The Peace Pastor

Pursuing Peace through Faith with the Rev. Marty Troyer




After a quick detour into the Duck Dynasty section of the store for a quick laugh, I went looking for the other equally unique and context-specific sections I assumed would be there. You know, the sections written by woman, or people of color.

Odd…there weren’t any other sections. It was just “Theology.” By theology section

I think they accidentally mislabeled the section. It should have been called White Male Theology.

A section like this would be awesome, if it was next on the shelf to Feminist, Womanist, Liberation, Mujerista, Queer, Black, African, Asian, First Nations and the Undocumented Theology sections.

But it wasn’t. It was just “theology.” As if white male theology is normative. As if what white males with enough privilege to procure a terminal theological degree have to say closes the dialogue once and for all. My voice is normal, final, universal, applicable across the board, capable of speaking into multiple cultures and contexts.

Which of course does wonders for my ego!

Equally loud and proud is the apparent statement that woman, and people of color have very little to offer a guy like me in my culture and setting. How could they, we seem to be saying, they’re not me.

Of course not! How absurd.

But its odd how that doesn’t work in both directions.

Imagine this scenario being flipped. Imagine walking into a “Christian bookstore” and finding under the “Theology” section only books by authors such as: Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King Jr,  Martha Simmons, Dwight Hopkins, Howard Thurman, James Cone, Ada María Isasi-Díaz, Justo Gonzalez, Emmanuel Katongola, J. Cameron Carter, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Katie Canon, Traci West, Emile Townes, R. S. Sugirtharajah, Ernesto Cardinal, and Christina Cleveland.

You, as a fair-minded white reader of mine, would likely do a double take, and wonder aloud where your old favorites were. “Marginal resources are great for them. I just need plain ole theology” we might be overheard to say.

To be fair, I did find this lonely book in the section authored by Bethany Hoang, who dropped the sweetest immigration gospel bomb on the Justice Conference back in February. It was on the bottom shelf complete with 44 pages. It’s not exactly academic so much as practical, and functions like a primer on Biblical justice.

So if you need a primer on biblical justice, or don’t have any theology books by a female, check hers out.


Categories: Peace, Racial Justice
Marty Troyer | Seeking the Shalom of Houston

41 Responses

  1. JT says:

    I just read this article as well as the one about the Astrodome.

    Could you please comment on this?

    Headline on the article above: “In White Folks News: Money Makin’ Mitt Romney TwitPics Photo Of His New Black Grandson!”

    In White Folks News??? Really? Yeah, white people are racists. There are even white people who say they are Christians that are as well. But what about people who aren’t white? Can they be racists as well? What are your thoughts about websites like the one above or TV channels like BET? Can you imagine a WET TV station? Probably not because that would be racists.

    I’m not sure what to think about your statement here: “White males, as the ones with the most power in our current system, might be the ones in the system who most need to repent toward God and work the hardest to see and dismantle the privilege and power they have.”

    Yes, there are a lot of rich white people who have “power”. But there are a lot of rich black people with power too. Why just because someone has become wealthy would you need to repent and to dismantle the privilege and power they have gotten? Do you think Kanye West and Oprah should repent and start to dismantle their power?

    I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.


  2. Zoe says:

    Marty claims to be a man of God, but his actions and his deeds tell a different story. Marty always claims how illegal immigrants are very law-abiding folks,their only crime he claims is a civil one, this being sneaking across the border without permission. Marty himself ignores the very biblical laws he claims all others must follow,this is expect illegal immigrants. His quest for justice never includes how these laws as follows, that illegal immigrants break everyday-such as ,violations of state laws” like “identity theft, forgery, and tax laws.”illegal immigrants frequently engage in activity that constitutes violation of state and local laws, like “driving without license,” “driving without insurance,” “driving without a valid vehicle registration,” and giving “false statements,false personification of a U.S. Citizen.Marty switches off that illegal immigrants having “good moral character & biblical laws,that he demands from American citizens,but he cops out by allowing crimes by illegal immigrants to be covered by the welcome the stranger and he always says how proud he is to be the voice for those who commit these crimes. Marty claims he is proud of the dreamers, who use identity theft,f,false claims of citizenship,tax fraud to get employment.Marty has no problem with illegal immigrants lying on hospital admit forms, with fake names, fake addresses,fake work numbers, illegal immigrants refuse to pay for medical services rendred.I must wonder at what point does this man think illegal immigrants have to do their part ? Marty is so concern about this book store not having the books by who he thinks should have books by who he wants books by. He can always open up the church treasury , start offering free 100 % paid for college scholarships,for writers. Will this be just another one of his , he complains about it, but will not do anything about it.You know think about it, do something about it.He so busy condemning everyone and everything.He is not understanding, or trying in the least, to behave like a Christ. By an Authentic Houstonian

    • martytroyer says:

      There is so much in this comment to discuss.

