Black Lives Matter Isn’t Pro-Life, Period

unborn-lives-matter-640x480

Recently at The Federalist, an article appeared in which the author sincerely argued that two popular social movements – Black Lives Matter (BLM) and anti-abortion advocates – pursue a common goal: the respect and preservation life.

Christina Marie Bennett- a writer and pro-lifer who works with pregnant women in crisis environments for the benefit of both mother and child- is challenging the way pro-life advocates have responded, and should respond, to claims of police brutality, the growing frustrations in the black community and Black Lives Matter.

Specifically, Bennett laments the continued dismissal of Black Lives Matter activists and others by pro-lifers who cite black abortion rates when the issue of police brutality is raised. Bennett sees this practice as a kind of pro-life, one-upmanship that minimizes the tragedy of lives “lost through violence.”

For example, Bennett claims the “knee-jerk” response of, “If black lives matter, then why are your abortion rates so high?” deflects from the issue BLM supports. She says the response insinuates that black people don’t care about unborn black lives as much as adult black lives, which calls into question black concerns regarding what lives are more valuable. I’ll return to this point.

Rather than pitting one cause against another, Bennett believes that neither movement should be used to undermine the other because in their respective ways, both movements are trying to safeguard human flourishing. For Bennett both movements are solidly pro-life.

To be fair, Bennett isn’t fully onboard with the Black Lives Matter agenda. She disagrees with the movement on several issues, including its support of killing the pre-born black children. Honorably, she admits to the difficulty of trying to empathize “with a movement that advocates for something I disagree with.” But for her, the resolution comes when she sees, “the movement for what it is,” which is, “a broad group of people with varying levels of involvement, all trying to raise awareness and fight the specific issue of police brutality.”

This exercise in nuance permits her, as a pro-lifer, to winnow away the ongoing negativity that overshadows BLM’s agenda, freeing her to sustain solidarity with the movement’s pursuit of justice- a model she believes that all pro-lifers should follow.

Though I disagree, I am sympathetic to the author’s intention- dispelling the either/or nature of supporting BLM or being pro-life. However I think some of the negativity she wants to minimize in favor of legitimizing BLM, while maintaining fidelity to being pro-life from the womb to the tomb (that part I agree) misses a few essential points.

To begin, the phrase “black lives matter” is incongruent with the movement’s agenda. Black Lives Matter as an ideological movement is primarily concerned with police brutality against blacks. It should therefore change its name to Black Americans Against Police Brutality or something similar to reflect this goal rather than a name that suggests an all-encompassing concern for confronting problems that decrease the quality of black lives.

Black Lives Matter is also a Marxist/socialist movement funded by an admitted cultural destabilizer George Soros, and other leftist organizations, which also calls the movement’s credibility into question.

Also, being pro-life as it relates to the pre-born is an exercise in proactivity. Life can’t be defended from police brutality if it’s prevented from being born. There’s a reason why people say that the most dangerous place for a black child is in its mother’s womb, and that painful admission is found in Bennett’s reflection on the more than 16 million black children killed by abortion since it was made a “right” in 1973. Increasing the black birth rate by decreasing abortion is an intrinsic good.

BLM on the other hand, to the point that it’s pro-life at all, is deliberately reactive, not to mention, misguided.

Aside from supporting black abortion, its focus isn’t on the broken families and the chaotic home and neighborhood environments that create, nurture and contribute to the predictability of blacks being in police confrontations that go south. BLM’s focus is on “systemic racism” that fosters “police brutality,” which is always initially or reflexively cited and deprived of facts to support such accusations. When facts in respective cases are released, invalidating BLM’s racial narrative, it ignores them- up to and including the responsibility and contribution of the deceased to his/her death.

In other words, BLM’s definition of pro-life isn’t discouraging blacks from self-destructive behavior that increases the predictability of encountering police. Rather, they define pro-life as law enforcement officers refusing to use force against any black person/suspect at any time, despite elevated levels of danger- including potential threats to personal or public safety. That’s racial solidarity, being pro-black, not necessarily pro-life. 

Again, Bennett argues that abortion rates and police brutality both deserve attention and shouldn’t be used against each other. I partially agree, but there are very clear reasons why they are.

