Can't We All Just Get Along? Probably Not.

Before I get into the meat of this post, I feel it necessary to make it known that I did not, nor do I now, support Donald Trump for president (although he is the president elect, and I will "support" him in that I will respect him in his office).  I did not vote for Donald Trump.  My "tribe" stands to lose very much from his election to the office of president (which, much to my chagrin, my tribe doesn't seem to understand).  For instance, I am of the opinion that the election of Donald Trump has effectively ended the debate on the sanctity of marriage.  Conservatives have unknowingly abandoned their argument for marriage being between one man and one woman by throwing their support behind a candidate who does not share a like-minded opinion on the sanctity of marriage.  The same is (somewhat) true for the life argument, although, to be fair, it remains to be seen how the newly elected president actually will deal with life issues.  At the very least, we can say that his commitment to pro-life values is very late in coming, and is not entirely robust.

I could go on and on about my problems with Donald Trump, but I'll leave it there for now.  I hope that you can see that I am not a Trump supporter, and that this reality will give you some context to what I'm going to say next.

In the two days since Trump's election to the presidency, there has been much consternation on the left that has manifested itself in the form of protests, riots, and social media outrage.  Others - both conservatives and liberals - have called for unity and to put our support behind the president-elect, and that this is a time for us to see how we can work together toward a better future for our country.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

Please understand: I don't say this because I don't want it to happen, or because I don't think it should happen.  Indeed, I do want it to and think it should happen.  But the reality is that our society has changed so drastically in the past 10 years, that our collective cultural and social constructs and "enlightened" worldviews won't allow us to make peace with one another.  It's a fascinating (and frightening) time to be alive.  Let me give you just three reasons why I think there will be no peace and unity in our nation for the foreseeable future:

1. Because we now interpret disagreement as hate speech.  Certain issues in our society that used to be matters of opinion in which two disagreeing parties could engage in vigorous debate have been deemed to be the litmus test for bigotry, hatred, racism, etc.  For example, the opinion that illegal aliens should not be allowed in our country is interpreted as having racist motivations.  And nobody wants to reason with a racist, because racism is wrong, right?  Nobody wants to have unity or peace with racists, because racists are filled with hate, right?  In the eyes of some in our country, it would be akin to finding unity with the KKK, which obviously is a type of unity that nobody wants to have.  Another example is opinions about the sanctity of marriage.  Not advocating for gay rights is considered discrimination and bigotry.  Who wants to sit down and work together with a bigot?  No one.  Since one side is convinced that the other is filled with hate-mongers, they have no desire for unity or peace with them.  To do so would be to validate what they see as hatred and bigotry.  As long as people interpret the opinions of others as hatred and bigotry there will be no peace or unity in our country.

2. Because we we buy the narrative perpetuated by the media.  The media loves ratings, and they know that juicy stories are going to garner page views, link clicks, air time, and advertising dollars.  The media doesn't care about the truth so much as the bottom line.  They don't care about what's actually happening, but they're happy to report on fringe stories that are just that: on the fringe, so as to make people angry.  When people are angry, they visit websites and share articles on social media; they watch cable news shows and read magazines.  The media knows this, so they consistently report stories that they know will push people's buttons, and we - people who like to have our buttons pushed - take the bait.  We ingest these fringe stories and we react to them.  The media tells us what is important, and we go along with it like obedient sheep.  As long as we allow the narrative of our society to be perpetuated by the media, there will be no peace or unity in our country.

3. Because social media amplifies the worst about us.  Similar to the way the media spins the narratives in our country, many of us live in the microcosm of social media.  We're never more than a click away from airing our most inflammatory opinions that we haven't thought out, vetted, fact-checked, or even read beyond a headline.  This kind of sharing simply perpetuates the anger and extremism that we all fall into if left unchecked.  Plus, social media is a safe place for us to say inflammatory things - there are no checks and balances.  The worst that can happen is for someone to call us a crazy liberal or conservative.  A very recent and real example is this website that supposedly catalogs instances of racism that have occurred since Donald Trump was elected president two days ago, and allegedly as a result of his election.  Take a look at the examples posted there, and you'll hopefully notice a few things pretty quickly (note: I am not justifying any of the horrible things described on this site): 1) many of these reports are unsubstantiated; they are based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay.  2) considering that reality, it is possible that these alleged instances of racism could be spread by anti-Trump people who want to hurt the image of those who have supported Trump (in other words, they're intentionally causing trouble - something that has been done before the in the recent past).  3) it's also possible (and, in my opinion, likely) that these instances of racism (if substantiated) were perpetrated by fringe minority groups who always have been racist losers and are simply living up to their reputation.  It's unlikely that all of a sudden, once Donald Trump was elected, a vast number of people suddenly began to let their racist strips shine through.  It's more likely that racist losers - who were racist losers long before Donald Trump was even on the political scene - have taken this opportunity to perpetuate their wickedness because they know they'll get the spotlight (see point 2 above).  But people have taken these fringe incidences and have used them as an opportunity to showcase the very worst things about humanity.  And others on social media see them and are (rightly) enraged by them.  But rather than direct their anger toward the fringe minority groups perpetuating evil, they choose to instead direct it at those who merely disagree with them (see point 1 above).  There will not be peace and unity in our country for a long time because social media brings out the worst about us, and we're all too quick to believe it and attribute it to everyone who thinks differently than we do.

