When one points to the admonitions of 1 Corinthians 13 and other passages that enjoin love, unity, gentleness, and peace, he is often met with disdain. Those who are discerning, theological types find all that hippie-dippie, touchy-feely stuff annoying. Talking about those things evidences a lack of conviction, doctrinal weakness, and perhaps charismatic sympathies!
But in the recent national anthem debates raging in sports stadiums across the nation, a microcosm of our racial issues in general, a little bit of that flower child stuff might not be so bad! We have gone to the other extreme, digging our trenches and hardening our positions, readying powerful weapons at any who disagree.
- I am through with the NFL. Those players are disrespecting the flag of the nation I love and I am not going to support them anymore. They are insulting the men and women who have bled and died to give them the freedom to make millions and protest the flag I love. If they hate this nation so much, maybe they should pack up and leave.
- They are a bunch of alt-right, Trump-loving, white supremacists. They benefit from white privilege and have never suffered the sting of injustice, so they have no understanding of what we are going through. They care more about protecting their privileged culture than seeking justice, even if that system dehumanizes us. All this flag-waving is just a front for racism.
I would like to share something about myself that most of you don’t know. I like sports. Don’t tell anyone. But I am weary of turning to ESPN and thinking I punched in MSNBC by mistake. Politics has overwhelmed sports. It isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last, but this national anthem issue isn’t going away anytime soon.
I am not going to argue the merits of the protests. Others have done that eloquently and my purpose is to discuss process more than content. As I read social media, I think the way we are dealing with the conflict is not just lacking that loving feeling, it is contrary to the commands of the word of God!
1. Demonization is not godly.
Turn to any page in Paul’s letters and you will find a significant teaching on love and unity. In 1 Corinthians 13, he tells us that nothing we do matters without love. NOTHING. And love “always believes, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” Ought not Christians be people who are looking for the best in one another? Shouldn’t we be the ones who seek peace, not draw the lines of battle?
But we tend to demonize those who differ on issues, painting them in the worst possible light and demonstrating more of the works of the flesh than the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:19-23). Demonizing others is a violation of Scripture. Yes, there are heretics whose views are rightly anathematized, but when we paint the views of brothers and sisters in Christ in the worst possible light and withhold grace, we err. We are to look for the best in others, not assume the worst.
And when it comes to racial debates, we inevitably end up seeing the worst in others. Alt-right. White supremacists. Race-baiters. Trouble-makers. We use ugly colors and broad brush strokes to paint our opponents.
2. Empathy is essential.
We need to try to understand the other side. That isn’t that complicated, is it? As I read social media posts, what I see is everyone (and most of my “friends” are Christians) bellowing their opinions, declaring both the justice of their cause and their righteous indignation against those on the other side of the issue.
I’m no Colin Kaepernick fan, and these national anthem protests annoy me. I was taught to stand at attention when the national anthem plays. I love my country and the sitting, kneeling and such is never going to be anything but offensive to me.
But as a Christian, is it my only duty to make sure everyone knows where I stand? Shouldn’t I also make a good-faith effort to understand why my minority brothers and sisters in Christ (or even LOST minorities?) feel differently than I do about the red, white, and blue? Would we not benefit if we started out by listening to what “they” were saying instead of trying to shout them down and make sure they hear us?
Sometimes, when I read what Dwight McKissic or Kyle Howard have written here at Voices and I am shocked. Sometimes I am baffled. There are times I disagree. Should I assume that I am right and they are wrong and set out to correct them when I disagree? Or perhaps I could realize that these men are coming from a different set of life experiences than I have. I have never had a cashier eye me suspiciously in a store just because I walked in with black skin. I have never been stopped by the police for DWB. I have never dealt with the assumptions and the disrespect and the injustice and all the things that minorities in this country have faced on a daily basis.
So, maybe, when I hear something that troubles me, I should listen and try to understand instead of just going into knee-jerk, self-defense mode. Maybe my first response shouldn’t be to show them why they are wrong but to figure out why their thinking differs from mine. Perhaps I shouldn’t assume that my perspective is the only perspective.