      BUt I’m most interested in hearing more about your very last statement, the signature.

      What constitutes an “authentic Houstonian”?

      Please elaborate! I’d love to hear more of whom you think qualifies, and perhaps whom doesn’t.

      I of course have my ideas of what you mean, and could read between the lines and imply a lot from such a statement. But reading between the lines isn’t nice now, is it?

      • M4 says:

        Of course, these ideas all presuppose that you’re here legally. Some “authentic Houstonians” are born here; others, such as myself, legally migrated here from the U.S. or other nations. Of the major U.S. cities, Houston is the most diverse. It’s a very welcoming place for anyone that abides by the law.

        Unfortunately, a few may legally reside here but never really become Houstonians (or even Texians/Tejanos) at heart.

      • martytroyer says:

        If what was meat was ‘legal,’ then using the word ‘authentic’ was very murky at best. It feels coded.

      • M4 says:

        Marty, it’s quite possible that things feel “coded,” “covert,” or “hidden” to you because you’re overly sensitive to difference, or to criticism. Or, perhaps, it’s easier to criticize something that you don’t have to expressly defend – when you can just assert that a lack of overt evidence proves hidden conspiracy. Perhaps your sense that Zoe is using “coded” speech is correct, Marty, but it seemed to me that she was being pretty blunt and plain-spoken. Her use of “illegal” vs. “legal” is a strong distinction, and needs no coding to get the point across. My first thought as to what she meant by “authentic” was a variation on “legal,” but you can ask her.

  3. JR says:

    There is nothing wrong in being a white male.

    • martytroyer says:

      White male humans are created in the image of God! Were known by God in the womb. And are loved by God whether saint or sinner.
      So of course I totally agree!

      In fact, I agree so much I’m not ever sure why you wrote it. Perhaps, if we tried, we could find many things such as this we could state together JR.

      • M4 says:

        Marty, I agree with JR. Sometimes your posts come across as denigrating white males – of course to make a point for more diversity, but still tearing them down.

      • martytroyer says:

        I have rarely made the point for more diversity. Though it has been implicit.
        I have, however, often made the point that there are oppressive systems and structures that marginalize and disempower some for the benefit of others.

        White males, as the ones with the most power in our current system, might be the ones in the system who most need to repent toward God and work the hardest to see and dismantle the privilege and power they have. But this is radically different than denegrating anyone, or suggesting as JR did that there is somehow something wrong with white males.

        My theology is rooted deeply in the equality of all, the beauty of all, the gifting of all.

      • M4 says:

        Marty, I was trying to be nice by suggesting a credible reason for your stance. However, your approach of dividing everything up into the “powerful” and the “disempowered,” while reasonable as a warning, and effective as a call to self-examination, is most emphatically *not* credible as a lens through which to see everything, nor as a political goal. Nor is the existence of difference a justification for cheap shots at “white males.” Anti-”white male” critique breeds class conflict as much as, if not more than, actually addressing and diminishing classism. As a test of this idea, why not vocally critique someone who is of a “minority” group or whom you identify as “disempowered,” and see whether they take it well. Get the picture?

        A second concern with your approach is that you assume the “answer” is for “white males” to dismantle their “privilege.” Why not instead work to promote others toward that state, sharing the opportunity to achieve and excel more broadly? Remember, Marty, that tearing everyone down to the same state was tried in the Marxist regimes, and resulted in a lower standard of living for everyone … except, of course, the Communist Party higher-ups that replaced the tsars and the mandarins. Now, Marty, if you as a fairly white male were to give up your position, wealth and “privilege” as others have suggested, that might give you more personal credibility, but I believe we all would like to see a different *way* than a socialist program, not merely a lone example.

