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.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Take a Knee
So apparently our country can't stop talking about athletes that are taking a knee or protesting in some way during the national anthem at their various sporting events. It all began when Colin Kaepernick sat on the bench during the National Anthem about three weeks ago, as a way to protest alleged police brutality and racial injustice. After a social media firestorm, more players took part by going to one knee during the Anthem. A further social media firestorm erupted, as backers and detractors began to comment and create memes (I hate memes) either supporting or decrying what some athletes have begun to do on what appears to be a regular basis (some say they plan to go to one knee during the Anthem for the rest of their seasons) before their games during the National Anthem.
My time and attention given to social and political issues on this blog has waned in recent years, and I actually hope to keep it that way for the most part. But there have been a few thoughts swimming around in my head as I hear about more and more athletes kneeling during the National Anthem, so I'm going to write them down here.
1. First and foremost, this protest is mostly based on lies. Of his protest, Kaepernick has said, "I'm not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." How noble of Mr. Kaepernick. The only problem is that there is no evidence that backs up anything he says. He says that this country "oppresses black people and people of color." All evidence points to the contrary (including Kaepernick himself, who has aspired and risen to the position of a very wealthy professional footballer). Furthermore, he says that "There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." Again, there is no evidence that this statement is true. In fact, many who have been accused of such things have been exonerated, much to the chagrin of people like Kaepernick. At the very least, it has yet to be proven that any police officer involved in recent shootings committed murder, so at best Kaepernick and others have significantly jumped the gun. I realize that facts don't matter to most people nowadays, but they still matter to me. And if Kaepernick and his ilk have integrity at all, they should consider the facts of what they're actually taking a stand for. In fact, to accuse people of serious crimes with no proof - and to slander them for the same - is, in itself, a serious injustice. Colin, you're taking a stand for a lie, and fracturing the very justice that you claim to love and uphold.
2. Many have rightly pointed out that our brave men in uniform who died in service to their country, and who are particularly honored by a rendering of the National Anthem, did so to preserve freedoms such as the freedom to protest by taking a knee during the National Anthem. I agree entirely. I am so very grateful for the freedom to take a knee during the National Anthem in protest. However, those same men also died to preserve my freedom to regard you as an ignorant fool for partaking in such a protest. Yes, you have the right to protest, and I likewise have the right to call you out on your foolishness. The knife cuts both ways.
3. The protests started with Colin Kaepernick sitting on the bench while his teammates stood. It has since morphed into taking a knee on the sidelines in and amongst other standing teammates. The purpose of this evolution has been to "show that they still had respect for the anthem and military, while still bringing awareness to racial inequality and police brutality." More likely, this change was brought about by the natural (and appropriate) backlash that occurred from such a show of disrespect, so the protesting athletes had to capitulate to some more tolerable form of protest. I find this ironic: A protest occurred and it was met with a negative backlash, so the protesters changed their protest to something that was more culturally palatable (albeit, barely). Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of the protest? Isn't the protest supposed to make people uncomfortable? Mission accomplished. So why change it? I understand that it was to still show respect to the flag and military, but I don't buy that. If you're going to protest, protest. Don't let "The Man" tell you how to protest, or else it ceases to be the protest you intended. Be a man and sit on the bench. Don't take a knee. Take responsibility for your actions. If you're going to make a statement, make it.
My time and attention given to social and political issues on this blog has waned in recent years, and I actually hope to keep it that way for the most part. But there have been a few thoughts swimming around in my head as I hear about more and more athletes kneeling during the National Anthem, so I'm going to write them down here.
1. First and foremost, this protest is mostly based on lies. Of his protest, Kaepernick has said, "I'm not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." How noble of Mr. Kaepernick. The only problem is that there is no evidence that backs up anything he says. He says that this country "oppresses black people and people of color." All evidence points to the contrary (including Kaepernick himself, who has aspired and risen to the position of a very wealthy professional footballer). Furthermore, he says that "There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." Again, there is no evidence that this statement is true. In fact, many who have been accused of such things have been exonerated, much to the chagrin of people like Kaepernick. At the very least, it has yet to be proven that any police officer involved in recent shootings committed murder, so at best Kaepernick and others have significantly jumped the gun. I realize that facts don't matter to most people nowadays, but they still matter to me. And if Kaepernick and his ilk have integrity at all, they should consider the facts of what they're actually taking a stand for. In fact, to accuse people of serious crimes with no proof - and to slander them for the same - is, in itself, a serious injustice. Colin, you're taking a stand for a lie, and fracturing the very justice that you claim to love and uphold.