Brothers and sisters who are angry at the NFL players during the anthem, would it not do us well to stop spouting and start talking – to ask some of our minority friends why people feel this way? “Explain this to me. What is driving this? I want to understand.” Maybe there is something other than a hatred for America behind it. Maybe we can learn something if we talk to each other, empathize with each other, and learn.
And, with trepidation, I add that some on the social justice side of this could benefit from having conversations with conservatives and trying to understand where white folks are coming from. Every impulse in white, conservative America is not driven by racism or a love for injustice. All conservatives are not white supremacists, despite what ESPN tells us every day. (I mentioned Dwight McKissic and Kyle Howard earlier, because we have posted their articles here. Please do not assume that this comment is directed at them.)
The demonization must stop. In the Calvinism wars, we turned to demonization and have risked dividing the convention. During the Baptist Identity kerfuffle of a decade ago, demonization turned minors into majors and brethren into enemies.
Let’s leave that behind.
3. Too much finger-pointing; not enough mirror-gazing.
Finger pointing starts almost immediately when race is the topic. Something deep inside us needs to blame THEM, not US. They started it. We point the finger of condemnation at the other side and generally refuse to examine our own hearts for attitudes contrary to Christ.
That is not the godly way.
Yes, there’s a time to call out sin, and when racism rears its head, the time is NOW. But each of us must walk in humility as well, letting the Spirit hold the word before us like a mirror to our soul. Would that we spent as much time examining ourselves as we do “discerning” the sins of others.
Yes, we have some real differences, and the racial dialogue must take place. Racism has not disappeared from the SBC and until it does, the fight goes on. But the process will be aided by a genuine attempt by every person to show grace and to understand what those with different views actually think. Caricatures that demonize must go as we seek to walk in the Spirit not in the flesh. We must make a genuine effort to try to understand what those who disagree with us think and why.
Okay. I have some tie-dyed shirts I’m working on before I go out and gather flowers. Peace.
Dave, bless you for your transparency and objective position– You raise a significant point about our tendencies to assume right or wrong; the point of protest has nothing to do with the flag, our country or the military… the bowed knee is a posture of abnormalsy to. Ring attention to the fact that we are able to sit through a football game and cheer, after hearing an anthem with beautiful words that our country is not living up to– land of the free, home of the brave… no, no… Our God is not a respective of persons, hate is rationalized, while racism is normalized… the flag represents liberty to speak, that’s these gentlemen are doing
I’ve never understood saying you stand for free speech and then complaining when people exercise it. This is the Last Temptation of Christ all over again. All the righteous outrage turned an insipid movie into a sensation. Every time the president opens his mouth, more people take a knee. (by the way, has Trump ever called Putin or Kim Jong Un an SOB?) But these guys taking a knee are easy targets and a way to (successfully it seems) whip up his base.
I’m not saying people have to like it, or wish they would find a different way to protest. But no one is making us watch it.
I respect the players as people and can see that most of them are confused young men.
These guys already have great platforms from which to speak. They could and should speak.
Not showing due respect to one’s own country in a unifying moment, that has never been perceived as divisive, has unnecessarily divided the nation from the start. Kapernick was clearly using this moment to express his disdain for the US.
This past weekend’s protests have a mishmash of motives. Most of it directed in response to the President’s comments.
The NFL is as much victim now as instigator. There is no way the NFL can maintain its current posture.
I am not all that worked up. Who knows how it will continue.
3 observations.
First, I did Ironman Chattanooga this past weekend. The national anthem was played at the start. No one kneeled. There were people of all races, men and women, from all over the world. Respect all around.
Second, I was taken aback to learn that NFL players who played a game in the U.K., stood for God save the Queen, but then some kneeled for the National Anthem. You can’t make this stuff up.
Third, does. It apply to this post, but the Christian community has an over abundance of people writing on this topic who really don’t have any working knowledge of the First Amendment. We can do better.
