unholy symbols? How can we take something pagan, sinful, and unholy and make it into something good. Why would God allow a sinful vessel to represent His holy Son? What business does God have of taking something unholy and sinful and making it into something holy and good?

But is this not the message of Jesus and the true message of Christmas? God has taken something that is sinful, pagan, unholy, and fallen and through His grace and His work, He has turned it into something good. If God can change Christmas from its pagan and sin-filled origins into a holy day, then God can take a fallen culture and still communicate the powerful gospel story through that fallen culture. Christmas is a reminder that the message of redemption is available for all cultures and all peoples. Christmas is a reminder of God’s grace made evident through His ongoing mission to reveal His grace, mercy, love, justice, and compassion to a fallen world.

My first thought: “My son has the gift of prophecy.  He is hearing the voice of God.”  My second thought: “My kid’s a punk.”

I was actually under nourished as a child. My family was on food stamps for most of my childhood.  I actually remember opening up our fridge and finding absolutely nothing inside except for a huge hunk of government cheese in the freezer.  (Some of you may remember several decades ago when the government used to give away blocks of cheese).  We’re a Korean family.  Most of us are lactose intolerant. Cheese doesn’t go with any Korean food.  Cheese and kimchi may be the most disgusting combination in culinary history. So that hunk of cheese sat untouched in our freezer. It was still there when we moved out of the apartment.  It may still be there – remnant of failed social policy.

So during elementary school I was actually ridiculously skinny.  Like pants on the ground skinny.  All the way through high school.  Skinny kid with glasses and long hair in a plaid shirt and Sears corduroys secured by my big buckled belt. Thankfully, my poor fashion choices distracted attention away from how skinny I actually was.  When I got to college, I discovered the most amazing thing: the all-you-can-eat cafeteria. The food was awful. But you could actually go back for seconds. I’ve always been an overachiever. If the assignment was for 5 pages, I would submit 10 pages.  So when someone told me about “freshman fifteen,” I felt the strong inclination to overachieve above and beyond the “freshman fifteen.”  So the “freshman fifteen” was compounded by “post-undergrad poundage,” the “seminary sixteen,” the “grad school gainage, the “just-married  weight adjustment” and the “new baby Daddy gain even though I actually didn’t give birth but there’s a sympathy weight gain poundage”.

And I am now confronted with this gut-wrenching reality. In my son’s prophetic pronouncement of God’s will for my gut. In my nine-year-old daughter’s sly retort when I said that I wanted to eat more vegetables and less meat: “Who are you and what have you done with my Dad?!” Even my Wii Fit board’s condescending “Oh” when I step on. My wife doesn’t complain about my physical appearance, but she does tell me that I need to be mindful of my health.  That my apple body type inclines me toward numerous health problems. She reminds me that she wants to live a long life with me and wants me to see our grandchildren. Then she tells me that she’ll kill me if I die of a heart attack at an early age.

So that’s what it comes down to.  I will resist with all my might to be forced to conform to an image of masculinity and fitness that is out of my reach.  But I will do everything I can to avoid being killed by my wife after I’m dead.

For the three months that my daughter was into Barbie dolls, we insisted on buying her a range of different dolls.  So we had the typical blonde Barbie (given to her by one of her school friends), but we also bought her a Brazilian Barbie and a Korean culture Barbie. All of the dolls (except for the Korean cultural Barbie, still in its original box – it’s a collector’s item, she wasn’t allowed to play with it) were given away during our last move.

So now for her 10th birthday, my daughter really wants a My American Girl™ doll©.  (It’s nice that American Girl has been trademarked – so no one else can claim to have ownership and control over who defines an American girl except for American Girl’s parent company, Mattel, which also happens to be the parent company of Barbie).  We’ve been holding her off for the last few years — mainly because those dolls are ridiculously overpriced.  (We even tried to trick her a few years ago with a knock off version – she was polite but very clear that the knock off doll would not suffice).  But for her tenth birthday, her grandparents are chipping in to buy a doll and she’s actually saved up her allowance over the last year to buy a My American Girl™ doll.

