Showing posts with label Diversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diversity. Show all posts

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Why I Love My Work - Cummins Diversity Choir

I haven't written much about my work, for a variety of reasons.  But similar to how I have had a Why I Love My Church series, I wanted to write about why I love my work.  Reminders of the positive, the blessings we have in life, the things to be truly grateful for.  And there are many, many reasons why I love what I do right now and the company that I work for.  Here I'd like to focus on one benefit of working for such a large company.

Live music has been one of the hardest hit areas in this pandemic.  The rules on social distancing shut down many venues for a long time, choral singing proved to be one of the easiest ways to spread the disease, and opportunities to sing in public became fewer and far between.  Especially as part of any ensemble.

Late last year, I discovered that Cummins has a choir based in Columbus, Indiana.  The choir was pulled together as part of Cummins emphasis on diversity.  It was a way for people from diverse backgrounds to share in a common language and experience - music.  The choir had been performing right up to February 2020, but had stopped rehearsals and performances because of the pandemic.  

I was able to "join" the choir virtually and participate in a handful of Zoom sessions to get to know the choir members over the final months of last year.  Video conferencing is great for face to face communication, but terrible for music as there is not an easy way to counter the overlapping audio feeds.  So, while I was able to join, I was not yet able to sing with them.

Thankfully, with the improvements that were made in June and July, we were able to gather together to rehearse once again. We even were able to plan for a performance.  On August 28, the choir was able to perform at the Chinese Cultural Expo in Columbus.  It felt like everything was really getting back on track.

I can't tell you how good it was to be able to sing chorally again.  My most recent opportunities have been as part of smaller ensembles, like praise teams, or solo.  I love and appreciate these as well, and will be writing about getting to be a part of the praise team at our current church.  

Choral singing uses different muscles, though.  It's listening more closely to the intonation and pitch of those singing the same part as you.  It's balancing your voice with the others in your part.  Listening for the balance of the other vocal parts to make sure the blend of the whole ensemble comes through.  Keeping a close eye out for the conductor to ensure you are in time and don't miss an entrance or hold out a fermata too long.

Coming out of every rehearsal it made me dive into all my Broadway and classical music.  To want to just belt and sing for the rafters.

I forgot how much I missed it.

We are shut down once again, as the Covid cases increase around us and as Cummins' restrictions on indoor activity have once again been implemented.  But I am hopeful that this will be a shorter hiatus.  

I'm hopeful we are turning the corner with this virus.  That those stragglers and most ardent anti-vaxxers are coming around and will receive the vaccine (or will be forced to get the vaccine).  That maybe we can stop politicizing masks and do what we can to care for our neighbors around us.

I'm hopeful.  Maybe naively, but hopeful.

And I'm looking forward to singing again.

 


Monday, January 13, 2020

Big Question #3: Who is my gospel excluding?

"Of one the Lord has made the race
Thro' one has come the fall
Where sin has gone must go His grace
The gospel is for all

The blessed gospel is for all
The gospel is for all
Where sin has gone must go His grace
The gospel is for all

Say not the heathen are at home
Beyond we have no call
For why should we be blest alone?
The gospel is for all

Received ye freely, freely give
From ev'ry land they call
Unless they hear they cannot live
The gospel is for all
"
The Gospel is For All (Of One The Lord Has Made)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
Matthew 28:19-20

This big question is a corollary to the previous question.  Who is my gospel excluding?  Put another way, what people, what race, what group, what section of town, what person have I written off as not worthy of receiving the gospel?  Not worth my time to share?

I should start this exploration with a bit of background in what I mean by gospel.  One of the labels for this blog is evangelism, and while it is perfectly applicable, I think it carries a specific connotation that can put people off.  The idea of the guy on the street corner, holding a sign telling people they are all going to hell.  Or the door to door missionaries, asking every person they meet if they know about Jesus.  And while these are definitely examples of a type of evangelism that can occur, they are by no means the only ways, nor should they be the primary types of evangelism we rely on.  

Evangelism is telling your story of the gospel.  Gospel is good news.  Evangelizing or witnessing, is then simply telling people the good news that you know.  How your faith has changed your life.  What amazing things you have seen happen.  

In this way, everyone is more ready than they realize to evangelize, to paraphrase Brian McLaren.  We just have to be willing to tell our story, and to answer questions when we are asked.  To the latter, we have to be willing to say, "I don't know" when it's true and be willing to look into the answers for our friends.

The problem is, we all at every level, have those places where we refuse to carry the gospel.  Refuse to share the good news, whether because of apathy, antipathy, or outright hostility.

I see this playing out in a couple ways.  First, in regard to who is welcomed into our churches, and secondly, in terms of where we are sending out people to witness.