I meant point 3 does not apply to this post. Typing on my phone…
When I’m kicked back in my recliner and hear the National Anthem I don’t get up and place my right hand over my heart. Matter of fact I stay reclined. Does that mean I hate our country or disrespect the flag? Absolutely not! I respect our soldiers and vets but I am neither. At a game I will stand just because everyone else does. Standing is a man made rule and it doesn’t mean you hate our country. I almost joined the military but I fell in love so the military became the least of my priorities. Folks have a right to protest anyway they see fit. This is what our military fought and died for. Donald Trump has made the protests all about him, and instead of dividing our country he needs to realize the planets don’t revolve around him. Should we respect our nation and the flag? Absolutely!
I don’t often agree with Jess so I have to note the occasion.
Dave, I confess to believing sometimes that opinions expressed in this blog are strange or naive but today’s comment may be one of your better articles and I appreciate your reasoning. I realize most Americans today have never served in the armed services, including most pastors. So, an observation might be helpful.
Many Christians think they might be willing to die for their faith but most really aren’t and few know anyone that has. Those that have worn an American Flag on the shoulder of their military uniform have prepared to die for their beliefs and most personality have known someone who did. That fact results in a significant difference in attitude and commitment.
Most veterans have a strong emotional attachment to the symbolism of the flag. They have seen it flying above a fire base as they trudged out of the jungle, flying above a US Navy ship off a hostile shore, waving above an armored convoy coming in support, and seen it on the shoulders of medics and pilots aboard medivac helicopters picking up wounded comrades.
Veterans have also stood at attention when that flag was removed from atop a friend’s coffin and presented to a grieving family. The flag means something special to them.
Wearers of that flag have stood ready to defend the freedoms of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They and/or their comrades in arms have indured hardships, been shot at, stabbed, and abused by adversaries wearing different flags. Adversaries, whom they recognize, are in opposition to American and hate the freedoms her citizens enjoy. Veterans have sacrificed to keep that flag flying, unsoiled, and undefeated.
Truly, military veterans, past and present of all races, sexes, and backgrounds are the real America’s Team. Sports teams don’t come close to the cohesion of a military unit. The flag is the symbol of their team and reminds them of dedication and sacrifice. They may perceive little material difference between a foreign adversary or a domestic protester who disrespects their flag.
There are many ways to exercise the first amendment right of free speech. American citizens may actively protest against police misconduct, higher taxes, rezoning proposals, animal control ordinances, Planned Parenthood, special housing tax preference for pastors, or any number of other things. However, I believe a majority of Americans, and virtually all veterans, will consider disrespect for the flag not as a legitimate exercise of first amendment rights but rather as an attack upon the symbol of a form of government that protects all our freedoms, including the freedom of speech.
The purpose for the original taking a knee has been lost by the means chosen to make the point.
Many patriots will not see anything other than disrespect for the flag… the country and military. When the anthem/flag became the vehicle chosen to make the point those wanting to have the point made… needed to see their intent was lost and a division was sown. I do not think it will be regained, therefore it would be good if a different mode to express their true grievance was selected so it can be made.
When bringing in the broad brush of white supremacy and pointing at all whites as the enemy, a lesson could be learned about all the whites in the USofA died during the Civil War to see slavery end. There is a figure of 95,000 union casualties and a figure of 165,000 others (disease (by far the most common cause of death), accidents, drowning, heat stroke, suicide, murder, execution.)) -[http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-casualties]
Just a few observations.
I would like to point out the first two lines in the third verse of the National Anthem: No refuge could save the hireling and slave-From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.
If the National Anthem (Star Spangled Banner) was talking about killing white people the song would not exist. Matter of fact probably 100% of white people would not stand when it is sung.
Francis Scott Key was a slave owner himself. The British would hire people and many slaves took up arms against America and fought with the British in order to gain freedom.
Actually as I understand it slavery is not the issue the ball players are kneeling when the Anthem is being played. Injustices in America is the reason many black people are kneeling.