One reason people, regardless of color, persist in highlighting the issue of black abortion percentages is that members and supporters of Black Lives Matter intentionally avoid discussing black abortion rates. This moral sidestep by BLM, over and over, proves to increasing numbers of people that BLM isn’t concerned with preserving and redeeming black lives in any meaningful way.

To the point, black abortion is specifically raised to gauge black integrity when it comes to the conservation of black lives.

It’s also mentioned because of the selectivity of the moral indignation that inevitably accompanies charges of “police brutality” against blacks, but is nonexistent when black abortion percentages are raised. Bennett confesses abortion destroys black children- more in any given year than all black deaths by law enforcement officers combined.

Blacks are only 13% percent of the population. Black women of childbearing age- not incarcerated and suffering from physical/mental abilities that prevents pregnancy in any given year are only 3-4% of the population. Yet, according to the CDC, these women were responsible for close to 36% of all abortions between 2007 and 2010. Though this demonic act is specifically targeted to black and Hispanic women by white leftists, no one forces these women to kill their black preborn children, all of whom are unarmed. Morally wayward black men and sexually irresponsible back women are complicit in this genocide. And all of this is done under the euphemisms of “choice” “rights” and “reproductive justice.”

The same CDC report said blacks accounted for almost 54% (16,738) of all abortions performed in Georgia (31,244 total), even though blacks are less than a third of the population. In Mississippi, between 1995 and 2010, blacks accounted for almost 72% (39,052) of all abortions while comprising 37% of the population.

In a 2012, report from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more black babies were killed by abortion (31,328) than were born (24,758) in New York City, totaling over 42% of all abortions performed. In 2010, 60% of all viable, black pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion

According to another pro-life organization, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. The report re-emphasizes that 37 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on black women. Yet, as day follows night, there’s no outrage.

Contrast that to the data that tracks police-involved fatalities from the Washington Post.

According to the Washington Post’s data- based on news reports, public records, social media and other sources, as of 9:45 am Friday morning (10/21/2016), 772 people have been shot and killed by police this year (2016).

Of the 772 killed by police so far, 363 of them have been white, 188 have been black. This unofficial statistic here directly refutes, again, any and all claims that the police are hunting, targeting or killing blacks indiscriminately. Almost twice as many whites have been shot and killed by police than have blacks.

Of the 188 blacks killed, only 16 were unarmed when shot.

Now, of the sixteen unarmed blacks who were shot and killed by police, all but three either resisted arrest, refused orders of compliance and submission, attempted to flee or attacked an officer.

Three!

Now we can all agree- life lost under these circumstances is unfortunate. But in reality, this sort of racial exaggeration- the false cries of ‘systemic racism’, ‘racial injustice’ and cops being ‘racist agents of the state’ by BLM and other racial justice warriors and activists over the killing of three unarmed blacks, is dishonest and disproportionate to say the least.

So, 870 black babies are killed, daily, while only three unarmed blacks (who didn’t resist arrest) have been killed by police this year as of this writing, is why this issue is raised. Black Lives Matter claims to be against lethal force against unarmed blacks. What exactly is abortion if it’s not precisely that- lethal force used against an unarmed, defenseless black life?

The reality is that people correlate the level of black outrage to matters of black importance. Based upon that metric, the general public is convinced that blacks care more about blacks killed by (white) police officers than those killed in abortion clinics. Further, it’ been argued that blacks are apathetic regarding black children based on the proficiency at which they kill their unborn children.

Moreover, the raising of this issue has to do with moral priorities. There’s a moral distinction between those killed by abortion and those killed by police officers. Pre-born black children murdered by abortion are innocent; the overwhelming majority of blacks killed by police aren’t. (This isn’t to say that blacks that have been killed by cops deserved to die.) Innocent black children killed by abortion should, by definition, take priority over criminals, felons, and others who contributed to their deaths via the police by resisting arrest, attacking cops or attempting to flee.

Again, I understand the necessity and obligation of being pro-life from birth until death, but BLM isn’t the vehicle to appropriate or sympathize with in pursuit of this noble objective.

The value of black life should be protected from the very beginning; as stated, BLM is against that.

Black children deserve a stable family environment that includes a mother and father, not a 70%-plus illegitimacy rate- born in tumultuous homes of a single mothers and half-siblings from multi-sexual partnered relationships. President Barack Obama said that, “children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves.” Being pro-life means undoing this social dysfunction, which reduces run-ins with the police, which reduces the chances of experiencing police brutality and death.