        A third criticism of your assertions, also a serious one, is that “equality” can be a very slippery thing to define, especially when one melds theology and politics as tightly as you appear to do. Equality of what, for instance? From your blogs, I’d guess that you would support forced redistribution of wealth so everyone had the same outcome no matter how much or how little work they put in – that might be “equal” in a sense, but hardly good due to its use of coercion, theft, and rewarding of poor choices. Currently, “economic inequality” in this country appears to relate less to entrenched hierarchies (as you appear to suggest) and more to increasing differences in educational and skill qualifications for menial labor vs. skilled producers. The latter are very much in demand, even in this economy.

        Equality of opportunity would be an “equality” on which you could find common ground with independents, conservatives, and libertarians, even classical liberals, but I don’t see you as caring much for that kind of equality. I suspect, Marty, that what you view as “equality” might come off as inherently unfair and unjust to many others.

  4. M4 says:

    Marty, you said, “Equally loud and proud is the apparent statement that …” Presumably you based this assumption on numbers of currently available hard-copy works, but is that adequate?

    As counterpoint, check out the “German History” section of a typical bookstore: using your criterion, the centuries of German history would pale in comparison to the sheer numbers of works on the Third Reich.

    Here’s one even more flagrant mismatch: next to the “Holocaust Studies” section, why isn’t there a section devoted to “Crimes of Communism,” which undoubtedly swallowed up many more unfortunate souls? Not that the Holocaust would be judged as any less evil, mind you … but why do writers in the Western democracies so often ignore or try to defend the evils of the Marxist-Leninist or Marxist-Maoist regimes, and even more indefensibly, ignore the “softer” forms of these evils that persist today?

  5. M4 says:

    Let me see, Marty: I distinctly recall St. Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Church, as on the list of “Christian Classics” often found in bookstores … however, as she wrote an autobiography, a meditation (El Castillo Interior, or The Interior Castle), and a work of prayer and devotion (Camino de Perfeccion, or The Way of Perfection), her books might be placed under “Christian Living,” “Biographies,” “Spanish Literature,” or “Catholic Christianity.” It would be distinctly odd for a good bookstore to omit her work, but quite common to see it listed under another heading.

    St. Thérèse of Lisieux, the young Carmelite, Doctor of the Church, author of the autobiography “L’histoire d’une âme,” or “Story of a Soul,” is often found in bookstores. Her devotees include women (e.g., Dorothy Day) and even old white men (e.g., Cardinal Bergoglio [Pope Francis]), and recently published hard-copy books about her number at least a dozen. However, her work and related books might be sold under numerous headings, as above (except that “French lit.” would need to be substituted for Spanish).

    Now, Marty, I’ve found works of many more female theologians in bookstores, including the Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Catherine Mumford Booth (co-founder of the Salvation Army church, but often listed under biography or church history), and Dame Elizabeth Anscombe (often listed under philosophy). It isn’t difficult … and this raises questions about your post: Was your “local” bookstore substandard? Did you not consider multiple subject headings? Did your bookstore take a dim view of Roman Catholic works? Or, perhaps, did you consider the online libraries (The Gutenberg Project is fairly decent, and has free downloads)?

    Then comes another question: Is there much out of the typically “left-liberal” programs of Feminist Studies, or of the Marxist/Socialist groups, that would have sufficiently broad appeal and rigor to merit the moniker of “general theology?” Here, not on the issue of gender, is where we might part ways, Marty. Looking at your list above, I’d identify a number of authors, male and female, with whom I’d either disagree or have significant concerns, not because of gender, but because of their overt classism or class-struggle ideations, socialist or Marxist tendencies, or their tendencies to offer overly prescriptive theological statements on things they manifestly know little about, such as economics, finance, the natural sciences, or technology.

  6. Ray says:

    I’m sure minorities everywhere appreciate knowing you’ve got their best interest at heart. To that point, why don’t you resign your post and give it to a person on color? That would show a true commitment to diversity.

  7. Anna Beatty says:

    A few more theologians for your reading list: Rosemary Radford Ruether, Karen Armstrong, and Cynthia Bourgeault. There is a lot of knowledge of god in the fiction and poetry of Ntozake Shange, Alice Walker, and Toni Morrison.

    • martytroyer says:

      Thanks! Sallie MacFague is on my short list as well.
      I’m not familiar with Bourgeault, got a quick elevator speech summary for me? I’d love to read it.

      • M4 says:

        Episcopal priest and mystic, advocate of Centering Prayer, with a strong emphasis on Gnostic approaches; author of “Love is Stronger Than Death,” I’ll let you develop your own opinion, Marty.