“If the National Anthem (Star Spangled Banner) was talking about killing white people the song would not exist.”
The entire song is about the Battle of Baltimore during the War of 1812. The Star Spangled Banner waiving over Ft. McHenry after 25 hours of siege by the British Navy signaled America was victorious. The song in its entirety is about defeating/killing British sailors. You ignore “hireling” in the song. These were mercenaries paid by the British to fight against America. Do you assume these to be people of color?
America, in her infancy, had defeated Great Britain for a second time and national pride and patriotism flourished. This song celebrated then and celebrates now our freedom. I thank God for the United States of America and have no problem as a devout follower of Christ standing for our National Anthem. I am at a loss for words to describe the opportunity the United States has afforded me.
Dean, I assumed nothing. Of course the hireling were paid mercenaries, but the slaves were still slaves who were fighting for their freedom. I’m not putting my country down even with the many injustices we still have. Many people are taking those injustices and tossing them into the political arena instead of trying to fix them.
When Christianity becomes political then it is no longer Christianity. When freedom becomes political then it is no longer freedom, and when justice becomes political it is no longer justice.
Well stated, Dean.
My point seems to have gotten by you. I’m saying your assertion that we would not sing the National Anthem if it were about killing white people is unfounded and historically inaccurate because it was written about the defeat of Britain’s Navy at Baltimore. Approximately 50 British were killed at this battle and hundreds others were wounded and we sing about that victory because it was an important junction in the War of 1812.
You make it sound as if the National Anthem celebrates killing blacks and I just don’t get that.
On the cross, Christ spoke the powerful words…
“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
The founders of this marvelous country were men who did what they understood to be the right thing. Much of what they did was right and some of what they did was wrong. We cannot dismiss the wrong but we must not discard the right.
I am one to believe that 200 years from now the same thing might be said about us. It is likely we are taking stands based upon our “know”ledge of things. I am sure Christ could say with just as much correctness today… Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Some of that forgiveness we need will be for the racism we are convinced we “know” we do not have.
Amen, Jon!
Dean Stewart,
I understand all of that, I am just saying that slaves were mentioned specifically, and because they were fighting for their freedom and against America the song mentions killing them. I’m not adding anything to the song nor taking anything away from it. I’m saying, I don’t care what song it is if it’s about killing me I would not stand for it. In Kentucky we changed some words in My Old Kentucky Home because some of the words had a racial connotation, just maybe we need to do away with the other verses in the National Anthem except verse one since that’s all that is sung anyway. I don’t know if it is true or not, but there may be a ban on the third verse. All I’m trying to do is to possibly show the other side of the story in my crude way since I’m not an eloquent speaker.
I believe in justice and liberty for all, I love our law enforcement people. It just seems wrong to shoot an unarmed person unless they are attacking an officer and it is the last resort, Stun guns can be used for the unruly law breakers and if that doesn’t work then the real thing may be used. There needs to be a clarity made in apprehending a law breaker. It seems body cameras would work but I can’t understand why many of them are turned off when dealing with a law breaker. Seems to me that any unarmed person shouldn’t be shot simply for running away, unless it is known they are a murderer or child abuser or anything of this nature and degree of evil.
Dean, I agree with you more than you know, I’m just saying why not take a peek at the other side of the issue just a little bit and we might get closer to what is right. Dean, if there are six games in one day and the National Anthem is played each time a game starts do you get out of your recliner and stand each time? If You don’t in some circles that would be disrespect to the flag and country. If we are going to keep the law why not keep the whole law and drive the speed limit at all times, and why get aggravated at tax time. Just take a little peek at the other side of the issue.
Jess, I haven’t made a comment about the protests or the NFL only the Anthem.
I do have an opinion, you and Dave both put forth a false dichotomy that if someone is angered by the protest against the Anthem they are not interested in the protestor’s view point.