Black Lives Matter says nothing about that.

Being pro-life means black children deserve quality education, which charter schools deliver, rather than inferior schooling because they’re black, poor, or both. BLM (and the NAACP) is adamantly against charter schools for black children, in favor of the status quo that has deliberately undereducated and underserved black children for generations.

The anti-charter school stance of BLM (and the NAACP) has put these so-called civil rights groups at odds with the majority of blacks. A recent study demonstrated that 82 percent of black parents with school-aged children enthusiastically support charter schools.

Black students comprise 27 percent of enrollment in charter schools, compared to 16 percent of black enrollment in traditional public schools.

Black Lives Matter can say what it will about the dignity and worth of black lives, but unless and until members and supporters of the movement start demonstrating that the totality of black lives matter to blacks first, black lives won’t matter to anyone else.

Being pro-life is commendable. Legitimizing Black Lives Matter isn’t.

Advertisements

The Politics of Jen Hatmaker are Influenced More by Leftism than Christianity

hatmaker

The 2016 election cycle has definitely cultivated an interesting and divergent compendium of Christian and evangelical appraisals concerning the respective candidates running for president.

Donald Trump’s unconventional and unexpected campaign that earned him the Republican nomination has forced conservative evangelicals into a fratricidal conflict that has and will change the context of conservative Christian political witness going forward.

While the friction has at times been exaggerated and pharisaical, generally, it’s a good thing.

The public bickering among evangelicals has been awkward to watch but the separation and potential divorce between religious conservatives and the GOP is long overdue. This is a necessary step to salvage and redeem the religious and theological character of evangelicalism. This renovation project is indispensible to the moral integrity of Christian socio-political testimony.

The same can’t be said of so-called Christian Progressives.

There is very little internal disagreement about the moral conflict of supporting Hillary Clinton in light of her repeated and predictable tendency of systematic corruption and dishonesty. Many on the Christian Left have simply rationalized and compartmentalized Clinton’s unrestricted character flaws- not so much as the lesser of two evils (though there is some of that)- as a political and moral obligation to support her. By default, they also support other progressive social policies of the Left.

And they’re using every opportunity to say as much.

Christian author, public speaker and reality-TV personality Jen Hatmaker granted a short interview to Religion News Service to discuss her perspective on the 2016 presidential election, her views on homosexuality, abortion, and Black Lives Matter.

In the interview- filled with half-truths and straw man positions, Hatmaker began by addressing and glossing over Hillary Clinton’s wretched character, admitting that she’s still open to voting for Clinton come November.

She then criticized Donald Trump’s behavior as unfit for the presidency; here, I don’t necessarily disagree with her. Donald Trump continues to do and say numerous things undeserving of the Executive Office.

But I think Hatmaker erred in repeating the mistake of oversimplifying who and why people support Donald Trump. There are, to be certain, “deplorable” people backing Trump. Anti-Semitic, ethno-nationalist white supremacists fit this distinction. But I think it’s a mistake to dismiss and unfairly generalize those, Christians included, who reject this kind of disgraceful racial populism, but still maintain support for Donald Trump.

Hatmaker then discussed her free-thinking views on gay marriage and LGBT community. It’s no surprise what she believes with respect to this issue. She says,

From a civil rights and civil liberties side and from just a human being side, any two adults have the right to choose who they want to love. And they should be afforded the same legal protections as any of us. I would never wish anything less for my gay friendsNot only are these our neighbors and friends, but they are brothers and sisters in Christ. They are adopted into the same family as the rest of us, and the church hasn’t treated the LGBT community like family.

Whether gays are our neighbors or friends- it’s not about choosing whom to love- that has never been the issue. People are free to choose whom to love without restriction. It’s about reinventing marriage as a social justice concept.

Moreover, marriage isn’t a “civil right,” or a “liberty,” nor is it found in the Constitution. No one, gay or straight, had the “right” to marry until the Supreme Court created one specifically for gays and lesbians.

And what about the civil rights of Christians who’ve experienced discrimination because of this newfound LGBTQIA “right”?