      • Anna Beatty says:

        In “The Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind–a New Perspective on Christ and His Message,” Bourgealt looks beyond the filters imposed both by the Western tradition of Christianity and the way we are wired to make sense of the world to get at who Jesus was and the meaning of his teaching. Our dominant filter is explicitly Roman. “The two chief earmarks of the Roman filter are that it tends to confuse unity with uniformity and puts a high priority on order and authority.” What she calls “the egoic operating system” is binary and perceives through differentiation. She sees the parables and other puzzling teachings as something like Buddhist koans, stories intended to prod us out of these customary ways of knowing and learn to see with “the eye of the heart” which does not differentiate.

  8. Steve says:

    You are surprised?!?!?
    Go to a religious bookstore in:
    1. Arabia: All(most) the texts will be written by “tan” male theologians.
    2. Africa: All(most) the texts will be written by “black” male theologians.
    3. Asia: All(most) the texts will be written by “yellow” male theologians.
    4. South Asia: All(most) the texts will be written by “dark tan” male theologians.
    Etc, etc, etc, etc
    It is not about faith or any faith in particular, it is about religion and religion like anything else in present world culture is dominated by the predominant men in whatever region you happen to find yourself in.

    • martytroyer says:

      While you might well be right in a descriptive manner, I would argue that we should not blindly accept the isness of your observation as necessary or normative.

      I wouldn’t be able to say what you say PREscriptively. There is far too much lost, and far too much that twists reality, in reading only a single story.

    • Matt says:

      2 problems:

      1) I’m a graduate student in the humanities. Whenever I talk to fellow grad students from other parts of the world, I find that their reading overlaps with mine a great deal. They generally have mother-tongue stuff written by locals that accounts for 50%, but the other half tends to be works by–guess who? North Americans or Europeans, probably writing in English or maybe some French or German, and predominantly male. I doubt that this phenomenon is confined to my specific discipline. The “canon” in most of academia, including Biblical Studies and Theology, is white-male-centric. While an African or Asian religious bookstore would doubtless have a lot of local representation, I suspect you’d still find a lot of books and authors that you’d recognize.

      2) Can we stop pretending that North America is a “white zone”? It’s 2013. I live in Canada. 50% of the population of our largest city (Toronto) wasn’t even born in this country. I live in a neighbourhood that is 90% Filipino or Indian. My daughter is half-Chinese, and she deserves a future where she is not dismissed as an aberration.

  9. Sharon says:

    I am a Black woman who graduated from a catholic university and I understand that whole, “white man’s voice as superior” approach to theological literature. To say I find it offensive would be an understatement. For a moment, I thought you and I were on the same page but then you wrote, It was just “theology.” As if white male theology is normative. As if what white males with enough privilege to procure a terminal theological degree have to say closes the dialogue once and for all. My voice is normal, final, universal, applicable across the board, capable of speaking into multiple cultures and contexts. Which of course does wonders for my ego!

    If you do not buy in to the notion of marginalizing minority voices in this arena then why does it stroke your ego? Just wondering.

    • martytroyer says:

      I am passionately committed to dismantling oppressive systems and social stratification wherever I see it.
      I do not in ANY WAY believe that my voice is superior.

      I offered up the short line “Which of course does wonders for my ego” as an attempt to define why, perhaps at least on one level, the lie persists that White male theology= normative.

      In other words, why do some perceive it to be so? Because white males with the power are very interested in retaining the power.

      Also, I believe that internalized racist superiority twists personalities and people and systems. It twists me into thinking I am superior due to my whiteness. At the same time, it may twist the black community into thinking they are INFERIOR.

      Either way, we are ALL caught in the lie of white supremacy.

      Does white supremacy stroke my ego? I brilliant question! One that I believe I need to repent from daily, rather than it being a one time thing. Jay Smooth says we must be healed from our privilege not medically, like the removal of our tonsils when they are inflamed. But rather hygienically, like the need to brush your teeth and floss everyday. I am committed to exorcising the demons of white privilege daily. An alter call moment where I “come to Jesus” may begin the journey, but it certainly won’t complete it.

      I saw a glimpse of that in the christian bookstore. I may just as easily have caught a glimpse of it in the racialized and segregated patterns of Sunday morning worship. But I was attempting, in a lighthearted way, to draw attention to white supremacy and the blindness that many whites have to our privilege.

