Evangelicals, Black Lives Matter and The New York Times

Black_Lives_Matter_-_Downtown_Minneapolis-700x475

Last week the New York Times ran an article discussing the trepidation some Evangelical Christians face when it comes to the Black Lives Matter Movement.

It notes that religious support for Black Lives Matter generally lies with Christians and denominations that are more progressive, like the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the American Baptist Churches, whereas more conservative Christians, groups and denominations are much more cautious in supporting a movement with such a radical agenda.

Part of this tension is seen in the repercussions InterVarsity encountered last month after a keynote speaker, Michelle Higgins, spoke at the Urbana Missions Conference where she not only argued in favor of Christian support of Black Lives Matter, she insulted the sincerity and authenticity of the Christian commitment to being Pro-Life but seemingly ignoring the issue of adoption.

From the New York Times:

InterVarsity, one of the country’s leading campus Christian organizations, is known for its history of racial cooperation and integration. But many of its members and supporters are conservatives who oppose abortion, support law enforcement and are skeptical of the welfare state. And in her wide-ranging comments about social justice, Ms. Higgins did little to make her speech more palatable.

“We can wipe out the adoption crisis tomorrow,” Ms. Higgins said at one point. “We could wipe it out this week, but we’re too busy arguing to have abortion banned, we’re too busy arguing to defund Planned Parenthood. “We are too busy withholding mercy from the living,” she said, “so that we might display a big spectacle of how much we want mercy to be shown to the unborn….

Even had Ms. Higgins never ventured into the dangerous terrain of abortion politics, her speech probably would not have pleased many evangelicals, who consider Black Lives Matter to be a liberal movement.

“Consider Black Lives Matter to be a ‘liberal’ movement?” That’s like saying some people “consider” it lighter in the daytime than it is at night. And Black Lives Matter isn’t “liberal.” It’s a progressive movement, period.

More from the New York Times:

The historian D.G. Hart, who teaches at Hillsdale College in Michigan, noted in a blog post that the website BlackLivesMatter.com, a prominent one within the movement, expresses support for transgender and gay rights, issues that are problematic for conservative Christians.

“Some who support justice for African-Americans and oppose police brutality may wonder legitimately what Caitlyn Jenner or Dan Savage have to do with Freddie Gray or Tamir Rice,” Dr. Hart wrote on the website Patheos, contrasting icons of the transgender and gay rights movements, with black men whose deaths have galvanized Black Lives Matter.

The discomfort of evangelicals about Black Lives Matter goes beyond specific policies. Many believe that the church should not be intimately involved with politics.

In an interview, Dr. Hart, a member of the conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church, said that he took police brutality and racism seriously, and that those concerns might affect his voting in local or statewide elections. But in general, he thinks the church should not be a political actor.

“I tend to be a Machen guy,” Dr. Hart said, referring to J. Gresham Machen, the Presbyterian theologian who died in 1937 and was known for his belief that political participation could sully the church. “He believed that the church doesn’t do politics, though individual Christians may.”

Mimi Haddad, an evangelical, leads Christians for Biblical Equality, which works for the equality of women, including those in the church. She signed an open letter, printed in the liberal evangelical magazine Sojourners, congratulating InterVarsity for showcasing Black Lives Matter.

The Times reasons that this conservative Evangelical cautiousness stems from conservative Evangelical groups, “support[ing] Republican candidates [and being] uncomfortable with the movement because of its embrace of liberal politics, associated with Democrats.”

An interesting read regarding the obvious fact that Evangelicals aren’t a monolithic demographic who think and act the same. Nevertheless, a few observations are in order.

It’s noteworthy that the piece argues that progressive Christians support Black Lives Matter because of the teachings of Jesus and Paul — a thoroughly religious reason, of course — but conservative Evangelicals don’t support the Black Lives Matter because of their unflinching loyalty to the Republican party — a thoroughly political, non-biblical reason. It’s a passive way to commend progressive Christians (and by extension, the author?) for their fidelity to the Bible and dismiss conservative Evangelicals as playing politics. The Times doesn’t hesitate for a moment to consider that one reason conservative Evangelicals refuse to support Black Lives Matter is that its leftist agenda and confrontational tactics contradict the gospel’s rendering of mercy, love, and reconciliation.

Put simply: progressive Christians, good; conservative (political) Evangelicals, bad.

Also, I’m not sure I agree with Hart’s assessment that the church should abstain from politics. How far should that go, exactly? Honestly, at some point or another, all of politics deal with morality. Is it moral, or right, for the government to penalize some people through burdensome taxation, simply because they make more than others? Why? Based on what system of morality? Doesn’t it violate the directive against stealing? Or, is it morally right to weaken a citizen’s right to defend oneself, one’s family and one’s property through troublesome and prohibitive gun laws that seek to disarm him or her in the face of danger? If so, based on what moral value system? And, isn’t it morally right to influence policies that seek to mitigate racial inequality — a justice for some that doesn’t come at the expense of others? Is it morally right to seek “justice” for one racial group, if it causes an injustice to another? Why or why not? Again, based on what system of morality?

Though I share Hart’s viewpoint concerning the danger regarding the intimacy of churches and political parties, I would argue that it’s because of the self-imposed limitation and silence of many churches and their pastors from discussing political issues that’s led to the declining presence of the church’s religious influence upon our culture. This voluntary withdrawal has created a moral vacuum in which movements like Black Lives Matter have filled. This void has facilitated a thick moral confusion among Christians and non-Christians alike, emotionally manipulating and intimidating people into supporting “black lives” in a specific way or risk being labeled a racist and/or non-Christian. It’s to the detriment of both Christians and culture not to speak out confidently — with a Christian perspective rooted in both the bible and church tradition — on pressing cultural and political issues.

