THOUGHTS ON RACE BY AN OLD WHITE GUY

Nine years ago, on November 3, 2008, the United States elected our first African American President, Barack Obama.  Uni and I were overwhelmed with excitement that Tuesday evening as we watched the acceptance speech of the man we had voted for.  We had been ministering across racial lines for years and had felt that in our own small way we had made some contribution toward what was then known as "racial reconciliation."  We felt that Barack Obama's election was a great step forward for our nation and the church in America.  We soon found out that we were overly optimistic in our assessment; in  fact we found out the very next evening as we attended our (all white) church's Wednesday evening service. 

We had mixed emotions over the negative comments we heard; our joy became mixed with grief and anger.  What we had seen as something beautiful was perceived by many in my (white Christian) circle as something ugly.  By Friday I had assembled my thoughts enough to publish the following post which I am here republishing in its entirety:

IS GOD STILL ON THE THRONE?

Back in 1960, I was a fairly young believer and attending what I regarded then as a Bible-preaching church. It was an election year, my first in which I’d get to vote for president. The Democrat candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic was running against Richard M. Nixon, a Quaker and well-known Communist hunter.

Meetings were held at various churches, fundamentalist and others, including the one I attended, denouncing the evils of Catholicism and foretelling the horrible dangers that would befall our Protestant nation if Kennedy were elected. Not only was He Catholic, but also a liberal!

Rumors were circulated by mail and tract (I wonder what would have happened if we’d had the Internet).

Well, of course, all of us true believers voted against this horrible evil, but to no avail. Kennedy won! Fear struck our hearts! America was doomed! But few, if any, of our fears were realized.

When Barack Obama was campaigning for election, rumors were spread, only now we have the Internet.
-- He’s a secret Muslim.
-- He’s an Arab.
-- He “pals around with terrorists.”
-- He’s not even an American.
-- He’s going to promote gay marriage.
-- He’s going to take our guns away.
-- And, of course, he’s the anti-Christ!

And a few truths:
-- He’s a liberal (so were the signers of our Declaration of Independence).
-- He’s black (actually, he’s mixed-race)!
-- His middle name is Hussein.

The evening that Obama gave his acceptance speech huge crowds gathered in cities across the nation. Uni and I were moved to tears when we saw the images on our TV screen. Blacks and whites embracing; tears rolling down the cheeks of older black people.

A half-century after the Civil Rights Movement, after the demise of Jim Crow (our American version of apartheid), an African-American was elected President of the USA. We felt it was a great moment in the history of our nation, a demonstration that “all men (really) are created equal.” It was truly historical. Here was a moment all Americans, whether Democrat or Republican, whether black or white, no matter whom they’d voted for, could celebrate.

But such was not the case. Instead, we were told by our Christian friends (and others) that the reactions we witnessed were the same sort of reactions that the anti-Christ will get when he appears; that America may no longer be a “Christian nation” (whatever that is!). A friend of mine was told that the second coming must be near because of this.

This strange mixture of fear, eschatological zeal, far-right politics, and I believe, downright racism is unbecoming to those who name the name of Christ.

And even those who claim that they are not afraid say something like, “Well, we have to remember, God is still on the throne.” Apparently though in their thinking, the throne is wobbling and God is barely hanging on!

Our God is Sovereign! He reigns! He sets up rulers and takes them down. He has a purpose in setting up Barack Obama. Perhaps the church through this will learn a little more tolerance, as some of us did 48 years ago.

Bill Ball
11/7/2008

Knowing that very few of my friends and acquaintances read my blog, I felt that I needed to get these thoughts out to as many as I could,  so I e-mailed it to everyone in my address book.

I waited in fear and apprehension for the replies.  Though only a small number replied, I felt relieved when I read them.  Very few were hostile;  some expressed agreement;

some even seemed to share my feelings; most of them expressed what I at the time optimistically considered "qualified agreement" (See:  YES HE IS.)  I now feel that I was incorrect in this assessment.  Today, as I re-read these replies I understand most of them as attempts (sincere or insincere) to be irenic or conciliatory, perhaps out of respect (or pity?) for me.