2. Many have rightly pointed out that our brave men in uniform who died in service to their country, and who are particularly honored by a rendering of the National Anthem, did so to preserve freedoms such as the freedom to protest by taking a knee during the National Anthem. I agree entirely. I am so very grateful for the freedom to take a knee during the National Anthem in protest. However, those same men also died to preserve my freedom to regard you as an ignorant fool for partaking in such a protest. Yes, you have the right to protest, and I likewise have the right to call you out on your foolishness. The knife cuts both ways.
3. The protests started with Colin Kaepernick sitting on the bench while his teammates stood. It has since morphed into taking a knee on the sidelines in and amongst other standing teammates. The purpose of this evolution has been to "show that they still had respect for the anthem and military, while still bringing awareness to racial inequality and police brutality." More likely, this change was brought about by the natural (and appropriate) backlash that occurred from such a show of disrespect, so the protesting athletes had to capitulate to some more tolerable form of protest. I find this ironic: A protest occurred and it was met with a negative backlash, so the protesters changed their protest to something that was more culturally palatable (albeit, barely). Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of the protest? Isn't the protest supposed to make people uncomfortable? Mission accomplished. So why change it? I understand that it was to still show respect to the flag and military, but I don't buy that. If you're going to protest, protest. Don't let "The Man" tell you how to protest, or else it ceases to be the protest you intended. Be a man and sit on the bench. Don't take a knee. Take responsibility for your actions. If you're going to make a statement, make it.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
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
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.
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
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Black History Month
Every week I receive an email from Relevant Magazine. I'm a subscriber to the bi-monthly publication, so I guess that entitles me to a weekly email. The emails usually contain content from the magazine, as well as some other stuff. Most of it gets my blood boiling a bit, and I've posted about some of these instances here and here. It's a mostly liberal publication (politically and theologically speaking), and really the only reason I stay subscribed to the magazine is so that I can stay up to date on Christian pop culture (whatever that is). Or, I guess you could say that I'm trying to stay "relevant" (although that is very low on my list of concerns in life).
Anyway, the most recent weekly email from Relevant Magazine featured this article from Dr. Tony Evans on a Christian perspective on black history month, which is this month. The article is entitled, "Why Black History Month Matters." The author notes a common question asked by many, even in evangelical circles: "Do we really need a black history month?"
Dr. Evans' article had what I thought were some really great points about black history month, diversity, and unity. But before I go any further, I must confess that I was heretofore totally unacquainted with Dr. Evans, his writing, or his ministry. And not being familiar with the man or his beliefs, I wasn't about to fully align myself with him or endorse his beliefs. A quick Google search revealed that his radio ministry is broadcast on over 400 radio stations across the country. I was encouraged by a look at his website, which advocated church (rather than government) involvement in social issues and holding the word of God as central for providing lasting impact in people's lives. Other than that, I don't know much about the man. So take my endorsements of some of his views presented in this article with a significantly sized grain of salt.
Regarding black history month, Evans says:
God does His best work in the midst of unity. In fact, so essential is the issue of oneness in the church that we are told to be on guard against those who try to destroy it. (Romans 16:17). God has intentionally reconciled racially divided groups into one new man, (Ephesians 2:14-15) uniting them into a new body, (Ephesians 2:16) in order that the church can function as one (Ephesians 2:13). When the church functions as one, we boldly brag on God to a world in desperate need of experiencing Him.
But how do we as a Church function as one? We don’t. He does—both in us and through us.
When we got saved, we were baptized into the body of Christ. No matter what our race, gender, or class is, when each of us came to faith in Jesus, we entered into a new family. We didn’t create God’s family. We became a part of it.
That is so important to realize because far too often we are trying to force unity when authentic unity cannot be mandated or manufactured. Instead, God says we are to “preserve the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3). The Holy Spirit has created our unity. It is our job to preserve it.
The reason why we haven’t solved the racial divide in America after hundreds of years is because people apart from God are trying to invent unity, while people who belong to God are not living out the unity that we already possess. The result of both of these situations has been, and will continue to be, disastrous for our nation. Let alone disastrous for the witness of Christ to our nation.