This is more easily observed in the macro.  For example, with regard to who is welcomed in our churches, the evangelical church has largely written off the entire LGBTQ+ population, determining them to be at best approached from a distance or at worst exiled.  If you quibble with this description, imagine what would happen in your church if a young gay couple came in and sat in a pew holding hands, or even dared to kiss.  What kind of discussions would be had, internally or with them?  How welcoming would the people of your church be to them?  Would they be vocal in their displeasure?  Would the couple be asked not to come back?  Not to come back if they did that again, or just not to come back at all?

And that is just the most obvious example.  In what other ways are our churches unwelcoming, shutting off the gospel from other people?  If a smelly, obviously homeless person comes into church to worship, how are they welcomed?  Are they treated like everyone else or are they given a wide berth, left to their own?

If a man of Sikh heritage comes into your Christian church looking to join in worship wearing a head scarf, are you suspicious of him?  How about a man of apparent Middle-Eastern descent?

The macro is also an easy way to identify our discrepancies in where we are sending out.  How easy is it for us to donate to send to foreign missions, when we are not crossing the tracks in our own towns to witness?  How often do we leave other parts of town to their own churches to evangelize and decide exactly where our borders of reach stop?  This carries dangerous connotations, as often towns are still de jure segregated on racial lines.  

The harder issue is to drill this down to the micro level.  Who do I think does not belong in our church?  Where are my prejudices showing when someone different comes to church?  Am I as welcoming to the homeless as I am to the wealthiest in town?  When people of a different race come to our church, do I help make them feel welcome?  If the Middle-Eastern man came to our church, would I be inviting or suspicious?

Likewise, where am I refusing to take the gospel?  In the micro level, I see this as subtly different than refusing to go into different parts of town, though that problem remains the same.  For individuals, I think the question becomes the places where I choose not to bring the gospel with me.  Where I conveniently leave it behind.  

Am I carrying the gospel to my work?  To school?  To my family?  To those family members?

Where am I refusing to share my story?  Not open to questions about faith?  Not willing to share the good things that God is doing in my life?

Where am I very careful about not saying anything about God, church, or faith?  Do I have friends I purposefully downplay this part of my life, not because of anything they've said or asked, but because I want to fit in?

"But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."
1 Peter 3:14-16

This is one I am working on.  I think and I hope the answer is remembering that this does not have to be as difficult as I make it.  It's about being willing to give an account, a defense, for the hope I have.  Being more ready than I realize just to share the good that I know.  Being willing to answer questions that are asked.  Not being afraid to discuss what He is doing in my life.

Just being open to share.

Friday, January 10, 2020

Big Question #2: Does my church look primarily like me?

"Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.  For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.  Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.  And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?  But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.  If they were all one part, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
"
1 Corinthians 12:12-19

The second question that has been bothering me lately and causing me to really dig deeper is how much does my church look exactly like me?  In other words, how homogenized is my church?  Could the standard worshipper at my church be described as a type?

We know the standard; Paul lays it out pretty clearly.  The church should be one the most diverse groups that can be found, existing in utmost harmony.  It should be a body made up of diverse parts, all working together to keep the body in motion, in service, and in praise.

As it is, I fear we have too many single churches that are all eyes, all ears, all feet.  We see the pattern, churches fighting, splitting, and then re-forming around commonalities.  This denomination is for conservatives.  This denomination is for liberals.  This church is a black church.  This church is a white church, in fact, if not in charter.  This is a church for older worshippers, with hymns and the King James bible.  This is a church for the younger worshippers, with lights, sounds, a praise band, and comfortable clothes.

We fragment and fragment and fragment the body until we've reached a point where we wonder why we're ineffective.  Why there is so much division in this country, in the world. 

If the universal church of God cannot get along, how can we expect the rest of the world to do so?

I look at the churches I have connections to, and I notice, there is definitely a type.  While there are exceptions, they are largely white.  Largely conservative, theologically and politically.  Largely middle class.  It can be typified even closer based on the particular areas.  Ladies have a country-crafty design sense.  Men are hunters, fishers, tradesmen.  We're Fixer Upper, HGTV churches.

I realize, some of this comes from the areas that they are located in, and that's fine to a degree.  The church should reflect it's location.  The people in the area.  

The problem is that it doesn't accurately reflect the whole place it is located.  The church should be a microcosm of the community that it is in.  It should ideally reflect the demographics of the community, or at least come close.

We're definitely not there yet.  Right now, we're reflecting specific segments.

Perhaps I notice it more because I sometimes feel like an outsider.  I'm more liberal than the general body.  I'm more city than country, despite where I grew up.  I'm art and tech focused, not a hunter, fisher, or rancher.