I believe that the last nine years have demonstrated that my early optimism was misdirected.  We have made little, if any, progress toward racial reconciliation in America and in the church;  in fact I fear that we've actually gone backward.

For the eight years of Barack Obama's presidency we saw animosity toward him running high, and I strongly believe that much, if not most of it was racially motivated.  Why else would congressional leaders state that their goal was to see him fail?  Why were there so many conspiracy and "birther" theories?  Why the increase in the number of racially motivated and white supremacist hate groups - the Klan, the neo-nazis?

And the situation has not improved since Barack Obama left office.  Racism now seems to have become official American policy.  White supremacist groups are more open and even accepted. And the church at best looks the other way.

Many of my white Christian (and other) friends will sincerely deny that all of these people and actions are or were racially motivated. Perhaps some weren't, though I suspect that many people are simply refusing to look inside.  We fear what we may find.

Uni and I are brokenhearted!  And please do not accuse me of being "political."  This is not simply a matter of politics, but a matter of right and wrong.  It's a matter of the church being the church, of actually loving our neighbors.

ILLEGAL PEOPLE?

Are those who enter (or remain) in our country without proper documentation "illegals"? Are they criminals?  Are they unworthy of compassion, even though they may have arrived here seeking refuge from persecution, war or poverty?  Apparently many Americans, including those who claim to be followers of Jesus, believe so.
 

On a previous post (A Child of Immigrants) - I argued that most of us Americans are "children of immigrants" as I myself am.  I pointed out that some of my ancestors may have been refugees and that those who had arrived in the 17th century did so "without official clearance from the residents who had preceded them ... "

The only comment I received was "Like the liberal blowhard of the lame stream media, you have missed the point ...  The issue is illegal immigration ..."

I replied rather tackily that I considered being identified as a "liberal blowhard" was a compliment and then forgot the comment.

Later I have had second thoughts and I realize that while I had retorted to a perceived slam against me, I had ignored what my reader was saying about the perceived danger of "illegal immigration."  So I feel I need to say more.

There are many in America who have entered this country "illegally."  There are quite a few who have entered legally but have stayed beyond the permitted time.  This may include students, tourists, those who visit for business reasons and so forth.  These would also be included among the "illegals."  Then there are many who have permanent visas, green cards or other legal papers.  Add to these the many refugees who seek refuge here - again through legal channels.  Our present administration is seeking both to rid our nation of those perceived to be illegals (especially brown, Spanish speaking ones) and to keep out those who are attempting to enter legally.  And we're told that the majority of Americans applaud these actions.

I don't know about the person who commented on my previous post, but there are many nativists who don't distinguish between those who have entered legally and those who entered illegally.

I suspect that the problem which many perceive is not a problem having to do with whether or not certain persons hold a particular piece of paper, but a problem having to do with the outward appearances of those persons.  Their skin is darker than mine; they talk funny; they wear strange head coverings or clothing; they worship differently - maybe they even worship different gods!

As I have mentioned in that previous post, my mother came to this country as a child, from Austria.  While her parents retained much of their old world culture and German accents, Mom became pretty well-integrated as an American.  She left behind much of what would distinguish her (except that in her speech she'd occasionally revert to a different word order than English).  One day I heard her complain angrily, "There are too many foreigners coming into this country!"

"Mom!" I replied.  "How can you say that?  You were a 'foreigner' once yourself."

I could see and hear her anger rising as she replied, "You know what I mean!"

Unfortunately I did know what she meant.  She meant what many of our indignant complainers of today mean, "There are too many brown-skinned, strange talking heathen coming into America."

I think it's time we white native born "Christian" Americans wake up to the fact that our indignation against these people may be based not on concern for their legal status, but on our own racial and religious bigotry.

