White Supremacy -Not What We Think
I’m very eager to get back to the primary work of Bee Indee 3, and national issues are not as appealing to me anyway. In fact, I was prepared to let the issue rest until mainstream pundits began making demands of “Christians”. The toxic attraction that exists between politics and Christianity goes back for nearly 2 millennia, and very rarely does anything good come from the relationship. When I began to sense signs of wavering among the “brethren”, I felt it necessary to conduct a Facebook Live “lecture” to lay out my concerns. Many of you tuned in to the discussion, and left great feedback! Despite the controversial premise, I hope that it was thought-provoking, and laid the foundation for healthy discussion in the future. I wanted to publish this final post to summarize the discussion, for those who are disinclined to watch me drone on for an hour. I’ll also add some additional clarifications to compensate for the “off-the cuff” nature of the lecture. After this post, we will resume business as usual, re-open our fundraiser, and set about the work of building solid infrastructure for Conservatives to operate in our county.
The main premise of my argument, is that the incredibly fluid definition of “White Supremacy” weakens the potency of any community stance against legitimately hateful ideology. I contend that the “Dog Whistle” element of a term like “White Supremacy” leaves too much ambiguity to send an effective message. For the conservative, the term ‘White Supremacy’ creates a distinct image of hateful, violent, and ignorant subculture within our borders. For others, the term can include anyone who is white, voted for Trump, disagrees with removing historical monuments, or supports law enforcement. The spectrum of interpretation is far too broad for a blanket condemnation of the term to effectively reach its intended target with the necessary solidarity to discourage adherents. I would go so far as to suggest that we further strengthen the position of hateful ideology, by tolerating so loose an interpretation.
From here, the argument pivots to the role of the Christian leader in this discussion. This was particularly grievous to me, because entities who have repeatedly expressed their contempt for our system of faith, now claim to be offering “helpful advice”. The wisdom of Solomon come to mind: “When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.” – Proverbs 23:1-3 KJV. The scripture is explicitly clear that Jesus Christ liberated the Church from social and economic boundaries. Any message that comes with the weight and authority of Scripture must inherently be global in scale. New Testament doctrine suggests that singling out any ethnic group for criticism is not compliant with the values of Jesus Christ. For pastors to single out “White Nationalism” in the face of a wide array of ethnically based ideologies is dangerous, given the “dog-whistle” nature of the term. The Christian church is to be united in Christ, and around His Gospel alone. I absolutely believe that the push to inject race into the Gospel will only serve to weaken the universal message of the Gospel.
This does not grant any of us a pass from engaging in social issues. As the “light of the world” Christians have the weighty task of setting the example for leading sanctified lifestyles that honor the God we worship. It is more than appropriate to take a firm stand against legitimate expressions of hate, violence, and intimidation. All of us, Christian or not, must globally condemn bigotry and racism, in whatever form it takes. And we must always keep in the forefront of our mind that this is not a “white” problem. This is a HUMAN problem. We must stand firm in our commitment to NEVER allow scheming forces to weaken our stance against global bigotry. We should view with intense suspicion, efforts that encourage us to depart from this view. Racism and bigotry must always be condemned in the broadest scale possible. That said, those who act to advance those causes should be confronted in the most limited scale possible, and they should be held individually responsible for their actions. This means if the Montana Ku Klux Klan burns down a church in Montana, then the Montana Ku Klux Klan should be the object of our criticism, not Micheal Peroutka from Maryland. This is the model to move forward as a community, and this is how we preserve our commitment to peace and dialogue, while remaining vigilant against hateful ideology. Bee Indee!