I think there are several good points in these paragraphs. Allow me a chance to tell you what I think they are:
1) All true unity is made possible only through Christ. Any other kind of unity is totally manufactured by the world and will not stand. People are so different that the only way they can truly come together is by supernatural means. This leads to the second point:
2) The diversity and unity of the church is evidence of its divine nature, and this is a strong witness to the world. As Evans says, "When the church functions as one, we boldly brag on God to a world in desperate need of experiencing Him." Think about it for a minute: can you think of any other organization of people that is as diverse as the church but finds unity in itself despite individual differences? I can't. I don't think there is one. The reason this is possible is the commonality of Christ in all believers. The church should be so unified in and through Christ (in the face of individual differences) that the world has to stop and take notice.
3) The unity of the body is God's doing. We don't create unity, God does, because it was he who called us to be a part of his family. Anything else would be manufactured unity. This is what, in my opinion (maybe Evans would disagree with me on this), the world is trying to do with black history month: manufacture unity. It's just not going to happen - not without Christ at the center, and also because human beings are sinful and fallen and have the propensity to be prejudiced against any and everyone. It's also important for Christians to realize this, and not to try and manufacture unity based on the world's system, but instead upon Christ.
4) The church often falls into the trap of trying to manufacture unity by way of worldly means. The body of Christ is not politically correct. Nor does it operate by policies akin to affirmative action. It is neither of these things because the unifying focal point of the church is other-worldly. Unfortunately however, the church sometimes tends to take a man-centered approach to unity and forgets the trans-cultural/ethnic/socio-political nature of the body of Christ.
While I think these are great points, and I would readily affirm them, I part with Evans midway through his article, however. Evans defines "unity" as "oneness of purpose," and says that unity is achieved when different people work toward the same goal(s), and he sees community service and social action as the focal point for achieving unity in the body of Christ. In other words, if the church wants to be unified, it needs to work together through its individual differences to serve the world. To me, that seems to be putting the cart before the horse, and seems to be a type of the "manufactured unity" that Evans warns of. The basic problem that I have with it is that it does not keep Christ as the focus, but rather serving others. Don't get me wrong: I certainly have no qualms about serving others and social action within our communities. But serving the community with people of other ethnicities, classes, religions, or whatever will not produce biblical unity. Only Christ will. Serving the world together is a product of our oneness in Christ, not vice versa. In other words, Christ enables very different people to come together for the sake of the world. Christians do not come together to serve the world for the sake of being united in Christ. There's a huge difference there.
Evans goes on to talk about how, in order to best appreciate the unity we have in Christ, and in order to most efficiently work together for the kingdom of God, we have to know both ourselves and each other. I would offer a hearty "Amen" to this as well, and I would also add that it is the most efficient way for us to love one another as well, and also the best way of guarding unity that the Bible talks about. Evans sees black history month as an ideal way for these realizations to take place. I disagree. In my estimation, the best way for Christians of all ethnic/cultural/socio-political backgrounds is to live with one another and build relationships with each other. Certainly the "black experience" isn't bound up in black history month, nor is the "white experience" bound up in history books. It's personal. It's individual. I think the best way for Christians to move towards unity in Christ while at the same time knowing and understanding our ourselves and others is to simply live with each other and open up some dialogues with our fellow believers. To this end, black or white isn't even the issue. While I may be the same ethnicity as a lot of people in my church, I can guarantee you that we see and experience the world in vastly unique ways, which creates differences, which creates the potential for disunity. But that potential can and is overcome in and through Christ. Yes, it's going to take some humility, some honesty, and maybe even some discomfort, but the progress towards unity in the body will be well worth the effort. Then we can come together in Christ to be a witness to the world.
I don't want to celebrate black history because it's what the world says I should do, or because it's what the world says is acceptable or politically correct. I want to be united because it is Christ who has brought together sinners from every race, culture, and creed on the planet through repentance and faith for the forgiveness of sins - a message that transcends any and every worldly dividing line. To think about unity in any way that does not include Christ is, as Evans says, an attempt to invent unity where none is actually possible.
Perhaps Evans's article was doomed from the start, because any kind of comparison between the world's idea of unity (like designating a particular month of the year to focus on the history of a specific ethnicity) to that of the unity of the church through Christ is a comparison of apples to oranges, if ever there was one.