We are a long way off from having unity as a country.  We can't even trust one another when we say that we don't hate each other.

The Hate Map

Wow.  That's about all I can say.  I'm almost speechless.  I'm certainly disheartened.

I sat down this evening and saw this article on Yahoo News, about how Chick-Fil-A in fact did not flip-flop on their commitment to financially support pro-marriage organizations.  Earlier this week a Chicago Alderman claimed that Chick-Fil-A had told him that they would no longer support antigay organizations.  This was greatly disheartening to me, as I saw it as a colossal defeat for the freedom of speech.  Needless to say, I was happy to hear that the restaurant company in fact did not make such a statement, and is continuing to support the same organizations it always has. (Which makes me wonder what the alderman was doing - he clearly knew that Chick-Fil-A did not make such a statement committing to not support "antigay" charities.  Was he trying to discredit them in the media?)

Anyway, my speechlessness came not from the news about Chick-Fil-A, but from this line in the article, as it delineated Chick-Fil-A's support of the Family Research Council: "The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the Family Research Council as a 'hate group,' as displayed on the group's 'hate map.'"

"Southern Poverty Law Center?  Hate map?  What are these?" I wondered.  I followed the links and was absolutely flabbergasted by what I saw.  According to their website, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is "a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society."  OK, fine.  But I really wanted to see this "hate map" and know why the Family Research Council was considered a "hate group."

On the left hand side of the site there's a link for the Hate Map.  I followed it and was brought to the map you see below.  The numbers on each state are representative of the amount of those groups the SPLC considers to be hate groups.  Living in Minnesota, I noticed that our state has 12 of those groups.  I clicked on our state to find out who they were.

The site goes on to name each of the "hate groups" in the state, and tell why each group is included on the Hate Map.  The listing is full of several racist and supremacy groups, and fringe religious groups  - groups that are certainly worthy of the label "hate group."  In fact, most of them would probably brag about their hatred for a certain segment of the population, be it white, black, Jewish, etc.

Included with neo-Nazis, white supremacist groups, black supremacist groups, and the like, are "anti-gay" groups as well.  These groups are essentially evangelical Christian organizations.  There are two "anti-gay hate groups" in Minnesota.  One is You Can Run but You Cannot Hide, a ministry that I have financially supported in the past. (I have discontinued my support of this organization mostly for political reasons, not because of theological reasons.  They are also very hard-lined "King James Only" people, which is a view of scripture that I do not support.  I can guarantee, however, that this ministry is not "anti-gay" - at least in the sense that the SPLC declares - nor are they hateful.)

The other Minnesota organization listed as being an "anti-gay hate group" by the SPLC is the Parents Action League, a group of parents in the Anoka-Hennepin school district.  Their website defines their identity as "citizens of Anoka-Hennepin School District 11 who want to ensure that our schools remain focused on core academics and that parental rights are respected and upheld in the school environment."  Yeah, that sounds pretty hateful.

If you click on other states, you'll find groups that the SPLC defines as "generally hateful."  Some of them are churches and Jewish organizations.

What is most concerning to me is that the SPLC associates Christian groups (and non-Christian groups) that support the traditional understanding of marriage with neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups.  To them, there is no distinction between a Christian who is against the legalization of gay marriage and a white supremacist who wants to annihilate a whole race of people.

Really?  I mean, REALLY?  Christians who support the traditional understanding of marriage are on par with white supremacists, black separatists, and neo-Nazis?  REALLY?

This is truly frightening for anyone who names the name of Christ.  I've known that Christians have been labeled as hateful and bigoted over this issue before (I've posted about this before here and here), but this is the first time I've ever seen Christians equated with racist groups.  Take note, Christians: you will be increasingly labeled as hate mongers and compared to neo-Nazis and white supremacists.  You will be ostracized from public positions and your voice in the public square and market place of ideas will be increasingly silenced.  Your right to the free practice of your religion and to speak freely without fear of reproach is being slowly eroded away.  The SPLC is only the tip of the iceberg.  There is more coming.