But now we don't have to call them by those racial or ethnic slurs (that say more about those who use them than about those of whom they are used), we can simply call them "illegals" and self-righteously demand that our government do something about them and applaud when this happens.

Leviticus 19:33-34:  "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.  You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.  I am the LORD your God."

This passage does not distinguish whether the "stranger" is "legal" or "illegal."

THE CHURCH IN DENIAL

The following incident occurred 15 or so years ago when I taught at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston.  CBS is a college that was originally founded to give Biblical and Theological training to African-American ministers and other leaders in the black community.  Though it has diversified since its beginnings, the majority of its students is still African-American, though ironically many of the faculty and most of its wealthy supporters are white.  (While my memory may have failed me on some of the details, I believe the story is basically accurate.

Anyway, I'm sitting having coffee with 3 or 4 students; I'm the only white guy at the table.

One of the students cheerfully informs us, "They asked me to give my testimony at the fund-raising banquet."

"Wow, that's great!" replies another.  "What you goin' to tell?"

"I'm goin' to tell how the Lord saved me and I'm goin' to tell about how this school has been such a help in my spiritual growth."

"Make sure you tell 'em about the drugs," says another, older student.  Smirks appear on the other faces (including mine).

"Drugs?" says the first.

"Yeah," says the other.  "You got to tell them how you were saved from drugs."  The smirks turn to grins.

"But I ain't never done drugs!" was the indignant reply.

"Look" says his self-appointed coach.  "That don't make no difference!  There's two things them rich white folks want to know about us black folks.  First, that we been saved from drugs, 'cause we all are on drugs!  And the other thing they want to know is that we ain't goin' after their daughters!"

Well, this white guy almost choked with laughter, as did the others at the table, except for the deflated young testifier.  However, later as I pondered the conversation I'd heard I was deeply saddened at how true the "coach's" insights were.  For quite some time I had recognized the truth of what was so cynically expressed, though I was hesitant to admit it.

On a previous post, AMERICA IN DENIAL, I spoke of the racism that permeates not only our white American culture, but also the church.  I spoke of how we all can find ourselves somewhere on a continuum of racism.  I spoke of our need as the church for repentance, not only of the racism within us but also of its accompanying twin: denial.  I mentioned some of our trite ways of excusing ourselves.  After posting this I learned of some new ways, not only of denying one's personal racism, but of denying that racism even exists.

In my own experience I have found some of the most ludicrous denials of racism coming from those who are most involved in ministry across racial lines.  I am speaking as one who has spent many years attempting to cross racial barriers, as one who has sought to bring about what used to be known as "racial reconciliation."  After all, we might say, aren't we white people the ones who are making an effort to cross these lines?  To "minister" to these people in their need - for the Gospel, for education, for whatever else?  Yes, but what is our motive for this service?  Does our service reinforce our feelings of racial superiority?  After all, aren't we the ones with something better to give?

I have heard my white co-workers, my white fellow ministers making of-the-cuff racist remarks or using racial stereotypes, often unwittingly.  And I suppose that I have been guilty of the same.  I have also heard those of other races express their distrust of white people, as the above episode illustrates.  Is our racism more obvious to those to whom we minister than it is to us?

As I said before, I am pessimistic of any real change in America's situation.  Though we must continue to work for social justice and racial reconciliation, we must also recognize this fact. However, we as the church, we who claim allegiance to Christ need to rise above the racism of America.  If there is to be change, it must begin with us.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves some pointed questions:

-- Do we really believe that Christ died to reconcile us to God and to our fellow human beings?

-- Do we really believe that in Christ "there is neither Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free" (Colossians 3:11), that "there is no Jew or Greek, there is no male or female" (Galatians 3:28)? How about black and white?

-- Do we really believe that we have an obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves?

-- Do we really believe that Jesus commanded us to make disciples of ALL the nations?