Anyway, the most recent weekly email from Relevant Magazine featured this article from Dr. Tony Evans on a Christian perspective on black history month, which is this month. The article is entitled, "Why Black History Month Matters." The author notes a common question asked by many, even in evangelical circles: "Do we really need a black history month?"
Dr. Evans' article had what I thought were some really great points about black history month, diversity, and unity. But before I go any further, I must confess that I was heretofore totally unacquainted with Dr. Evans, his writing, or his ministry. And not being familiar with the man or his beliefs, I wasn't about to fully align myself with him or endorse his beliefs. A quick Google search revealed that his radio ministry is broadcast on over 400 radio stations across the country. I was encouraged by a look at his website, which advocated church (rather than government) involvement in social issues and holding the word of God as central for providing lasting impact in people's lives. Other than that, I don't know much about the man. So take my endorsements of some of his views presented in this article with a significantly sized grain of salt.
Regarding black history month, Evans says:
God does His best work in the midst of unity. In fact, so essential is the issue of oneness in the church that we are told to be on guard against those who try to destroy it. (Romans 16:17). God has intentionally reconciled racially divided groups into one new man, (Ephesians 2:14-15) uniting them into a new body, (Ephesians 2:16) in order that the church can function as one (Ephesians 2:13). When the church functions as one, we boldly brag on God to a world in desperate need of experiencing Him.
But how do we as a Church function as one? We don’t. He does—both in us and through us.
When we got saved, we were baptized into the body of Christ. No matter what our race, gender, or class is, when each of us came to faith in Jesus, we entered into a new family. We didn’t create God’s family. We became a part of it.
That is so important to realize because far too often we are trying to force unity when authentic unity cannot be mandated or manufactured. Instead, God says we are to “preserve the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3). The Holy Spirit has created our unity. It is our job to preserve it.
The reason why we haven’t solved the racial divide in America after hundreds of years is because people apart from God are trying to invent unity, while people who belong to God are not living out the unity that we already possess. The result of both of these situations has been, and will continue to be, disastrous for our nation. Let alone disastrous for the witness of Christ to our nation.
I think there are several good points in these paragraphs. Allow me a chance to tell you what I think they are:
1) All true unity is made possible only through Christ. Any other kind of unity is totally manufactured by the world and will not stand. People are so different that the only way they can truly come together is by supernatural means. This leads to the second point:
2) The diversity and unity of the church is evidence of its divine nature, and this is a strong witness to the world. As Evans says, "When the church functions as one, we boldly brag on God to a world in desperate need of experiencing Him." Think about it for a minute: can you think of any other organization of people that is as diverse as the church but finds unity in itself despite individual differences? I can't. I don't think there is one. The reason this is possible is the commonality of Christ in all believers. The church should be so unified in and through Christ (in the face of individual differences) that the world has to stop and take notice.
3) The unity of the body is God's doing. We don't create unity, God does, because it was he who called us to be a part of his family. Anything else would be manufactured unity. This is what, in my opinion (maybe Evans would disagree with me on this), the world is trying to do with black history month: manufacture unity. It's just not going to happen - not without Christ at the center, and also because human beings are sinful and fallen and have the propensity to be prejudiced against any and everyone. It's also important for Christians to realize this, and not to try and manufacture unity based on the world's system, but instead upon Christ.
4) The church often falls into the trap of trying to manufacture unity by way of worldly means. The body of Christ is not politically correct. Nor does it operate by policies akin to affirmative action. It is neither of these things because the unifying focal point of the church is other-worldly. Unfortunately however, the church sometimes tends to take a man-centered approach to unity and forgets the trans-cultural/ethnic/socio-political nature of the body of Christ.
While I think these are great points, and I would readily affirm them, I part with Evans midway through his article, however. Evans defines "unity" as "oneness of purpose," and says that unity is achieved when different people work toward the same goal(s), and he sees community service and social action as the focal point for achieving unity in the body of Christ. In other words, if the church wants to be unified, it needs to work together through its individual differences to serve the world. To me, that seems to be putting the cart before the horse, and seems to be a type of the "manufactured unity" that Evans warns of. The basic problem that I have with it is that it does not keep Christ as the focus, but rather serving others. Don't get me wrong: I certainly have no qualms about serving others and social action within our communities. But serving the community with people of other ethnicities, classes, religions, or whatever will not produce biblical unity. Only Christ will. Serving the world together is a product of our oneness in Christ, not vice versa. In other words, Christ enables very different people to come together for the sake of the world. Christians do not come together to serve the world for the sake of being united in Christ. There's a huge difference there.