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."  -Jesus

The Strange Tension of Biblical Social Justice

Social justice is a hot-button issue on Christian university campuses, it seems. In both my experiences at Sioux Falls and Bethel seminaries, it would seem that a deep concern for social justice issues is the trend (and I mean that in the purest sense of the word, unfortunately). In my experience over the last several years, most students' ideas of what social justice is usually translates to liberal politics, or as Phil Johnson puts it (at right):

But a little deeper thought about what social justice looks like in scripture should give us a bit of a different perspective. I've been thinking about this issue for a while, mostly because I am faced with it as the popular trend whenever I go to school. Most of my professors seem to feel that social justice concerns are the primary issue the church is facing right now, and specifically that the church, quite frankly, sucks at it (although I've dispelled this myth here and here). My "deeper thoughts" about this topic have centered around two areas: social justice for the world, and social justice for Christians.

First of all, we can certainly affirm that God values social justice. He does not like oppression or inequality, or poverty, or unfair laws, etc. He values freedom, equality, fairness, and charity. This is observable in scripture in a myriad of ways. In Amos 5 God refuses to receive the sacrifices of his people precisely because the rich were walking on the backs of the poor. There was no fairness, no equality. The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. So because of this, God basically cuts his people off. In Luke 4 Jesus proclaims that he has come to the world to set the captives free, liberate the oppressed, and bring good news to the poor. Even a cursory glimpse of his life and ministry shows how he reached out and ministered to the least of these. John the Baptist instructs those who participated in his baptism (particularly the tax collectors and Roman soldiers) that one of the main behavior modifications that should be present as a result of their repentance is fairness and equity in their dealings with others. To be sure, social justice issues are big deals to God and his people.

Over and above God's valuing of social justice is his command to his people to pursue social justice causes as well. We are to have the same attitude as Jesus, our example, and stand up for the cause of the oppressed and the captive, and those who have been treated unfairly and unjustly. This is where many of my professors and classmates would say the church has dropped the ball (although, again, this is not true). And the typical belief of these folks is that the government needs to pick up where the church left off.

The interesting thing, when it comes to social justice for believers, however, is that it would seem that it is something that we are not supposed to pursue for ourselves. In other words, scripture seems to say that when we are treated unfairly, or are taken advantage of, or are held in inequality, we are not to try to rectify our situation in the same way that we would for those oppressed people of the world. For example, what would Jesus have me do if I, as his follower, were treated unfairly in some way? Would he have me demand fairness for myself? Would he have me stand up for my rights? That's certainly not what Jesus did when he was "oppressed" (to put it lightly). Instead of standing up for his rights, Jesus suffered. He took what was given to him. He didn't fight to be treated fair, or even with justice, and it seems to me that scripture teaches Christians to not demand justice for themselves.

Why not? I think part of the answer is that our satisfaction - our joy - is not found in justice or fairness for ourselves, or our "rights." Rather, our satisfaction and joy are found in God. Therefore, when our rights are trampled on and when we are treated like garbage, and when the wicked flourish while we waste away, we can remain satisfied, knowing that we belong to God.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously says that if a person (presumably one of his followers) is struck on the face, he should offer the other cheek as well. What? You mean he shouldn't confront the guy and say, "What gives you the right to treat me so badly? I'm going to report you to the authorities!" Similarly, Jesus says that if someone demands your robe, you should offer him your tunic as well? "Huh? Why? It's my tunic, for crying out loud! The guy isn't entitled to my robe, let alone my tunic!" Jesus also says that if someone asks you to go with him one mile, go with him two. Jesus said this because there was a Roman law that stated a Roman soldier could legally require anyone to carry his armor for up to one Roman mile. Jesus is saying that instead of demanding your rights be respected, and that the Roman soldier had no right to ask you to take his armor for any distance, instead, submit to him and and suffer. That's pretty radical, and it's part of the counter-cultural-ness of being a follower of Jesus. I would even dare to say that part of being a Christian is sacrificing your rights and gladly putting up with unfairness and inequality.

So there's at least some tension between the kind of justice we are to give others, and the kind we are to demand for ourselves. How do we balance standing up for justice for the oppressed and yet not demand it for ourselves? There's a significant line that needs to be walked that, when crossed, could lead to selfishness and pride. It's also an interesting paradox that fits nicely with Jesus' words about the last being first, and that he who would be great must first be the servant of all. Maybe when it comes to social justice issues, the point is that we put ourselves low by not demanding our rights, while standing up for the rights of others.

I've only just begun thinking about this, so sorry if my thoughts are a bit disjointed and hard to follow! At the least, it's given me something to think about and flesh out further as time goes on.