This is not and should not be a matter of political preference or regional upbringing.  This is at the heart of what it means to be a follower of Christ.

The Second Person of the Trinity stepped outside the comfort zone of Heaven to become one of us.  If I may say, He crossed racial barriers to become one with those who were his enemies.

The Apostle Paul apparently felt that as a follower of Jesus, he needed to cross those barriers as his Lord had done. "For though I am free from all, I made myself a servant to all that I might win the more ... I have become all things to all that I might same some" (1 Corinthians 9:19, 22a).  He lists those he has "become as".

Are we willing to confess our racial pride and fears and become a "servant of all" even of those who are different, who may be suspicious of us, even hate us?

AMERICA IN DENIAL

The slaughter last week of nine African-American Christians at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, SC, seems to have had an impact on all Americans.  The picture of a young skinny white killer seemed contradictory.  He looked like a frightened child; he wasn't a tattooed skinhead.  Yet his racist Confederate paraphernalia told the story.

He had been welcomed into the church and sat for an hour through a Bible study before cold-bloodedly shooting his victims.

This horrible event seems to have awakened much of white America to the racism that lies very close to the surface of our culture.  After repeated news stories of police killings and abuse of black people, this slaughter seems to have finally brought forth an admission of this horrible American trait.

Or has it?  We have heard many expressions of sympathy for the families of the victims and for the members of Emanuel Church, but will that sympathy last?

We've latched on to some easy "solutions" to the problem.  There has been a nationwide outcry against the Confederate battle flag flying at the South Carolina capital - the same flag held by the killer in his proudly posted picture.  The governor of South Carolina and most of the state's legislators have agreed that the flag must come down.  Other states have spoken of removing it from public display as well.  Even Wal*Mart!  I agree it's about time, though actually it's about 150 years late.  No matter what its defenders say, the flag is a symbol that represents racism and slavery as many, both black and white have noted, though I have heard little mention of the fact that it also symbolizes rebellion against the United States of America; it is a treasonous symbol!

And then there are the cries for more and stricter gun regulation; of course, these cries will have no effect on a population living in fear.

I must say that I am pessimistic of any real change in America's situation.  Racism will continue.  There will be more cases of police racial profiling, of hate crimes, of injustice toward minorities, and yes, there will be more racist-motivated murders.

Because racism is in an integral part of our nation's history and culture.  And the reader's reaction to a statement like this is probably denial.  Surveys and polls inform us  that the majority of white Americans still do not see racism as a problem.  Inane denials that I heard 60 years ago are still being uttered today:

          "Some of my best friends are black (or colored or N_____s)."
          "I don't see color."
          "I'm not prejudiced."

And of course, the protests:

          "One lone incident does not mean we are all racists!"
          "What about black on white crime?"
          "What about black on black crime?"

The latest one:  "We mustn't politicize this tragedy."

What is so grievous is that Christians - people who claim to be followers of the One who commanded us to love our neighbor - are often the ones who are most caught up in denial.  While we may admit that racism exists, certainly "we have no part in it."

Some have referred to racism as America's Original Sin.  While I may not go that far, I believe that it ranks right up there as a contender for the title.  It has been with us from the beginning, with slavery and wars of extermination of native Americans.  Perhaps it is part of our American DNA as some have expressed.  And certainly it is not isolated to our nation.

I believe that racism - that fear of "the other" or the feeling that I am somehow superior to him - is an aspect of our fallen nature and that it dwells in some form or another in every one of us.  And we live in a fallen world of which America is a part.

Every one of us - I am speaking as a member of the white branch of the human race -  can find ourselves somewhere on a continuum of racism.  At the far end of this continuum we can find those who are members of the hate groups:  skinheads, neo-Nazis, Klansmen or "lone wolves" such as the young murderer of Charleston; and there are plenty of these.  But the rest of us, even those who consider ourselves "liberal" can find ourselves somewhere along this line if we'd bother to take an honest look.