So I’m leafing through the My American Girl Doll™ catalog. I’m encouraging my daughter to at least look at the historical dolls.  Being a typical Asian parent I believe that even a doll should come with some required reading.  (And she should also figure out how much the tax is for herself and calculate accordingly).  Just the names tell the story: Molly, Emily, Kit, Felicity. There are no Korean girls named Molly. If there are any Korean girls named Felicity, it’s probably a relatively newborn child whose parents are nostalgic for the WB show starring Keri Russell.

All of the dolls have these ridiculously round eyes.  None of the historical dolls are Asian. (The Asian dolls featured in the catalog don’t look very Asian.  And they all have bangs.  My daughter hates bangs.) The non-white dolls come at the very end of the catalog: Addy (I think she’s a slave girl doll – Really Mattel??  Really?!) and Kaya (a Native American doll).  They come after the catalog has extolled the virtue of Julie (the counter-culture hippie history doll), Emily, a British girl who has escaped London to come to the US (so apparently she’s more American than any Latino or Asian doll could ever be), and white dolls from the two World Wars and the Depression.

So now we’re going to end up with two American Girl dolls. I think my daughter wanted the girl from the Depression. (Because during the depression, all of us were people of color.)  And Kaya, the Native American doll.  Natives and Asians go way back.

I’m very proud of my daughter.  She was asking me why I had her doll catalog on my desk.  I told her that I was writing something for my Racial Identity class.  She said,” You know what doll they really need in that catalog. They need a Japanese Internment doll.  I would buy that doll.”  You go girl!©

I’m a big fan of Science Fiction. So I take pride in the fact that Science Fiction TV shows (like Lost, Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek) oftentimes have the most ethnically diverse casts. Clearly racial diversity and integration is the stuff of fantasy and the very distant future.  Interesting bit of trivia: the very first inter-racial kiss on television was on Star Trek between Kirk and Uhura. (Granted the kiss was forced by alien mind control, but still, way ahead of its time).

So the latest issue of EW reviews the shows for the upcoming fall season.  The complete lack of diversity on television is amazing, particularly the new shows. About a decade ago, there was an Asian-American radio personality that addressed the issue of the lack of diversity on network television.  She stated that you could put the word “white” in front of nearly every network show and you would have a pretty apt description of the television shows: “White” Friends / Dawson’s “White” Creek / Third “White” Rock from the Sun / “White” Party of Five.  If not for the courage of the UPN, the 90’s would be lost. The 90’s would be lost.

So let’s play the game with the new round of Fall shows: “White” Lone Star (which apparently is a show about the only place in Texas that only has white people and NO Latinos) / Raising “White” Hope (ditto – but probably in some non-descript Southern California neighborhood) / No Ordinary “White” Family (with the typical black sidekick, minor character) / and the Good “White” Guys.

A few exceptions: Grey’s Anatomy does a pretty decent job.  But really, only one Asian on a medical show . . . in Seattle? Glee – with its multi-ethnic cast featured on a full two-page ad in the magazine.  Actually features Asians — but they’re mostly in the background and barely say anything. (And did anyone notice that in the ad in EW, the Asian male is the only member of the cast that isn’t pictured). And the promos for Undercovers – but honestly, if the article had not harped on how they were black actors, I’m not sure I would have noticed.  Just being honest here.  And of course, Hawaii Five-O.  But how ridiculous is it that a show based in Hawaii, the state with the highest concentration of Asians in the United States, has the two main leads be white males and with a supporting cast of Asians, one of whom has the very important acting challenge of appearing in a bikini in every episode – that would be Jin from LOST.

So what’s going on?  Why so few black bodies, or brown bodies, or even yellow bodies on television?

In the last century, the locus and demographic center of Christianity has shifted from North America and Europe to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. My concern, however, is that as the American delegation, we may be too quick to speak and to pontificate and too slow to hear and to learn.  I raise these concerns as I have observed what seems to be a disturbing pattern in the conversations and gatherings that I have attended in the U.S.

In my first such event, the gathered American pastors had the privilege of hearing from a South American evangelist, who laid out the how a community of believers evangelized his neighborhood through a corporate effort.  The evangelist revealed an understanding of a holistic gospel that did not limit its impact to the saving of individual souls.  This deeply moving and provocative presentation was followed by a American majority culture male who proceeded to essentially undermine the statements made by the South American evangelist; including a comment to the effect: “But we know what the gospel is really about . . . don’t we?”  I may have misheard, but I got the distinct impression that the American pastor felt the need to correct the South American evangelist.