Does the homogenization of our churches reflect a reluctance on our part to share the gospel with people that are different from us?  Does it reflect our unwillingness to share the gospel to all the ends of the earth?  We might have a great desire to see the gospel shared around the globe, but is that good negated by our unwillingness to share it in the other side of town?  Or worse, do we view that as a mission, a place for us to serve and feel better about it, but something that isn't really supposed to mix with our church regularly?

How much of our outreach is pointed to people exactly like us?  Based on our members interests and preferences, appealing to like minded individuals, but not casting a broader net?

I'll admit, some of this came from discussions with Jamie regarding a powerful book she just went through and the one that is next on my list entitled Insider Outsider by Bryan Loritts.  Loritts writes about being a person of color in predominantly white evangelical spaces and the implications that it has on our faith.  Part of the struggle he outlines is how we may invite the minority in, but we expect them to adapt to our preferences, our patterns and traditions, instead of being open for us both to change from the encounter.  

I guess, that's our fear.  We don't want to be changed.  We want to continue in our same patterns, continue with our same programs, our same traditions.  We're not open to other voices, to the point of sometimes not even being open to God's voice.

The church desperately needs all voices in its walls.  All colors, all creeds, all genders, all classes, untied in one thing - complete surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ. 

"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another."  Proverbs 27:17.  For this to work, the iron has to approach the other iron at a different angle.  If both are going the same way, neither is sharpened.  It just doesn't work.  We need people to approach things differently.  To challenge us.  To grow us.  To force us to confront different ideas.  Different interpretations.  Different viewpoints.  

We need black voices in our churches and for there to stop being a de facto split in white and black churches in our communities.  We need for 11:00 am on Sunday morning to stop being the most segregated hour in America.  Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized that and we still have that same problem.  We need black voices to help us see black representation in the Bible, like Jethro, Zipporah, Bathsheba, and Zephaniah.  We need to hear their voices on what liberation means to them.  We need to learn their history, their theology, and their perspective.

We need more input from female voices in our churches.  We need to remember there were female prophets, disciples of Jesus, apostles, and deacons all recorded in the Bible.  We need their voices on scripture, to potentially correct some of our interpretations.  To see the woman at the well as potentially a five-time widow, opposed to a woman of loose morals.  To remember that Bathsheba was a victim who was taken advantage of by the king.

We need liberals in our churches.  We need liberals to push us to social justice, to remind us that we are to be about the business of making this world better here and now.  We need them to be pushing us to action to speak for the oppressed, to care for the hurting, to defend the weak.  We need them to ask questions, to force us to confront difficult passages and truths, to force us to determine what we actually believe, not what has been passed down to us.

We need all social classes in our churches.  To force us to confront inequity.  To move us to compassion and provide us the means to do so.

We need the LGBTQ+ community in our churches.  We need them to show us their examples in the bible and for us to wrestle with those texts.  Eunuchs.  The centurion and his pais, his boy.  We need to recognize that they are already there.  If somewhere between 5-10% of Americans identify as LGBTQ+ in some form or fashion, then there is some small portion of your church that identifies that way as well.  They are staying closeted.  Wrestling in silence.  Or leaving altogether.  If you believe it is sinful to be homosexual, then you must realize that there are already people in your church that are struggling with same-sex attraction, that are wrestling with their faith, their orientation, and what they've been taught.  We have to do a better job having these discussions and in presenting the full text.  Our current strategy has led to family expulsion, bullying, discrimination, and increased suicide rates in the LGBTQ+ community.  We have effectively communicated a writing off of that entire group.  We can definitely do better. 

We only get stronger when we do this together.  If we keep splintering, keep fractioning, to where each church is just a little pocket of the same type of people, each church is just one part of the body trying to function alone, then we've given up all pretense of unity.  We're ignoring God's plan for the body.  

It would do us well to remember these differences, these distinctions we draw down here, make no difference.  We are all one in Christ.  The more our church looks exactly like us, the less it looks like the universal Church of God.   That should trouble us.  That should motivate us.

Let's hope our bodies start to reflect that unity more and more in the coming year and beyond.

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:28


Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Why Don't You Try Acting? It's So Much Easier

You know, as an actor, I should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job.
Scarlett Johansson

The American actor Dustin Hoffman, playing a victim of imprisonment and torture in the film The Marathon Man, prepared himself for his role by keeping himself awake for two days and nights.  He arrived at the studio disheveled and drawn to be met by his co-star, Laurence Olivier.

‘Dear boy, you look absolutely awful,’ exclaimed the First Lord of the Theatre.  ‘Why don’t you try acting?  It’s so much easier.’