I believe that it is time for the (white) church in America to stop "being conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2) in its racism.  It is time for us to stop saying, "we have no sin" and stop "deceiving ourselves" (1 John 1:8).  I believe we need to - we must - examine our own hearts for the racism that lurks there.  We must repent and confess it to God, as well as to our fellow human beings.  We need to ask God not only to forgive us, but to continue to show us where we are racist in our thoughts and actions.  We need to ask Him to, by the power of His Holy Spirit, cleanse us of this sin, this chronic disease.

We cannot on our own eliminate racism from our nation but we as the church of Jesus Christ can move toward cleansing it out of our midst.  Only then, I believe can we expect to see a real change in our culture.

Father, we confess that we your church, have been guilty.  We and our fathers have sinned in our racism, our lack of love, our hatred toward those who are different than we are.  We have compounded our sin by our denial of its existence.  We have compounded our sin by our tolerance of it in our churches and among our fellow believers.  Forgive us.  Open our eyes.  Cleanse us we pray.

DEATH OF A KING

I recently finished reading the book, Death of a King:  The Real Story of Dr. Martin Luther King's Final Year, by Tavis Smiley with David Ritz.
 

This is a powerful book but not one to read when you're down.  Though it is brief and well-written, I found I had to chew on it in small bites and I was thankful that it was composed in brief chapters.  There are other, fuller biographies of Dr. King, which I would recommend, such as David Garrow's Bearing the Cross or Taylor Branch's 3-volume set subtitled America in the King Years.  These books will fill in much of what we need to know about Dr. King's life and the Civil Rights' movement in which he was involved.

But this book is different; it is as the title tells us, only concerned with the year preceding Dr. King's assassination.  It does not delve into the details of the movement and its surrounding politics.  It tells little about the rival factions in the movement.  It tells us nothing about Dr. King's assassin.

Smiley is concerned rather with Dr. King himself (whom he refers to as "Doc"), as much as possible getting inside his head.  He uses memoirs and personal interviews with Dr. King's associates and friends.  He delves into his speeches and writings which reveal much about the man.  Smiley does an excellent job; the reader can feel the author's empathy.  Clearly, Dr. King is his hero, yet he is not afraid to portray him warts and all.

The story begins on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before the assassination, with King's "dramatic and controversial speech in impassioned opposition to the Vietnam War" (page 5 - Smiley quotes portions of this and other speeches throughout the book.)

Though Dr. King had spoken against the war before his April 4th speech, it was this speech that marked his final break with the Johnson administration.  One of the great tragedies of our time was the break between these two men.  Lyndon Johnson and Martin King had both previously worked tirelessly together on Civil Rights' legislation.  Lyndon Johnson was and probably still should be regarded as the President who did the most for Civil Rights since Abraham Lincoln.  But his involvement in and escalation of what is perceived by many as a senseless war, drew a shadow over what he had accomplished.

Dr. King saw the war as most wars are, a rich man's war fought by poor men.  The draft took a disproportionate number of those same African-Americans for whom Dr. King - and President Johnson - had fought hard to bring into full rights in the mainstream of America.

And so the man who was recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was now perceived by many Americans as a traitor, along with others in the Peace Movement.  As Dr. King said, speaking of the nation's attitude toward Muhammad Ali, "There is a very dangerous development in the nation to equate dissent with disloyalty" (page 50).  There were many in the Civil Rights' movement at this time, though who were still supportive of the war, so Dr. King found himself out of step with many of his fellow workers.

Add to this the fact that Dr. King's non-violent path of civil disobedience was perceived by many younger people in the Civil Rights' movement, as being too slow and ineffective.  The more radical Black Power movement was coming to the fore.  And so his following was being shrunk from many directions. All of this on top of the white racism and hatred that he continually experienced.