In another gathering, there was brisk conversation around the issue of the intersection between social justice and evangelism.  The conversation yielded much fodder for further inquiry.  The lively interaction was followed by another majority culture European American male, who proceeded to make his proclamation of what he believed should be emphasis of the upcoming gathering in Cape Town.   In other words, he was given the final word; and whether he contradicted the group discussion or not, it served to reinforce that the real authority in the room was the majority culture individual.

In one of the latest round of conversation, there was a wide range of opinions offered by the panelists.  But once again, an American majority culture male was given the last word and proceeded to give a long monologue about the state of the church.  I don’t fault the individuals who were willing to share their heart.  But I worry about how in the conversations in the U.S. church, the dominant, authoritative, and final voice is given to the white male.

An added element that yields further exasperation is that there has been a noticeable lack of diversity in the panelists, among the host churches and the audience that have gathered for these conversations. This lack of diversity reflects an ongoing significant blind spot for the American delegation. I know that there have been some notable effort to recruit minority delegates, but unfortunately the dominant group remains the dominant group for the U.S. delegation. If we go to South Africa (of all places), for a global evangelization conference with a small number of Native American and African-American delegates, we should be justifiably embarrassed.

Tokenism allows for one or two individuals of differing shades and hues to sit at the table.  But tokenism also means that those voices are drowned out or corrected by the majority culture. At the end of the day, are we saying to the Christians outside of America, that it’s nice that you are here (in Cape Town or in a major U.S. city) and it’s nice that you have a few nice things to say, but we will still be sure to correct you at the end of the conversation to clue you in as to what’s really going on.

I will readily admit that my experience reflects a very limited sample size. But I’m trying to grasp the big picture of what this gathering in Cape Town will be about.  Everyone who goes to the Cape Town gathering will have the best of intentions and the noblest of motivations.  I pray that as the delegation from the United States prepares to engage in conversation and dialogue with brothers and sisters in Christ all over the world, we would be slow to speak and quick to listen.

“Kudos to Moody Press for this very important book by one of the most important younger leaders/sholars within the evangelical church. You may know Soong-Chan’s previous, exceptional IVP book The Next Evangelicalism which put him on the map as an author to know. As one reviewer put it, Rah writes out of “experiential knowledge and with anthropological precision.” This fine and mature work allows us to seek ways to honor the presence of God in different cultures. Excellent and very highly recommended.”

ANOTHER nice review on the ooze website by Stephanie Smith.

From The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2009), 73-74.

One of the key political issues in the first decade of the 21^st century is the issue of immigration.  In the 2008 Presidential race, the issue of immigration spurred passionate debate.  Harsh rhetoric and generalizations were used in the immigration debate, evoking inflammatory terminology that spoke to the racial identity of the United States.  The candidate considered the most evangelical was also the candidate that evoked the harshest rhetoric against immigration.  Immigration became a hot button political issue.

I was at a consultation in Washington D.C. exploring the need for comprehensive immigration reform.  One of the participants was an aide to a senator who was supportive of a compassionate immigration policy.  She stated that after the Senator had proposed the bill, their office began to receive thousands of bricks (either as a threat or to help build a wall at the Mexican border) – enough bricks for the mailroom attendant to make a barbeque grill in his backyard.  Incoming mail ran 400 to 1 opposing immigration reform, oftentimes proposing nearly draconian measures to stem the tide of immigration.

In 2004, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington wrote in Who Are We? that the U.S.’s racial identity needed to remain white, Anglo and Protestant.  Huntington is troubled by the changing demographics of American society.  “The ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity eroded the legitimacy of the remaining central elements of American identity, the cultural core and the American Creed. . . . American’s third major wave of immigration that began in the 1960’s brought to America people primarily from Latin America and Asia rather than Europe as the previous wave did.  The culture and values of their countries of origin often differ substantially from those prevalent in America.”[1] Huntington’s concern is that “the elimination of the racial and ethnic components of national identity and the challenges to its cultural and creedal components raise questions concerning the prospects for American identity.”[2] In other words, the more non-European immigrants come to the United States, the less American this nation becomes.