Conservative Evangelicals have the unique ability to fix this problem of refusing to preach and practically apply God’s word to how we should live in the world. Jesus is our guide. There’s a reason why the overwhelming majority of Jesus’ teachings and parables dealt with life outside of synagogues and the Temple — because outside of religious centers is where we live the overwhelming majority of our lives. If Jesus was able to do it, so can conservative Evangelicals.

Conservative Evangelicals need to increase their presence to inform and teach others as to how racial inequality and racial reconciliation should be approached — and it doesn’t include Black Lives Matter. If the church was on the forefront of this issue — discussing from a biblical and theological perspective on why all black lives matter (and not just ones in police custody or killed in police-involved shootings) — it would be much clearer why there’s an obligation to reject the Black Lives Matter movement. The church should be saying that black lives matter because they are created in the image of God, not because they’re black — and if these ‘black lives’ are Christian, that their primary identity is centered in Christ, not in being black; that black lives matter means black families need to be restored, black abortion needs to be reduced and black children need a married mother and father; that black lives matter means black children deserve quality education not abandoned in failing schools; that black lives matter means instilling and reinforcing Christian values at home and at church to mitigate the self-destructive behaviors that lead to disproportionately high numbers of blacks imprisoned; that black lives matter means much more than an empty slogan and socially-provocative, self-aggrandizing, behavior.

If conservative Evangelicals believe Jesus is Lord of all, they should start acting like it. Engage culture and politics using the gospel and common sense. Don’t be afraid to reject Black Lives Matter — not because you’re racist, or you’re a Republican, but because it doesn’t square with the template of reconciliation found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Advertisements

The Spiritual Emptiness of Atheism

This is the time of year when belligerent atheists corral their fellow freethinkers together to partake in emboldened attempts to legally prevent and disrupt the displays of the Nativity wherever possible. Wherever these innocent- and usually welcomed- nativity scenes present themselves, there’s a bitter and selfish atheist threatening or attempting to sue local authorities or governing bodies because somehow, the public display of the baby Jesus in a manger is “offensive” to their irreligious sensibilities.  In their nonsensical pursuits, these litigation-minded atheists continually cite the so-called separation clause of the First Amendment as a justification for their actions at the expense of the free-exercise clause contained within the same law.  To the shock and dismay of a decreasing number of people, the God-less intentions of atheism appears to be gaining credibility due to the number of legal decisions in their favor.

Notice that this is the only time of year (for now) these atheists present themselves or their cause.  I’ve seen a few atheists plead their empty cases during the Easter season, but Christmastime is when they’re the most aggressive.  And the question is why? After all, if atheism had any inherent and practical worth as a belief system, these atheists would attempt to engage the wider culture based on the philosophical merits of their belief system on a year-round basis rather than offending and insulting the devout by poking their collective finger in the eye of believers. It appears as if atheists endeavor to make those who revere the religious aspect of Christmas as miserable as they are.

Also notice that it’s only against the God recognized and worshipped in Christianity that these militant atheists take offense. They don’t seem to display the same religious fervor during the month of the Hajj or Ramadan probably because it’s easier to bully and intimidate those who employ “turn(ing) the other cheek” as a central tenet of their belief system than it is to bully those who employ “kill the infidel.”

But notice something else.  Last week after 20 children and six adults were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, many people in the media, on social networking sites and in the city of Newtown itself were sending their prayers to residents of the town- victims, families of victims and residents alike.  On Facebook and Twitter, many people offered Bible verses in sincere and sympathetic attempts to provide comfort and understanding to those directly and indirectly affected by what happened. Stories were written how clergy members were discarding their prepared sermons to discuss the tragedy and how suffering and evil is an unfair part of life.

Likewise, since that horrifying tragedy occurred, numerous religious leaders have been interviewed by the media regarding the nature of God, suffering, evil and justice and how we make sense of it all.  Among the clergy have been several Catholic priests, several rabbis and Jim Solomon, pastor of New Hope Community Church in Newtown Connecticut. The local community, still in shock and struggling to understand what had happened, gathered Friday night for a prayer vigil at St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church. Several more vigils at local churches were planned for the following Monday evening.

Yet of all the ecclesiastics interviewed and of all the vigils planned, there was no mention of any clerical skeptics or freethinking clergymen represented or invited. Of all the vigils, none were held in non-descript buildings devoid of religious or spiritual accoutrements- and for good reason.  Atheism is an empty belief system that doesn’t offer its adherents comfort, hope, emotional solace or spiritual sustenance when the world goes bad; in other words, it has no understanding of- or response to- sin and the product of sin, which is evil.  Atheism doesn’t provide a notion of divine justice- reward or punishment, heaven or hell- for acts of goodness or overwhelming evil, respectively whereas Christianity does. Atheism simply…is.

It would be insincere and offensive to claim that there aren’t atheists who sympathize with the grief felt by the citizens of Newtown.  It would also be disingenuous to suggest that many atheists don’t celebrate the joy of Christmas because to do so would be absurd.  And it would be equally disingenuous to say that atheists aren’t or can’t be decent people.  There are numerous atheists who celebrate Christmas and atheists who in their heart-felt sympathy have compassion regarding what happened in Newtown- and I know some of them and they’re good people. But atheism as a belief system represented by those whose purpose is to agitate, bully and offend, it’s spiritually and morally bankrupt and found wanting.

Psalm 46:1 says, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”  Indeed he is.

May God bless the Christmas season and may he bless and comfort the city of Newtown, Connecticut.