      If you can walk into a “Christian” bookstore and be guaranteed you will find most of the authors be of your same dominant-culture race: that is white privilege.

      I hope this clarifies.

      THANK YOU for the opportunity to state more clearly what I am saying and feelingin this post.

  10. scott says:

    You know women have had the vote for a hundred years in this country and a similar amount of time in the rest of the western world. Every major sect of christianity excepting catholics and some fundamentalist protestant sects allow female clergy. Publishers publish any book that makes money and many that don’t. And women are very overrepresented in the book editing industry. Yes women have a big big say on what actually gets published. It’s not an old-boy’s club. There’s no discrimination….seriously.

    Maybe the reason that the book sections…almost all book sections…have predominately male authors is that women don’t write as much as men. Maybe there aren’t more female religious leaders is that more women don’t go to seminary and more women in faith communities don’t demand their communitites have female clergy. Could it be that on this issue that burns so deeply in your heart the real problem is that most women don’t see a problem? They simply don’t care about what you care about.

    I play golf and when I play with women they tee off from the women’s tee. I have no problem with that. You see I outweigh and outlift most women on the planet. That’s physicality and it can’t be changed. So we even the playing field to make it fair. Cool.

    But I don’t beleive that women are less inteliigent or have less to say or have less of an ability to succeed at whatever they choose to do in the non-physically determined world. That would be profession, academics, theology, politics, leadership, etc.

    It seems that you are arguing for a women’s tee in the intellecutal and theological arena as well.

    Personally I think your position is patroniing and you yourself sir think that women can’t compete without your male assistance. A group that makes up more than half the eligible voters in the western world and most of the people sitting in the pews need “allies” like you to succeed.

    Could it be that most women may simply have different priorities than you? Maybe in the limited time humans have in the day, most women don’t chose to write thological books or attend seminary?

    You’re young and can’t really see the world yet. When I was in my twenties I thought I could rearrange the world according to my values. The thing about getting older and more mature is that you stop talking and start listening and you may actually find that you have no idea what you are talking about. That other people make decisions based on what they want and value…and that they have that right. You may find out that your radical progressive ideas are nothing new and these bright shiny briliant committed friends that talk and talk about such interesting ideas are simply a bunch of unhappy misfits that are just mad at their parents and what they stood for.

    That’s what your thirties are for-to figure that out. Happens to everyone sure as the sun rises in the east. Happened to me and everyone that I know.

    In your forties you may grow into a darn fine leader if you don’t make too much a fool of yourself in print tilting at windmills. You make actually become a progressive that makes progress on real issues.

    Good luck.

    • martytroyer says:

      I think its important that I respond to this.

      My first thought is that I am not as strong of a believer in capitalism as you are, nor do I trust the invisible hand to do right on issues of justice. The market does NOT, in my estimation, have the power to overcome injustices.

      Further, you were suggesting that this position (really, I was just making an observation, no?) is patronizing to woman. It’s interesting you picked up on the gendered issue, and less so the racial issue at stake here. You are suggesting this position is reverse genderism, akin to reverse racism.

      I would disagree for the same reasons I don’t think reverse racism is true: we’re talking about power. Only those with dominant power can marginalize others. I’m certainly in no way suggesting that woman of any color need me to “tee them up” at a lesser level in order to succeed! Absolutely not!
      I am suggesting that there are reasons why woman do not have as prominent of a voice, and there are reasons why we don’t have as many books by people of color. My observation in the Christian bookstore was offered as a case in point, when white male pastors and theologians only quote other white male pastors and theologians (and when this happens because that is all they’ve been exposed to, have access to, or can buy), that is genderism. That is patriarchy.

      The way to dismantle patriarchy is not to assume that woman can’t compete with men. We dismantle oppressive practices by seeing them clearly and understanding why they are in place. They are there for a reason.

      The idea that we need to intellectually subsidize woman, or people of color, is to me absurd. Certainly not what I was suggesting.
      Though, refusing to see an imbalance, and the stories and privilege at play behind the story, is equally absurd.