Evans goes on to talk about how, in order to best appreciate the unity we have in Christ, and in order to most efficiently work together for the kingdom of God, we have to know both ourselves and each other. I would offer a hearty "Amen" to this as well, and I would also add that it is the most efficient way for us to love one another as well, and also the best way of guarding unity that the Bible talks about. Evans sees black history month as an ideal way for these realizations to take place. I disagree. In my estimation, the best way for Christians of all ethnic/cultural/socio-political backgrounds is to live with one another and build relationships with each other. Certainly the "black experience" isn't bound up in black history month, nor is the "white experience" bound up in history books. It's personal. It's individual. I think the best way for Christians to move towards unity in Christ while at the same time knowing and understanding our ourselves and others is to simply live with each other and open up some dialogues with our fellow believers. To this end, black or white isn't even the issue. While I may be the same ethnicity as a lot of people in my church, I can guarantee you that we see and experience the world in vastly unique ways, which creates differences, which creates the potential for disunity. But that potential can and is overcome in and through Christ. Yes, it's going to take some humility, some honesty, and maybe even some discomfort, but the progress towards unity in the body will be well worth the effort. Then we can come together in Christ to be a witness to the world.
I don't want to celebrate black history because it's what the world says I should do, or because it's what the world says is acceptable or politically correct. I want to be united because it is Christ who has brought together sinners from every race, culture, and creed on the planet through repentance and faith for the forgiveness of sins - a message that transcends any and every worldly dividing line. To think about unity in any way that does not include Christ is, as Evans says, an attempt to invent unity where none is actually possible.
Perhaps Evans's article was doomed from the start, because any kind of comparison between the world's idea of unity (like designating a particular month of the year to focus on the history of a specific ethnicity) to that of the unity of the church through Christ is a comparison of apples to oranges, if ever there was one.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Am I A Racist?
I'm a bit confused. I think I might be a racist.
On my way home tonight, I was listening to AM 1500's election night coverage, hosted by Dave Thompson, a staunch conservative, and A.L. Brown, a raving liberal. Given the pairing, I suppose it was balanced coverage.
During my ride home, I heard that things weren't looking good for McCain, and listened to the results of the Minnesota senate and house races. As things began to look better and better for Obama, A.L Brown piped up for a couple minutes and said something to the effect of (almost in tears, by the way): "I am so proud of this country and its people, because in this election it has shown that it has finally gotten over the racial divide, and now we have proven that anyone can do anything. We have shown that anyone can become president - black or white," or something to that effect. His main point was the fact that Obama was steadily being elected our next president was a sign of how race relations in this country were finally getting better. When A.L. finished his diatribe, Dave Thompson - who is usually not at a loss for words - seemed to not know what to say. I think I know why he had that problem, because I had it as well.
When I got home and turned on the TV, I heard the same message from NBC (by this time, Obama had been declared the winner): "we are finally a country that will elect a black man," again, not their exact words, but that was definitely the message. And this message was repeated over and over again, by pundit after pundit: "We have finally come to a place in our history where we can look past our differences and elect a black president." Statistics were given to support this idea, such as: "45% of white men voted for Obama - see how far we've come?"
This puts me in an odd position, because I voted against Obama. I don't want him to be president. I don't want him to lead our country. I fear the direction that our country will take under his leadership. By A.L Brown's reasoning, and also by the reasoning of those at NBC, I have not progressed, I have not come to a place where I am comfortable with a black president, I have apparently not overcome the racial divide in this country, because I voted for McCain. The message put forth by Brown and NBC is that a vote for Obama means that you are a progressive, diversity-loving, tolerant, person. A vote for McCain means that you are not ready for a black president, and your vote against him is a sign of your prejudice and unwillingness to conform to racial equality. Or in other words, if you didn't vote for Obama, you're a racist. Since when did electing a black man become the litmus test for racial tolerance in this country? You'd think it would be defined by our unity and willingness to live together as Americans in every day, normal situations.
