Apologies and offenses notwithstanding, at least one profound underlying issue lies at the heart of the recent conflict over remarks made by Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and it is not the false notion that Dr. Land is a racist. A fair reading of his record on this issue going back several decades clearly demonstrates otherwise. No, the question I wonder about concerns whether there exists, in the area of racial reconciliation, a level playing field for the sharing of concerns and demanding of apologies among those of every ethnic persuasion.
When it comes to selecting racial reconciliation leaders, do we profile white men and exclude them from the process? Can a white man ever challenge a black man on his tactics for bringing racial harmony? Several black men have questioned the racial reconciliation tactics of this white man. Is it even permissible, no matter how ill advised, for a white man such as Land to question the racial reconciliation tactics of black men such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? In other words, apart from how offensive Land’s words were, is it possible that there is any truth to some of them?
Specifically, consider the following scenario and the manner in which Jackson and Sharpton typically respond. Whenever a black on black crime takes place, Jackson and Sharpton seem practically invisible, but whenever a white/hispanic on black crime takes place, there are protests and marches and rallies and fundraising and speeches and charges of racial injustice.
If we are making progress in racial reconciliation, should not our response to the ethnic persuasion of the criminal suspect be a color blind response?
Suppose in a certain city ten black men are murdered, six by other black men, two by hispanics, one by an asian and one by a white man. If Jackson and Sharpton only show up for the press conference after the murder by the white man, can we not agree that their approach may actually serve to fuel the fires of racial hatred and bitterness, distorting any progress that has been made, and keeping society’s race relations efforts entrenched in a 1950’s mindset?
One could actually argue that, in order to maintain the kind of fundraising, press conferences, speaking schedules, lawsuits and other activities needed to further their fame, their relevance and their agendas, Jackson and Sharpton actually depend upon the existence of racially motivated crime. In some ways, it is to the economic advantage of the organizations they lead to exaggerate such problems and to inflame a bitterness among black people toward white people.
As a white man, am I really going to be called a racist for simply pointing out the possibility that approaches such as those employed by Jackson and Sharpton may actually be hurting the process of racial reconciliation rather than healing it?
If in a hypothetical universe, the green man possesses the moral right to question the blue man’s actions, but the blue man must apologize any time he questions the green man’s actions, can we agree that genuine equality in addressing their differences does not truly exist?
Let me reassure you that I abhor both crime and racism. I detest both murder and injustice. I want nothing other than to see the sons of Japheth, Ham and Shem get along as well upon this earth as we will one day in heaven. But I do think part of bringing that about involves allowing all of Noah’s sons to share freely their opinions concerning those factors they believe may contribute to the problem.
I, for one, do not believe Land woke up one morning and decided to reverse completely his commitment to racial reconciliation. Rather, I believe that he thinks the only way forward in making progress on this issue is to confront those whose activities he believes may actually be doing more harm than good. Whether he is right or wrong in that perspective is certain to invite great disagreement, but I believe it is only fair to view his intentions in all of this in a much more charitable manner than they have been viewed thus far.
Read Dwight’s blog on this subject and then consider rewriting yours as a response to Dwight. As a standalone blog it has issues that Dwight’s already addresses.
Dwight McKissic has graciously offered his post to us and it will be going up here in a few hours.
Rick, I’m not sure what time you wrote this, but by the absence of the typical replies that this blog receives, it appears that you have your answer.
I posted it just a few minutes ago. I’m not sure what your point is.
It just got posted about 5 minutes ago—we try to write posts and then the chief schedules them to post scattered across the day (or even days).
This one was probably posted right close to when you first saw it.
My point was if this had been written this morning, it seemed that (b/c of the typical volume on this blog) that people might be apprehensive to speak on this topic precisely for the reasons Rick wrote about. I wasn’t trying to imply any other hidden agenda or anything. 🙂
Well I think you make several good points and I was ll prepared to get ‘up in arms’ if you were going to jump on the bandwagon. Thanks for not doing that and asking very logical and well meaning questions. I will say I don’t think I’d have enjoined the images of Noah and sons, however.
Rick,
Excellent comments… I for one applaud you for being willing to risk being misunderstood in order to speak truth.
That some are suggesting that we should defer to Dwight on this issue (because he is black I suppose) is just proof of the points you are making.
Today, as to this post and regarding his response to it, I wholeheartedly agree with Greg Alford.
Your post is well stated Rick. It is a post that I wish all SBC folks would read with great reflection, regardless of our ethnic backgrounds.
That is not what I said.
Comment edited by moderator
Heh…that isn’t either. 😉
Very thoughtful post, Rick.
I hesitated before engaging in the discussion on the other post last night, although I thought that that discussion ended up being civil and hopefully helpful. Had I seen this post coming (I don’t always look in the post queue), I would have probably just held off saying anything at all over in the other thread. I grew up in the south and have now lived for the past 8 1/2 years in the upper midwest. The change in geography has afforded me a changed perspective on racism and racial issues. Where I live now, the overt racial tensions in… Read more »
Well said, Rick. I think we can add some blame to the media, too. If it is a black on black and Sharpton or Jackson arrive (if they do) the media sees no sensationalism in it and do not appear. Maybe we do not hear about it because the media doesn’t see ratings in it. Maybe not, too. Only the Sharpton and Jackson camps will have proof if that. We just experienced a black woman kill a white woman and then take her 3 day old baby. It was in the news, but I don’t know if there is going… Read more »
BTW, I could not relate to the hypothetical universe because I do not have a “history” on the blue man or green man. To me, that is not color blindness but a blindness to their history. Maybe we should try to view people through “history blindness”. Of course, it has been given to us to do just that in Matthew 6:15. Maybe we have focused on “color” rather than “history”.
I kinda think the reference to Noah’s sons was a mistake.
Bill Mac,
Are we not all descendants of Noah’s sons?
Why do you see that reference as a mistake?
Probably because in the past defenders of racism and slavery have appealed to Noah’s curse on Ham’s sons as though it were somehow related to people of African descent.
Andrew, Bill Mac and Clark, Thanks for the advice regarding invoking Noah’s sons. I actually preached on the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 last night, so it was fresh on my mind. Thanks also, Andrew, for clarifying the potential misunderstanding. I now see where you three are coming from, although the curse on Ham was not at all what I intended. Rather, by pointing to our common ancestor, Noah, I was seeking to include as my cousins, to one degree or another, the entire human family. Ultimately, Genesis 10 teaches that the whole planet may be viewed as one… Read more »
Andrew Wencl,
Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully there will be a day when that interpretation will be seen by all to be what it is—Ignorance, plain and simple.
BTW, I believe Rick Patrick had no such thought in mind when he used the reference. I truly believe he was speaking of the biblical evidence of our common ancestry.
I too didn’t think Rick intended what might be construed from the statement. But given the Ham discussion flying around this issue I think it best to be cautious.
SBC Voices Editors,
An interesting and useful piece a week or two from now when things have calmed down a bit more may be a roundtable (or few) between SBC leaders, profs and bloggers. It’d be interesting to see what kinds of issues and ideas could be worked out between Dwight McKissic, Todd Littleton, Ed Stetzer, Rick Patrick and others. Just an idea.
What we need is a racial policy, one clearly informed on Black issues with the paths laid out as to how a representative of the SBC shall speak with reference to this issue.