That is not true, I can reject the method of protest and still be sympathetic to the reasons for the protest. I live in Real World, USA so I am aware that Antonio Brown is not coming into my office tomorrow. But in Real World I pastor and interact with dozens of minorities and I constantly listen to those individuals and I am very sympathetic to what they share with me. The fact that I am offended by an Anthem protest does not make me less sympathetic to inequalities that exist today.
We are assuming that the “slaves” in the third verse of the anthem was a racial thing, not referring to a metaphorical thing.
I am not sure that is what Key meant.
But I am not a poet.
Dave, the author’s intent is always the correct interpretation but, alas, Key never spoke or wrote a public word about the National Anthem once he finished writing it. Any claim to what he meant is conjecture.
The enslavement/freedom theme was so common. But I guess that will always remain in doubt.
Dave
In my opinion disrespect is not a legitimate form of protest. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
America is worth standing for.
These young “men” owe their nation respect, when they come to their senses and stand on their feet and apologize then I think there can be some meaningful dialogue.
Woody Whitt
The President is Commander-in-Chief and he has made it about the nation. Those who want to claim he’s made it about himself are entitled to that opinion, but he’s reiterated (multiple times) it’s about respecting, the country, the flag, and those who serve(d), and have died for this nation.
Also, this notion of Free Speech is simply not true. The players in the NFL do not have free speech. The Dallas players were not allowed to put stickers on their helmets to honor the slain policemen. Someone was not allowed to wear pink shoes to honor his mother and bring recognition to breast-cancer, and the examples could continue. Should we even talk about Touchdown Celebrations and why the NFL is known as the “No Fun League”. The NFL does not allow free speech.
This is purely a political statement. First by Kapernick (that he hated America and claimed it to be brutally rascist), then by the NFL not telling him to stop (which they do to every other player for abusrd issues), and then last Sunday with so many others responding to the President (who made a political statement).
Furthermore, this notion that anyone has “free speech” in every place in every circumstance is ridiculous and simply not true. While you can “protest anyway you see fit”, try spouting off at the company you work for things that are against the HR policies and see how long you have a job. Yeah, you had a “right” to free speech, but it will get you fired. Try suing the company claiming they infringed upon your free speech and watch the attorneys laugh at you.
This is not about free speech. It’s about divisive politics.
It’s true that the NFL could stop these protests, but they haven’t, therefore the players do have free speech in these circumstances. This isn’t about the country, the flag, or veterans, none of which (IMO) Trump cares about. This is about generating ratings, which is something the president very much cares about.
So, as I said, this is all about politics… 🙂 On both sides
Bill Mac,
Sir, as much as I hate to say it you hit the nail right on the head.
“Free speech” is what we refer to with regard to our rights under the First Amendment.
That amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging speech. This means that the government cannot control or punish speech. This is what all citizens enjoy in the U.S. The players, the fans, the President – may all speak without the government issuing fines, injunctions, making arrests etc.
“Free speech” does not refer to speech being free from societal disapproval or social consequences.
There is no such speech of that type.
All speech comes with consequences from our family, friends, employers, customers, and society at large.
Even preachers don’t have “free speech” as used in that way. They have to consider lots of human factors and societal relationships before they speak.
Businesses don’t have “free speech” as used in this way. Their customers may not like what the business says.
Employees don’t have “free speech” as used in this way. An employer may restrict an employee’s speech at work. We all know this to be true.
And an employee may decide to fire an employee for speech outside of work. If a church, for example, saw the church secretary at a local Planned Parenthood march carrying a sign in favor of Planned Parenthood, the church could fire the secretary because they don’t want church employees speaking on behalf of that cause.
Children don’t have free speech in the home.
Husbands and wives don’t have free speech in this way.
Even really powerful people, like media people, political leaders, high profile business people, often control and watch what they say. Legally, they can say whatever they want. But speech comes with consequences.
So when we say, “Everyone has ‘Free Speech”, we are correct when we are referring to the First Amendment and that the government in the U.S. cannot control or punish the speech of citizens.