As I have been thinking about this for the past couple hours, I am becoming angry. How dare they imply that I am not ready or willing to elect a black man (this is the implication that is made, whether your like it or not)? How dare they imply that my vote for McCain means I let skin color influence me? I've never been one to demand apologies, but I might start now. This line of thinking is very offensive. It paints me and every other person in this country that didn't vote for Obama as racists. Obama's skin color didn't sway my vote - I didn't vote for Obama because he's a pro-death (abortion) socialist. If it were Joe Biden on the top of the ticket instead of Obama I'd vote against him too, because he likewise is a pro-death socialist. One's white, one's black. They both think the same way, and I couldn't be more on the polar opposite of what they have to offer. And if I did vote for Obama, I would feel extremely patronized - as if voters need a pat on the back from the likes of A.L Brown and NBC for doing the right thing and electing a black man. What a joke.
This whole sentiment is not new - it has been going on throughout the whole campaign. There's been plenty of people who have implied that if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist, and you're just not voting for him because he's black. Nothing could be further from the truth. See the above paragraph.
So according to the media and A.L. Brown, I'm a racist. I beg to differ.
On my way home tonight, I was listening to AM 1500's election night coverage, hosted by Dave Thompson, a staunch conservative, and A.L. Brown, a raving liberal. Given the pairing, I suppose it was balanced coverage.
During my ride home, I heard that things weren't looking good for McCain, and listened to the results of the Minnesota senate and house races. As things began to look better and better for Obama, A.L Brown piped up for a couple minutes and said something to the effect of (almost in tears, by the way): "I am so proud of this country and its people, because in this election it has shown that it has finally gotten over the racial divide, and now we have proven that anyone can do anything. We have shown that anyone can become president - black or white," or something to that effect. His main point was the fact that Obama was steadily being elected our next president was a sign of how race relations in this country were finally getting better. When A.L. finished his diatribe, Dave Thompson - who is usually not at a loss for words - seemed to not know what to say. I think I know why he had that problem, because I had it as well.
When I got home and turned on the TV, I heard the same message from NBC (by this time, Obama had been declared the winner): "we are finally a country that will elect a black man," again, not their exact words, but that was definitely the message. And this message was repeated over and over again, by pundit after pundit: "We have finally come to a place in our history where we can look past our differences and elect a black president." Statistics were given to support this idea, such as: "45% of white men voted for Obama - see how far we've come?"
This puts me in an odd position, because I voted against Obama. I don't want him to be president. I don't want him to lead our country. I fear the direction that our country will take under his leadership. By A.L Brown's reasoning, and also by the reasoning of those at NBC, I have not progressed, I have not come to a place where I am comfortable with a black president, I have apparently not overcome the racial divide in this country, because I voted for McCain. The message put forth by Brown and NBC is that a vote for Obama means that you are a progressive, diversity-loving, tolerant, person. A vote for McCain means that you are not ready for a black president, and your vote against him is a sign of your prejudice and unwillingness to conform to racial equality. Or in other words, if you didn't vote for Obama, you're a racist. Since when did electing a black man become the litmus test for racial tolerance in this country? You'd think it would be defined by our unity and willingness to live together as Americans in every day, normal situations.
As I have been thinking about this for the past couple hours, I am becoming angry. How dare they imply that I am not ready or willing to elect a black man (this is the implication that is made, whether your like it or not)? How dare they imply that my vote for McCain means I let skin color influence me? I've never been one to demand apologies, but I might start now. This line of thinking is very offensive. It paints me and every other person in this country that didn't vote for Obama as racists. Obama's skin color didn't sway my vote - I didn't vote for Obama because he's a pro-death (abortion) socialist. If it were Joe Biden on the top of the ticket instead of Obama I'd vote against him too, because he likewise is a pro-death socialist. One's white, one's black. They both think the same way, and I couldn't be more on the polar opposite of what they have to offer. And if I did vote for Obama, I would feel extremely patronized - as if voters need a pat on the back from the likes of A.L Brown and NBC for doing the right thing and electing a black man. What a joke.
This whole sentiment is not new - it has been going on throughout the whole campaign. There's been plenty of people who have implied that if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist, and you're just not voting for him because he's black. Nothing could be further from the truth. See the above paragraph.
So according to the media and A.L. Brown, I'm a racist. I beg to differ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)