Wanting to follow the Supreme Court’s lead, Jen Hatmaker wants the church to make special considerations for gay/lesbian Christians that we shouldn’t (and don’t) make for other Christians. Gay Christians may be kinfolk in Christ, but that doesn’t necessitate Christians excusing sin, twisting theology, and upending the divine ordination of man-woman marriage for a false display of religious compassion. Like many other groups- the church is defined by orthodoxy- designated by what it believes just as it’s defined by what it doesn’t. Loving our neighbor and treating them in ways we seek or desire to be treated doesn’t entail compromising the comprehensive nature of biblical teaching and church tradition.

Hatmaker then discusses her expanded understanding of being pro-life when she says,

…my pro-life ethic has infinitely expanded from just simply being anti-abortion… pro-life includes the life of the struggling single mom who decides to have that kid and they’re poor. It means being pro-refugee. It means being pro-Muslim. My pro-life ethic… has expanded. 

There’s something incredibly disingenuous about a Christian community that screams about abortion, but then refuses to support the very programs that are going to stabilize vulnerable, economically fragile families that decide to keep their kids. Some Christians want the baby born, but then don’t want to help the mama raise that baby. 

The Christians she refers to are caricatures she created- meaning she oversimplifies the issues to embarrass Christians.

This view of what it means to be pro-life, though accurate, is falsely used to marginalize Christian anti-abortionists. The Christians she refers to are misrepresentations. Hatmaker uses the superficial talking points of the Left to malign and deride fellow religious pro-lifers. It’s inappropriate, especially for a Christian and she discredited herself by doing this.

Additionally, what pro-lifer/anti-abortion Christian is against helping poor single moms? Or supporting programs to help those in need (rather than grifters who seek personal gain through exploitation)? Jen Hatmaker lied about pro-life anti-abortion Christians presumably because they disagree with an expansive and corrupt welfare state that encourages dependency and compromises human dignity.

What does being “pro-refugee” mean? Sounds good, but it doesn’t mean anything because Hatmaker doesn’t define it in real terms.

Same with her being ‘pro-Muslim’? What does that mean, exactly? Supporting all Muslims, even the ones who believe it’s Allah’s will to maim and kill nonbelievers and all those who refuse to submit to specific religious convictions?

Hatmaker finishes by highlighting her racial justice cred, saying she supports Black Lives Matter based on “evidence and documented research.” She also voices concern over the potential (inevitable) treatment of her adopted black son by police in the future.

The church is AWOL on racial unity and reconciliation and it has outsourced its moral obligation to lead onto racial and social justice warriors. In my mind, there’s no doubt about that. But the void created by the lack of Christian presence and spiritual leadership should not prompt Christians to support a corrupt outfit like Black Lives Matter. Period. It’s a movement methodically based on lies and deliberately diverts attention away from more pressing issues- like black criminality, high black abortion rates, fatherless black families, high black unemployment rates, and substandard education- that would actually establish that black lives matter.

As for evidence and research– both completely undermine the foundation Black Lives Matter is built on. And she would know this if she actually looked it up rather than trying to be right on all the right issues.

These positions are intellectually dishonest and intensely foolish. I’m not sure what happened to Jen Hatmaker but this exemplifies the irresponsible quality of thought on the religious Left. Religious progressives should follow the lead of their conservative evangelical brethren and divorce themselves from progressive politics to salvage what’s left of their religious and social credibility.

Book Review: America’s Original Sin

Wallis-Original-Sin

America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America, by Jim Wallis. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016. 272 pages

During the past several years, Evangelical Christians have been criticized for their lack of involvement in the fight against racial injustice. It’s said that Christians willingly and consistently engage in Pro-Life issues (and issues concerning the proper role of marriage and sexuality), but are glaringly absent when it comes to the issue and consequences of racial injustice.

In reacting to these criticisms, Evangelicals have attempted to increase their visibility and participation in the ongoing, national conversation on the topic of racial injustice. Recently, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship — an Evangelical campus ministry — held its Urbana 15 Student Missions Conference that had as a keynote speaker a social justice advocate and self-identified supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement. Last week, Wheaton College’s Center for Applied Christian Ethics hosted three members of the Ferguson Commission on a panel entitled Change, Healing and Reconciliation: A Conversation with The Ferguson Commission to discuss the findings of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, in addition to the Church’s response to what many perceive to be blatant and persistent forms of racial inequality.

This week Jim Wallis — author, political activist, and founder of Sojourners magazine offers his contribution to the Evangelical discussion of this culturally sensitive issue in America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America.