We are incorrect when we conflate the Constitutional right of Free Speech to mean that people have a right to speak freely without consequence from private persons or society.
No one who has ever lived has that kind of “Free Speech.”
In this case, the government may not try to restrict the right of the players. In some societies you cannot criticize the government in your speech. And in this case, there has been absolutely no attempt by local, state, or the federal government to control the players’ right to speak. The players, the fans, the owners, and the President are free to speak without the government interfering.
But neither the players, the fans, the owners, nor the President has the claim of “Free Speech” so as to insulate them from the consequences that might be brought to them as a result of their employment relationship, the customer relationship with fans, the risk of being criticized by political leaders (including the President), or the risk of being criticized or punished by the broader society or voters.
Those are all contractual and societal pressures, as opposed to government interference.
I hope we can remember this distinction.
Otherwise we really sound silly.
You don’t get to slap my dad to get my attention that someone down the street treated you unfairly. If that is your means to make your point, It will not work and you will probably get smacked back with vengeance.
Let your protest make sense.
Can I point out the frustration of writing blog posts?
I did not write on the MERITS of the protests, but on how we handle the discussion. My point was that as Christians, we need to do more to understand the OTHER side and why they feel as they do.
Most commenters promptly ignored EVERYTHING I said and proceeded to opine on the protests themselves.
It is frustrating. And it is clear that my post has failed in its point – at least with those who have commented.
You could spin this to say the comments proved your thesis.
Dave,
I understand your frustration. You have said “I did not write on the MERITS of the protests, but on how we handle the discussion. My point was that as Christians, we need to do more to understand the OTHER side and why they feel as they do.” Its like preaching a sermon and the folks listening get the opposite of what was in the text.
I understand where you are coming from. However in this case there are not “two sides” to this because the players themselves don’t really have a consensus about why they are doing it. So all we are left with is the fact that they are disrespecting their nation.
That being said there are a lot of opinions being offered as to why they are doing it and of those there might be one that is close to the truth, so we are still left with the act itself.
So until it is clear precisely why are they are being disrespectful we are still left with the act itself, and until it is stopped we cannot engage in an assumed “other side” since it has not been articulated. If it has I have missed it. What I have heard is conflicting perspectives.
Perhaps someone in this forum can point out the definitive reason why they are being disrespectful.
Thank you
Woody Whitt
Dave,
Certainly as a broad principle, understanding or seeking to understand those who disagree with you is a good thing for everyone especially those who name the Name.
But though one might understand the other side it doesn’t mean they have a valid or correct POV.
Trads might understand Cals and vice versa and still strongly disagree. Understanding where they are coming from doesn’t always help reconciliation.
Dave Miller said:
“Okay. I have some tie-dyed shirts I’m working on before I go out and gather flowers. Peace.”
Hey Dave, I don’t want to rain on your parade, but you better hurry if you are going to be able to “gather flowers” anywhere in Iowa.
The reason I urge you to hurry is that I heard on ESPN this morning that the IOWA HAWKEYES were out all over the state picking Pansies, Daisies, and Tulips, and they are dressed in tie-dyed shirts that had this on the front: “WE SUPPORT TOUCH FOOTBALL RATHER THAN TACKLE.”
and on the back, “LET NON-VIOLENCE RULE.”
So hurry up and get out there, Brother and gather those flowers before they are all gone! And always remember. . . . . .
LONG LIVE THE SEC!!! and ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!!
William Thornton,
Please send me your email address.
I sent you an email, the address you use for SBCV. Let me know if you’ve changed it.
Dave,
Totally off the subject but can’t find a way to communicate with you otherwise. I read SBC Voices quite often and sometimes even comment. I have an idea for a post but don’t know how to go about getting it submitted, vetted, and maybe even approved. I am a Southern Baptist, an attorney by occupation and ministry, and of advanced years. Let me know. Thank you.
Jim Lockhart
Jim,
You can contact Dave at davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com (it’s a real email address) and submit your article.
Thank you, Mike.