https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/09/relevant-evangelical-magazine-strang-racist-controversy.html
...
In [Andre] Henry’s Medium post, he wrote that working at Relevant made him feel like a “token” at an institution afraid to alienate its largely white constituency. “No D.C. stuff,” he was told, a warning to avoid polarizing political content. Three months into the job, Henry wrote, CEO and founder Cameron Strang shot down his plans to publish daily Black History Month content in February, mentioning a concern for “people who aren’t interested in that.” Soon afterward, Henry wrote, he was stripped of editorial decision-making power, though he remained a writer and podcast voice. “I’ve come to accept that many young-ish, white, evangelical leaders with large platforms … are simply not committed to being antiracist, but only in appearing non-racist,” he wrote, “and they’re using us as props for the show.”
...
[Cameron] Strang is the sole owner of Relevant, so he is unlikely to leave the company altogether. He founded Relevant in his early 20s—he’s now 43—and has worked there for almost his entire professional life. He is the son of Stephen Strang, the founder and CEO of Charisma Media, which publishes a magazine with a charismatic Christian perspective, including an emphasis on healing and “spiritual gifts” like speaking in tongues. Several former employees told RNS that Cameron Strang once fired an employee for being a negative spiritual presence in the office; around the same time, they say, Stephen Strang and several colleagues came to Relevant offices and appeared to “pray out the evil” from the space. (A representative for Stephen Strang told RNS he had no recollection of the event.) Stephen is also the author of God and Donald Trump, which Politico Magazine called “part spiritual hagiography, part Fox News bulletin and part prophecy.”
...
So Relevant is owned by someone who's the son of the person who runs the media company that has lately published Mark and Grace Driscoll's newest book on spiritual warfare?
Now I've linked to some criticism Adolph Reed Jr. has leveled at antiracism in the past, which he regards as an ideological stance embraced in lieu of there being any functionally meaningful left criticism of the establishment. Reed Jr. and John McWhorter have written critically of antiracist trends that have developed in the last twenty years and as best I understand their work it's not because they are against liberal or progressive development in race relations. McWhorter has written about how whiteness has become a kind of original sin in a civic religion in which expiation of that sin is only provided by listening to a select range of black intellectuals.
I have been reminded of something Drew. G. I. Hart wrote all the way back in 2011.
https://drewgihart.com/2011/03/25/evangelical-split-piper-imperialism-a-search-for-postcolonial-christian-expression/
...
I can understand why younger white evangelicals would want to break away from this brand of American Evangelicalism [John Piper]. While I can appreciate many of the theological nuances expressed by this zealous group of white 20 and 30 somethings, they have their own set of problems. Before we get too excited about this coming shift in influence over American religious life, we must acknowledge that the practice of hegemony and domination will still continue through these “emerging leaders”. Overall, I have been pleased with the theological shifts being expressed, because they express desire for racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity in the Church… wanting the Church to be ONE church, which we were called to be. However, it did not take very long for me to realize that the proclamations and the practices of this group were not lining up. Everything that is done is done to cater to white middle class suburbia. They cater to the priviliged despite affirming Jesus’ call to serve the least of these. As far as hegemony goes, Black and Latino pastors and theologians still continue to be uninvited to the infamous “table” Even these newly formed tables under banners of emergent or missional are starting off on the wrong foot, being almost completely homogeneous. Of course these Evangelical 3.0’s have learned from their predecessors that you must at least grab a token black for your entourage or program (however the 2.0’s actually did a better job at pulling in tokens), often this GED effort of token representation is not even being done at many of their gatherings and events. Unfortunately the white control and supremacy over religious life in America is not going anywhere if left on track.
...
There's also another piece discussing Strang from a former Relevant staffer.
https://amongtheolivetrees.com/on-the-subject-of-cameron-strangs-sins/
Now I have complained in the past about how in connection to Native American histories and communities it can seem that the power brokers in American conservative and progressive circles, and here I'm going to be more specific and say more or less white liberals and conservatives in op-ed sections, have a history in the last twenty some years of finding ways to scapegoat each other for what is ultimately a shared legacy or racist ideas and policies. It's more politically and economically lucrative for white liberals and progressives to agitate their base by saying the racism is all on the conservative side, while conservatives have a cottage industry of punditry invoking Margaret Sanger and saying the liberals and the progressives are the real racists. How about we consider the possibility that the racism of white progressives, white liberals, white conservatives and white reactionaries will be different across the political spectrum as a reflection of the economic, social and political aims of those groups of people? Drew G. I. Hart's comment about how evangelicalism 2.0 was better at pulling in token black and latino voices than evangelicalism 3.0 sprung to mind reading about the Strang family and Relevant for what I hope are obvious reasons, that the lip service paid to people of color participating in Christian media publications compared to what Christians who aren't white get to do can be a reminder of why, for instance, black Baptists began to develop their own publishing industry in the early 20th century (I'm reading Mark Burford's academic monograph on Mahalia Jackson published by Oxford University Press, so it doesn't just so happen that that reading has providentially converged with the reading that's inspired this blog post).
It can make sense that when you feel like you'll never get a seat at the proverbial table you set up a new table. I was reading earlier this year about how the American composer Arthur Farwell set up a publishing company in order to publish the kinds of American musical works he did not think fit in with the Germanophile tendencies of music publication in the United States in his time and place.
I have to admit I've hardly ever read Relevant in my life because, well, it's never seemed relevant to me. I admit I'm sort of a semi-stick-in-the-mud Presbyterian who is reluctant to be too involved in local church life not so much because I don't like going to church but because ... well ... peruse all of the Mars Hill blogging and you might get a clearer sense of why my church life might be a bit cautious.
It seems as though the role the Strangs play in Christian media is the story here and that there's a story behind the story ... although what that is isn't something Wenatchee The Hatchet has the time, energy or resources to really dig into.
No comments:
Post a Comment