According to Wallis, this book serves as a “primer on the underlying racism that still exists in America,” and seeks to “talk honestly” about America’s original sin of racial discrimination and how it continues to impact various areas of American life. Wallis argues that white America is obligated to begin the act of contrition — repentance for participating in, and contributing to, racial discrimination against blacks and other minorities. In addition to repentance, Wallis argues that white Americans (which he conflates with white Christians throughout the book) should listen to their “black and brown brothers and sisters” when they tell their stories of racial injustice rather than disregarding these pain-filled experiences as unimportant. For Wallis, these are the necessary first steps toward racial justice and reconciliation.

The book explains that racism is a manifestation of sin — clearly using biblical and theological language to convey the moral evil of racial discrimination. Wallis rightly notes that sin is a theological problem that goes deeper than politics. The book also effectively explains the linguistic and theological contours of repentance. It stresses that repentance is much more than merely adopting an apologetic tone for wrongs committed. Repentance, which follows forgiveness, entails the sincere and complete change of direction of one’s mind (renewal), evidenced by one’s actions (restitution, loving one’s neighbor, etc.). Discussing racism in biblical (moral) terms rather than political terms is a refreshing necessity that should be adopted by Christians and non-Christians alike.

In addition, Wallis laments churches that have “baptized us into our racial divisions” rather than teaching and modeling that our baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, unites us in a way that transcends all earthly limitations. Wallis is spot-on here, and he would have done a great service by expanding the implications of this idea a bit more than the passing glance he gave it.

The book describes the underlying tensions contributing to the current state of race relations in the United States using Ferguson and Baltimore as parabolic examples of the consequences of racial tension. It also discusses in some detail the socio-economic disparities that exist between blacks and whites — including the lower quality of black life in the ghettos, “mass incarceration” and the disproportionate numbers of blacks represented in the penal system, the substandard public school system among other issues, arguing these realities are the result of white privilege and white supremacy. Wallis argues that the root of these disparities is unquestionably found in racial injustice that, because of the shifting racial demographic of the country, not only affect blacks but also other minorities.

That said, having read Wallis’ other work and knowing his political sensibilities direct his religious beliefs, the overall framework and content of America’s Original Sin was rather predictable.

For starters, Wallis says that white racism is an extension of white privilege, but he never explicitly defines “white privilege.” He repeatedly condemns white privilege as if what constitutes white privilege is self-evident. It isn’t. The term “white privilege” is just as intentionally ambiguous as the phrase “Hope and Change.” That is to say it can mean whatever the person invoking it wants it to mean, at any given time, risking contradiction from invocation to invocation. The closest Wallis comes to defining white privilege was to link it to white supremacy. But he didn’t explain how white supremacy — a thoroughly dated but deliberately provocative term — is defined in our contemporary setting.

Likewise, aside from not defining it — but confidently stating that blacks continue to suffer because of it — Wallis never explains how Asian, African, Indian and other immigrants to America without white skin, seem to avoid falling prey to the intentions and negative effects of white privilege. It’s as if they don’t exist so as to preserve the myth.

Throughout the book, Wallis repeatedly suggests that Christians should “talk honestly” about racial injustice, and should engage in “telling the truth about race.” But sadly Wallis doesn’t come close to living up to his own suggestion. As I read the book, I wondered if this truth was objective, or if it was in fact based on how he and others, who share his position on racial matters, (re)define it.

For example Wallis unquestionably claims that all of the socio-economic ills experienced by blacks and other minorities are sourced in the preservation of white supremacy and white privilege. He says this as if the fact that these discrepancies exist are in-and-of themselves, hard evidences of racism. How can Wallis be assured of this? Based on what proof? He gives a number of dizzying statistics that demonstrate the quality-of-life discrepancies between blacks and whites, but he doesn’t give any evidence that validates his claim that these statistics are singularly the result of racism. He does say that “black[s] and [other minorities] are disproportionately consigned to the lowest economic tier is a continuing proof of racism.” He also says that the “systemic and perverse character of racism” in addition to the “cold hard savagery of racism,” is responsible for the declining quality of life among many blacks. The academic and economic experiences of many blacks might contribute a lesser quality of life than their white counterparts — and I believe that in many cases to be true. But, if we’re being honest as Wallis suggests we should be, there are very clear reasons why blacks are academically and economically disadvantaged, and one can argue that racism is but one result. However racism as an explanation in totality, without clear evidence to support such a claim is irresponsible, especially by someone of Wallis’ stature.