Huntington believes that more than an ideology or creed is needed in order to unify a nation.  “Globalization, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, immigration, subnationalism, and anti-nationalism has battered American consciousness.  Ethnic, racial, and gender identities came to the fore.  In contrast to their predecessors, many immigrants were ampersands, maintaining dual loyalties and dual citizenships. A massive Hispanic influx raised questions concerning America’s linguistic and cultural unity.”[3]

As the demographics of American culture began to change, the reaction from some academics and politicians was to support an American society rooted in white America.  Opponents of immigration reform (among whom are a significant number of evangelicals) are raising the question: “Who gets to define what America looks like in the twenty-first century?” “Should every effort be made to maintain a white majority that reflects the current Western European culture and ethos of American society?”

The unavoidable reality is that by the year 2050, projections point to a nation without an ethnic majority.  America will no longer be a Euro-centric, white nation. Furthermore, as previously stated, the non-white population among Christians is growing at a rate faster than the general population.  American Christianity will become non-white before the rest of American society.  Even now, most denominations are faced with the reality that unless they see growth among the ethnic minority population within their denomination, they will experience steady decline.

The question of immigration presents an interesting dilemma for majority-culture Christians. Immigrants and ethnic minorities are saving American Christianity.  Immigrants and ethnic minorities tend to be socially and morally conservative. (If the religious right were committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, there is an easy solution.  Give citizenship to the 12 million undocumented aliens, who are largely politically conservative and would turn the tide and momentum of the abortion debate).  Immigrant and ethnic minority churches are restoring spiritual vitality and fervor oftentimes missing in many white evangelical churches. Too often, the future of American evangelicalism is viewed as a battle over the heart and soul of middle-America (i.e. – white America), when the restoration of faith in American culture may actually depend on the ongoing growth of immigrant and ethnic minority Christian communities. So what is the response of the white evangelical community to the changing face of America? So far, it has been one of conspicuous silence on the issue of immigration. Many Christian leaders have been hesitant to support genuine immigration reform – possibly reflecting the fear of a non-white America and a non-white American Christianity.

Evangelicals claim Scripture as having primary authority in a believer’s life and conduct.  What then, is the Biblical response to the issue of immigration?  In my study of Scripture, I have yet to find a single passage which supports the right to bear arms. (I’m not arguing against the right to bear arms, I’m just saying I can’t find a biblical reference regarding the right to bear arms.) I have, however, found numerous references (close to 100) calling believers to care for the alien among them. Why is it then that I am more likely to find members of the National Rifle Association in a typical American evangelical church than I will find those who advocate for an immigration policy that shows compassion for the immigrant among us? How much of our view on immigration is driven by a political and social agenda rather than a biblical one?

[2] Ibid.,19.

[3] Ibid., 4.

- Breterton, Luke.  Christianity and Contemporary Politics (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 149.

Are we a nation that will continue to punish children for the actions of their parents? The DREAM Act says no! Ask the Senate to pass this important bill. The DREAM Act would provide a path to citizenship for immigrant students who have grown up in the U.S., if they attend college or serve in the U.S. military. It has strict criteria and caps on who is eligible, and would provide almost a million young people a chance to come out of the shadows and live a full life in the only nation they call home. The Senate plans to vote on the DREAM Act next week, as an amendment to a larger, previously scheduled defense bill. The media is already creating a story of conflict — saying the bill provides “amnesty” and shouldn’t be attached to a military bill. What are our priorities as a nation? We can spend billions on going to war and on our military, but will we come together to give almost a million young people a chance at a brighter and more promising future?

Tell the Senate to set politics aside and pass the DREAM Act next week! As people of faith, we believe that there is a clear biblical responsibility to show compassion for the strangers among us and to treat our neighbors as we would like to be treated. Sojourners’ Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign has been a passionate voice for comprehensive reform to our immigration system. Passing the DREAM act is a step in the right direction on the journey for justice.

In solidarity and hope,

Allison, Andrew, Elizabeth, Hannah, Rev. Jen, and Duane at Sojourners