Never was a grosser untruth spoken in jest.  Laurence Kerr Olivier … would be the last man on earth to regard his chosen profession as easy.”
Alan Hamilton’s “The Time Profile: Laurence Olivier at Seventy-Five,” The Times [London], 17 May 1982, Pg. 8, Co. A

Scarlett Johansson is in trouble for a recent interview with As If magazineThe current highest paid actress had made the comments above and explained that she believed she should be permitted to play any role, “because that is my job and the requirements of my job.”  She added that “there are a lot of social lines being drawn now” and “a lot of political correctness is being reflected in art."

Here's the thing, she's both right and wrong.

In an ideal world, any actor can and should play any part, period.  That is an actor's job.  To be a tree, to be a cat, to be a fireman, to be a child, to be whatever the role calls for.  An actor is supposed to play parts that do not relate to their direct experiences.  They are trained to invest in a role and to be able to portray a variety of experiences they have never had, actions they have never personally done, a life they have never lived.

It's pretend.  That's why it's called "play."  It's the same spirit of kids playing parents, cops and robbers, aliens, superheroes.

It's the principle behind color blind casting.  It's why you see such diversity in Disney on Broadway productions or Dallas Theater Center productions.  For example, in Aladdin, Jasmine can be of Vietnamese descent and the Sultan can be African-American, despite being father and daughter in an Arabian location.  Why Ebeneezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol can be played by a white actor as an old man and a black actor as a young man.  It's all in service of telling the story.  

The last thing we want is for roles to be portrayed only by people who have personal experiences or connections to the role, outside race (we definitively do not need a return of blackface, brownface, or yellowface).  We don't need only people in an interracical relationship personally to play characters in an interracial relationship.   We don't need only people who have lost a parent personally to play a character who has lost a parent.  We don't need only gay actors to play gay characters. 

We want art to be flexible enough to allow all stripes of artists to bring their insight, their emotion, their experience to a variety of roles.  We want people to be able to empathize with people of all backgrounds, and that includes actors being able to gain insight into the roles they play.  

In short, we want that ideal world where any actor can play any part.

Where she's wrong is that we do not live in an ideal world.  In her subsequent clarification, Johansson indicates she understands this.

I recognize that in reality, there is a widespread discrepancy amongst my industry that favors Caucasian, cis-gendered actors and that not every actor has been given the same opportunities that I have been privileged to.  I continue to support, and always have, diversity in every industry and will continue to fight for projects where everyone is included."

We have to recognize that Hollywood is notoriously bad in casting minorities.  

According to the UCL A Hollywood Diversity report from 2018, despite minorities constituting nearly 40% of the United States population, the remain seriously underrepresented in film.  They account for only:
  • 13.9% of film leads
  • 12.6% of film directors
  • 8.1% of film writers
  • 18.7% of broadcast scripted leads
  • 20.2% of cable scripted leads
  • 26.6% of broadcast reality and other leads (how ironic that even in “reality” tv, minorities are still underrepresented)
  • 20.9% of leads for cable reality and other leads
  • 12.9% of digital scripted leads
  • 7.1% of creators of broadcast scripted shows
  • 7.3% of creators of cable scripted shows
  • 15.7% of creators of digital scripted shows
Rates for women are just as bad.  Despite accounting for over half of the population, women remain underrepresented in every front in Hollywood, accounting for only:
  • 31.2% of film leads
  • 6.9% of film directors
  • 13.8% of film writers
  • 35.7% of broadcast scripted leads
  • 44.8% of cable scripted leads
  • 18.8% of broadcast reality and other leads
  • 29.8% of cable reality and other leads
  • 43.1% of digital scripted leads
  • 22.1% of creators of broadcast scripted shows
  • 16.9% of creators of cable scripted shows
  • 31.5% of creators of digital scripted shows
Hollywood still favors white, male actors and creators.  And uses them as much as possible, even when not appropriate.  Olivier as Othello.  John Wayne as Genghis Khan.  Mickey Rooney as I. Y. Yunioshi.  

Johansson has her own experience in this realm, facing outrage for her casting as a traditionally Japanese role as the character of Motoko Kusanagi in the 2017 live-action remake of the anime classic Ghost in the Shell.   Further, she had to drop out of the Rub & Tug film last year for her casting as a transgender man.  

This is very clearly an issue that needs to be addressed.  A wrong that Hollywood needs to correct.  And until the representation rates become more appropriate, it is very appropriate for us to call out whitewashed casting.  To call for people of the appropriate race, sexuality, disability, and gender-identity to play those roles.  For us to call for more race and gender blind casting.  To promote diversity.

Then and only then, will we hit that point where any actor can play any role.  Such that a black woman could play a white man.  And no one would bat an eye.

It's acting.  Let's try it.