(As a side note, the strongest area in which racism can be argued to be actively influential is in the area of education. The substandard education delivered to poor minority children in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia and other ghettos across the country is the result of teachers’ unions placing the priority of employing teachers over educating students. That doesn’t absolve black parents from their responsibility of emphasizing academic success by any means. But what’s allowed to happen to poor ghetto children when it comes to education is a national sin.)

Additionally, Wallis argues that blacks suffer these socio-economic maladies because they’re black (because that’s how racism works). No other contributing factors like values, attitudes, behavior and morality are given as reasons or predictors of black suffering. At the same time, whites are successful because they benefit from white privilege. Again, just like the lack of other variables that might explain black suffering, no other reasons are given as reasons or predictors of “white” success. For Wallis, minorities, especially blacks, are never-ending victims of external circumstances, not autonomous beings that are capable of forming ideas, attitudes and behaviors to reduce socio-economic disparities. Thus when Wallis blames all social and economic ills on white racism and ignores black involvement, he engages in the sort of condescending, racial paternalism that re-victimizes blacks, making them powerless when it comes to relying on self-determination to influence and change their own fate. Aside from handicapping blacks, having to constantly beg and depend on external help to solve their problems, he indicts all whites as racists, obligating them (through guilt) to engage in redemptive acts of black charity. That directly contradicts his earlier appeal to the biblical and theological understanding of forgiveness and repentance, which does more to nourish white resentment than it does to cultivate racial reconciliation. And it’s not very Christian.

By reducing the black role in racial reconciliation to the role of a disabled and victimized bystander, the book minimizes the black obligation of forgiveness and repentance. Blacks are not simply in a position to forgive white people for participating and sustaining white racism (where it exists); they’re also in a position to ask whites for forgiveness. Despite the book’s false claim that blacks can’t be racist because they lack the power to implement their discrimination (50), which minimizes black moral responsibility — if racial reconciliation is to become a reality in the church — blacks must be required to ask forgiveness from whites for assuming and projecting racism onto whites where it doesn’t exist. All church-based strategies that seek racial reconciliation and restoration will crash and burn if they don’t include blacks as equals in moral agency, as a result of being created in God’s image in addition to being children of God, and as brothers and sisters in Christ (Romans 8:15-15, Galatians. 4:5–6.)

Repeating the overused cliche’ and untrue narrative that blacks are permanent victims of white racism doesn’t make it any more true simply because it’s accompanied with Christian veneer.

America’s Original Sin argues that racism is a sin that’s deeper than politics, yet the remedy offered appears to be almost entirely political. Though effective change can happen through social and economic policy, the reality is our morality dictates our politics. The more Christian morality influences politics, the more impartial legislation can become. Regardless, Christians shouldn’t wait until politicians pass policies they approve of. Christians have to be epistles that emanate the gospel of Christ in our own communities, living as as ambassadors of redemption and in this case, racial reconciliation. In other words, Christians (regardless of color) should be disciples of cruciformity — conforming to the gospel of the crucified and resurrected Christ in pursuit of redeeming and restoring relationships that have been strained and broken along racial lines.

Ultimately, America’s Original Sin, in effect, attempts to Christianize recycled racial narratives without critically or courageously examining why racial, moral and cultural disparities exist between black and white Americans. Simply laying fault to a white racial boogeyman isn’t productive, nor is it particularly Christian. I can’t imagine too many Christians arguing that racism doesn’t exist. I also can’t imagine too many Christians who don’t want to reduce racial inequality or who’re against racial reconciliation. But attempting to provoke them into action through blame, guilt, bad politics and a watered down gospel isn’t a plan for lasting success because it trivializes both the problem and the solution.

In the age of Black Lives Matter and the social expectation to support its agenda or be slandered as racist, Christian contributions to racial reconciliation should approach this issue carefully. Racial inequality deserves the attention and engagement of Evangelicals but not through a superficial and self-righteous agenda that does more damage than good. It’s simply not enough for Christians to look busy while doing nothing in a self-congratulatory manner like Black lives Matter.

America’s Original Sin left a lot on the table, but should be read more for what it isn’t than for what it is.