I was at church last Sunday. (Full disclosure, this is the white liberal suburban church I occasionally play at) While I was there I was talking to the bass player who told me about the previous weeks sermon and a comment the pastor made.
Oh, did I mention that this church is a suburban, mostly white, politically liberal, theologically leaning liberal, that "does all the right" things when it comes to social justice?
Anyway, the comment in question was in regard to trying to increase the number of black people coming to this church, and it was:
"We don't want them to be afraid of us."
This short statement raises several red flags with me.
1. The implied/expressed divide between "us" and "them". In a world that's supposed to be color blind, from a group of people who would probably claim to be color blind, this type of us/them just sounds inappropriate.
2. The implication that this particular congregation has actually done anything that would actually justify "fear".
3. The admission (by suggesting that changes need to be made), that it is rational for some random black family to fear a bunch of socially conscious, actively engaged, white liberals.
I could be wrong, but this almost sounds like encouraging fear as the appropriate response for "us" to have when dealing with "them".
In all fairness, I could be over analyzing this, but any time I hear this us/them type of language it makes me wonder.
11 comments:
Why would blacks fear such a church or the type of people who populate it, when their notions of "social justice" necessarily benefits the black population? Or is the pastor so arrogant as to assume that white people in general are responsible for promoting an atmosphere in which black people should be fearful of whites?
It would have been interesting to have been able to hear the sermon, and perhaps speak with the pastor afterwards.
I agree, it could have just been a poorly expressed desire to be more welcoming. But it sounds like it was a prepared line.
I hesitate to try to help understand what I'm imagining this fella is saying, as it almost certainly won't be open with an open mind or anything but mocking, but to give it a try...
1. Unfortunately, there are divides in our nation. Divides between the wealthy and the less wealthy, between different races, different ethnicities, different genders and different nationalities. Acknowledging that reality is an important step to removing those differences and divides. If we can't recognize or acknowledge that which divides us, then we can't heal.
2. I don't hear an implication that the particular congregation has done anything to justify fear. I doubt seriously that is what he meant (but by all means, get a clarification if you can).
3. The admission is that there are very real historic hurts/harms/oppression that has been visited upon a wide variety of minorities, including black folk in our nation. Historically, many minorities HAVE had a reason to be afraid, to feel harmed or oppressed. In fact, one of those things that oppresses (at least perhaps in a more minor way, but no less real) is to act like there is nothing wrong in our history or current situation.
Yes, you are almost certainly wrong. The point is almost certainly NOT to "encourage fear" but to work to ease it.
We have Us/We scenarios in our nation. Recognizing it is appropriate and helpful, I believe. It is a sign of privilege and arrogance to say "I know there were some harms in the past, but you have nothing to fear now..." Let's let the oppressed and formerly oppressed tell US who were the oppressors (and are the beneficiaries of the oppressors) when we can cease being cautious and helpful in seeking understanding.
As an I-think related aside, I'd love to hear your evaluation of this comment. I have a dearly beloved one from going up who is from the south and who is soundly conservative but a lovely, lovely person who, nonetheless, thinks "the blacks" and their allies are over reacting about statues and confederate flags. She had this to say about slavery, and I quote:
"I would just like to say:
Southerners did not go over to Africa and bring back slaves.
People came here from there and Plantation owners hired them.
Yes, they were called property because they were taking care of them in return for their work.
Some were "oppressed" but many were very loved and apart of the families they worked for.
After the Emanicipation Proclomation, I wonder how many returned to Africa?
Many remained with the people they worked for and even took their family names.
Many even fought for the South in the Civil War."
What would be your reaction to hearing a fellow conservative say this sort of thing?
IF you're interested. If not, delete away.
~Dan
"Won't be MET with an open mind..." in the first sentence. Sorry.
~Dan
I'll gladly deal with your on topic comments with a mind at least as open as yours.
However, my policy on off topic comments will mirror yours as well.
1. There are divides, in not sure focusing of fear is the way to bridge them.
2. There is no implication on my part at all. This congregation has done/is doing and saying off of the social gospel, progressive approved "right" things. There is absolutely zero reason for any person of color to fear this church. Actually, they probably wouldn't be particularly welcoming to outspoken conservatives of any color, but that's different and probably somewhat intentional.
3. Not disagreeing with history. But if this was the case then every ethnic group other than white Scandinavians would have to "fear" this church. But, that's the point. History is not necessarily a rational reason for fear in the present. The problem I see is that if you validate an irrational fear, you are indeed perpetuating that fear. It's just letting fear drive events. What's the most common theme in the Bible? "Don't be afraid.". If a relationship with the God who created the universe is the goal of the Church, then fear shouldn't be a driver of anything.
As far as your historically challenged friend, I'd simply suggest looking at history and discarding things that don't line up with that.
There are divisions in this nation that are invented, (such as "gender" since the correct term is "sex"...of which there are only two) meant to pit one group against another for political purposes. Those who allow themselves to be led by such people are sheep and not especially bright. Most divisions are meaningless when such intentions are understood properly.
To look to history in order to pretend that attitudes of the past are prevalent in the present is what perpetuates and stokes fears that are wholly unjustified and irrational. For example, blacks have no reason to fear anyone, except for those blacks who have chosen a lifestyle that pits them against the law or one that pits them against the realities of life.
Dan continues to perpetuate the lie of a racist GOP, for example, and as there are those who also buy into that crap, they naturally have a fear of GOP dominance. (I fear the GOP based on its woeful state today, not were it to be a solid representation of conservative principles). When people lie about others like this, it is hard to truly calm the fears those lies provoke. Thus, the best way to calm fear is to speak truthfully. When the left chooses to actually do this, the fears will turn from the GOP toward that party which historically is the foundation of racism in this country.
As to Dan's lovely, lovely, beloved conservative friend, she seems perfect for Dan's circle of acquaintances...that is, not very bright. Not all black people have a problem with statues of Democratic Civil War characters of the Confederacy, erected by Democrats. Only the left-leaning blacks pretend to have a problem with them. Rational people of any color do not. At the same time, other parts of her statement is based on truth. Southerners didn't go to Africa for slaves. They were sold into slavery by other Africans and shipped here for sale. Some indeed did come to be like family to their "masters" and chose to stay on after emancipation. Many did indeed fight for the south.
So the the best critique of her statement is that it is as loose a retelling of history as one typically hears from Democrats/progressives. She's ignorant of the details or not articulate in putting them forth. She simply skews history in an opposite direction than the typical progressive. The saddest part is that she likely has Dan and others like him to "correct" her beliefs to an equally distorted alternative.
Dan,
I realize that I said I would follow your lead in dealing with off topic comments, and I am.
Art, I'm using Dan's approach to off topic comments, please don't encourage him.
I keep seeing pictures of individuals who took their personal boats out to rescue people in Texas. Shockingly enough some of those pictures show Confederate battle flags flying over boats full of people of all races. Maybe, just maybe, actions speak louder than symbols.
Oh, and where are the BLM and ANTIFA folks when people's lives are at risk?
I've been hearing that the last thing they need right now is more volunteers---"boots on the ground (or in the water, as it were) so to speak. What they need is money, and places to house both people and pets. As to the former, being wealthy would be a nice thing right now. I hate being limited as I am when so many need help.
Yes, my son'a church in CC (just south of the worst damage) has been looking for more volunteers for the past couple of days.
But by and large, the response of ordinary people to rescue others has been amazing. If this is what a divided country looks like, I'm pretty impressed. I'm especially impressed with the lack of crime and looting.
Post a Comment