Three Books, Three inspectional summaries + questions
Dreaming in Black and White
In Dreaming in Black and White, pastor, NFL football chaplain, and author Brett Fuller wants his black and white readers to build bridges to one another. He wants his white readers to understand the history of African Americans in the U.S. with empathy and compassion. He wants to help them know how to pursue the unity they have in Christ with their black brothers and sisters while doing so in genuinely helpful ways that involve repentance and a posture of humility. He wants his black readers to know how to engage with their white brothers and sisters in love, in ways that denounce bitterness, actively forgiving (In his chapter titled “A Letter to Young Black America” Fuller calls his readers to “Be aggressive in learning to forgive.”[1]). He wants those who have been wronged to seek out their offender(s) in love. For the offenders, he wants them to be aware of their possible ignorance without being offended by it so that they can take steps toward racial equity, justice, and reconciliation.
Fuller does all of this with the year 2020 in the background and out of his own experience as an African American in the U.S. He recounts recent years of violence and injustice, with black, unarmed Americans (e.g, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and more) dying at the hands of white police officers (and others). These events contributed to a year (2020) of great tension but also a year with hope and change in view. Fuller wants to give his readers the “conciliatory skills” and tools they need to build bridges that promote justice and racial harmony.
Fuller’s book seems to essentially appeal to the words of Christ in John 17:21: “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (ESV)
One of his key points comes in chapter 5, where he gives his readers a tool that helps start a road toward racial reconciliation. It’s actually a set of two statements and a question: “I feel your pain. I’m sorry. How can I help?”[2] In light of that point/tool, I’d like to ask Fuller, “What stories or examples have you seen, since writing the book, that seem to embody the spirit of this initial step, and what was the result?”
High Ceilings
In High Ceilings: Women in Leadership, Brett Fuller makes an argument from scripture that women should have every opportunity to lead in any leadership role within the church. The only “ceiling” for a woman’s role within the church should be whatever the limits are on the woman’s gifts, capacity, and talents (just as the limits would be for a man). Thus, he makes the case for egalitarian leadership in the church. However, Fuller argues for a complementarian understanding of husband-wife relationships in the context of marriage.
He defines what he sees to be four different “camps” or views regarding the roles of men and women: egalitarian, complementarian, complementary-egalitarian, and suppressionist. Fuller places himself in the complementary-egalitarian camp, and it is from that camp that he makes his case. He writes with a posture of humility, and he admits that he could be wrong (He states in the Introduction that he “could have missed the bullseye.”[3])
A key point in the book (in chapter 2) is when he differentiates authority, function, and gifting of men and women in the home with authority, function, and gifting in the church. He believes scripture places limits on the first (marriage) with no limitations on the latter (church).[4] I would like to ask Fuller how these conversations have gone regarding the role or “office” in the context of his denomination or network of pastors and ministry leaders with whom he connects.
God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It
In God’s Politics, Jim Wallis argues that God is on the side of neither republican nor democrat. Wallis believes that a citizen should be able to vote his/her conscience with integrity, able to process the policies of each party with one’s deeply held values. Wallis aims to paint a way forward for engagement with the political sphere – engagement based on the promotion of values and not on the platform of a select number of social issues (e.g., abortion, poverty, war, etc.). He wants religion to have a seat at the table.
More specifically he believes his readers should be able to examine each political candidate through an extensive list of Christian values. He believes these values should align with the call of Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (ESV)
For Wallis, the value/issue that trumps all others, in terms of focus, is the issue of poverty. This is what the Bible addresses more than other (political) issues, and so it appears this is where he will focus much of his energy in the book.
In the epilogue, Wallis writes that “we are the ones we have been waiting for”[5] when it comes to the leaders we need. Here, he seems to advocate for personal action rather than outsourcing solutions to someone else (like, a political party).
A key area of focus in God’s Politics is spelled out in the introduction. He states that the book is about two questions: “Where is the real debate in the moral values conversation (because there are real differences in America on the values issues)? And where can we find common ground (because there is also much that we share in common, which could be built upon)?”[6] In light of the context of these questions in 2005 compared with our current moment, how would Wallis ask those questions in 2024? Would they be the same questions? What would be different?
[1] Brett Fuller, Dreaming in Black and White, Pennsauken, NJ: BookBaby, 2021, Kindle version, 152 of 172.
[2] Ibid., 142 of 172.
[3] Brett Fuller, High Ceilings: Women in Leadership, Independently published, 2021, Kindle version, 6 of 42.
[4] Fuller writes, “Again, in my opinion, the restrictions on female authority, function, and gifting were most properly applied within the context of marriage.” (Fuller, 17) He then writes, “There will obviously be some women (just as there are some men) who are gifted in some areas but not in others and thereby will be disqualified from some spheres of leadership, but the door closing to that opportunity has nothing to do with their gender.” (Fuller, 17)
[5] Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, New York: Harper Collins, 2005, Kindle version, location 6246 of 6746.
[6] Wallis, location 209 of 6746.
About the Author
Travis Vaughn
4 responses to “Three Books, Three inspectional summaries + questions”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hello! Travis~
I am drawn to your inspectional writings of the three books as you make each one seem very accessible. I am curious how your denomination would respond to Fuller’s work about women in leadership? One reason I ask is I am surprised we are still having this conversation about women in leadership; yet, I know many denominations take a different stand on this.
Also, I like how we both landed on Wallis’ final story that We are who we are waiting for!
Looking forward to seeing you next week!
Hi Travis,
I appreciate your summation here, “He wants those who have been wronged to seek out their offender(s) in love. For the offenders, he wants them to be aware of their possible ignorance without being offended by it so that they can take steps toward racial equity, justice, and reconciliation.” I was humbled by these sentiments. Do you have stories of when you have seen or experienced this done well?
Travis, I also had the same nature of question for Wallis- how would he update his thinking if he were to revisit this work today. I am curious about your observation of his call to emphasize personal action over that of political action. Do you agree? If we were to fully implement this idea, would be in a Libertarian state? I’m just not sure I see how it could look.
Thanks for your helpful summaries of these books; you reminded me of a few things I had missed or forgotten. Your emphasis on values from Wallis’ perspective reminds me of a more recent book, Fearing Bravely by Catherine McNeil. I just ran across a commentary she shared connected to the recent accusations of immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Essentially she talks about how people can start with a good value in mind and still end up suspicious of others, dehumanizing their neighbors and ultimately causing them harm. That might have been a bit circular, but my point is I wonder if voting your values is enough. I wonder if or how Wallis would nuance that idea today.