      Hope this helps. Marty

      • M4 says:


        This is valuable *as a caution* for the buyer to beware, so to speak. Certainly most of us would doubt that “capitalism” has a magical ability to solve all injustices; each variant of capitalism may also create problems of its own. However, your assertion fails to address three major issues. The first may be inherent in your definitions of injustice, Marty: those who adopt a Marxist or even a “lite-Marxist” approach tend to *define* profit itself as exploitation, and see it as inherently unjust. If you adopt such definitions, then your statement becomes circular in its logic. I’d reject those ideas from the outset. The second issue is that your notion of “capitalism” is too vague and too monolithic, and probably not very much like what many others would have in mind. In my view, anyone rejecting “capitalism” as a monolithic entity is probably as far off base as rejecting “Western medicine” or “science” as monolithic entities. Way too general to be of use, and obviously a red flag for likely problems with the blogger’s understanding of the world.

        The third issue is that you fail to propose a credible alternative to a capital-driven market of some sort or another, with a mixture of different owners of resources, means of production, etc. Centralized control of the means of production and distribution, including Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and other state socialisms, has had such a poor track record economically and politically as to be rejected out of hand as unjust and cruel. It would be fanciful indeed to believe that after such a string of failures, the U.S. is so exceptional that we could make it work if *we* only went “socialist.” The other major alternative, barter economies, may seem appealing to the naive, but in practice they are fraught with inefficiency, shot through with relational favors and petty likes and dislikes, and subject to wide swings caused by changes in local conditions.

      • martytroyer says:

        You continue to have an amazing ability to say a lot when given just a little to work with.

      • M4 says:

        Rev. T., you claimed, “We dismantle oppressive practices by seeing them clearly and understanding why they are in place.”

        Are you seeing things clearly, and do you understand why they are in place?

        Please elaborate.

      • M4 says:

        Marty – Occupational hazard of being an academic is wordiness. However, there are good reasons why I wax eloquent: First, I really dislike cheap, oversimplified slogans. Second, I prefer to give the reader a sense of *why* I said something, not merely assert it without explanation or caveat. Third, my responses usually try to fit one of your comments into the context of your past blogs and assertions. In other words, your past history is important to parsing your current assertions.

        That said, you haven’t actually responded to the issues I raised above. Should I reply that you, Marty, have an amazing ability to evade the call to defend your assumptions?

  11. starchamber says:

    Take a break from theology and read Murray. He will give you the answers to poverty, crime, and racial prejudice. God created all men unequal.

  12. starchamber says:

    “After a quick detour into the Duck Dynasty section of the store for a quick laugh,”
    Is it okay, or even Christian, to make fun of white people that work for a living?
    Did Jesus make fun of anyone? If he did, would he be worth following?

    • martytroyer says:

      No its not ok Jack.
      Please tell me who is making fun of working class white people, and I’ll see if I can address it.

      Happy Happy Happy!

      • starchamber says:

        Does that statement not indicate your feelings of superiority to a bunch of Louisiana redneck millionaires? Since you don’t watch TV, you don’t have a proper knowledge of these good old boys. They will satisfy Jesus on judgment day. Will you?
        Billy Graham

      • martytroyer says:

        Ha! You read between the lines but missed the words on the page.
        When I say I had a “quick laugh” it means that I think the show is funny.

        Don’t you Jack?

    • Jack says:

      Why are you calling starchamber “Jack”

  13. A prof of mine put it wonderfully:

    If somebody just says “Theology” they almost always mean white, male, straight, (magisterial) Protestant, and usually European – especially German – but sometimes American. If anybody else wants to talk about God, you need to use an adjective (Catholic, Anabaptist, black, feminist, womanist, latino/a, etc) as if to indicate that it is less pure or objective.

    • martytroyer says:

      Yep, absolutely the landscape of our theology.
      Do you take your theology hyphenated, or non-hyphenated?

      Hyphenated please, with a double shot of context.

  14. JR says:

    If theological diversity is important to you, then you should leave the bookstore and turn on the many, many cable television religious stations.
    Sometimes it is hard to find your “white male theology”.
    There are many women, and “people of color” as you so nicely label them.
    It is interesting that most of the white males preach on the last days and the need to contribute financially. The women and “people of color” tend to preach on problems of daily living and commitment.
    On the Spanish religious stations, I don’t understand the message, but the music seems to be a large part of the production.

    • martytroyer says:

      I watch very little, if any, TV. And we don’t have cable.

      However, thanks for the tip! You’ve illustrated my point beautifully. Exactly why it is important to listen/learn from other voices besides those that are mainstream/dominant, and those that we are familiar with.

      Thanks JR.