Dr. King was becoming more concerned not simply with matters of race but also of poverty.  He spent much of this final year attempting to organize a "Poor Peoples' March" on Washington.  And there was the Sanitation Workers' strike in Memphis which he was working in support of.

King seemed to be sliding deep into depression and like many, this drove him into greater activity.  We find him flying from city to city, speaking and organizing.  He appeared exhausted emotionally and physically when he arrived in Memphis.

The story ends with tragic simplicity:

          "Then a shot rings out.

          The bullet finds its mark,

          Doc falls.

          At age thirty-nine, his life on earth ends."

The epilogue contains a eulogy that had been delivered earlier by Dr. King for Joseph Reeb, a murdered white civil rights' worker.  Smiley apparently feels it is a fit tribute to the man who gave it.  And we the readers do so as well.

Tavis Smiley is a well-known host of both PBS and Public Radio programs, as well as a prolific author.  His empathy, even love, for the man who is his subject is clear throughout the book.  He was less than four years old when Dr. King was murdered and so his knowledge is all second hand, yet it feels as though he has known him personally.

I am ashamed to confess that as a white evangelical Christian living in the north, I had little interest in or sympathy with Dr. King and all he was accomplishing during his brief life and ministry.  It was only after I moved south to Houston, TX in 1966 that I even began to understand.

At the time of Dr. King's assassination I was working in the engineering department of a large oil tool company.  As I recall, there were well over 100 men in one huge room (all white, of course).  When news of the assassination was heard, there was celebration.  No work was done for much of the day.  I had not witnessed such "joy" since Japan surrendered after WWII!  Dr. King's death was regarded by all - at least those who were vocal - as some sort of victory.  Of course, this was mixed with "righteous indignation" at those "n____s" who rioted afterward.

Though I didn't speak up, I realized that as a follower of Jesus, I was on a different side than my co-workers, even though many of them also claimed to be Christians.  This was not my first epiphany, but it surely was the strongest.  I believe that many white evangelicals of my day, while we may not have seen ourselves as racists, were simply indifferent as to how racism - even our passive racism - is in total contradiction to the life and teachings of Christ.  I fear this is still a lingering problem.

I strongly recommend this book.  Read it with a copy nearby of A Testament of Hope - the Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by James M. Washington.  I'd also recommend one or both of the biographies mentioned above.

WHERE WERE WE?

This week marks the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Civil Rights.  I recall hearing about it on the news in 1963 -- especially the fears that it could turn into one of the greatest race riots of all time.  It didn't.

I lived in the North in Michigan.  I had graduated from an integrated high school, where I had a few friendly acquaintances with black kids, but no really close relationships.  At the time I lived in an all white neighborhood and worked in an all-white engineering department of a very mildly integrated company.  And I attended an all-white church, that we considered a Bible-believing church.

The events that were occurring in the Deep South seemed as far away from me and my friends as the events occurring today in Syria and Egypt.  Yes, we recognized that injustice was being done, but none of us good Christian folks considered it to be anything worthy of our concern.  And certainly none of us saw the need for our getting involved in the black people's struggle for their rights.

Our churches were mostly silent about these matters.  While we were puzzled by the hatred shown by our white southern brethren, we did not feel that we had any business getting involved or even voicing our opinions.  We knew there were northern white people, even clergy who had gone south to lend their support to the black struggle, but we were assured that they were "modernists," "liberals," radical Catholic priests and Jews; some were undoubtedly communists or socialists.  And, of course, the black church leaders of the civil rights movement were at best "troublemakers" and at worst, communists.

Our experiences with and exposure to Jim Crow were limited.  It wasn't practiced in our home town so it didn't concern us.  Even my time spent in the south as a Marine Corps reservist didn't cause it to sink in.  We had black guys in our company and we got along.  I never wondered why they didn't want to go to town for a burger or a beer.

Why did we hear sermons against drinking, smoking and dancing, but never against racial hatred?  Why were we preached at to love one another, but never told that that love was to cross racial lines?  Why did we sing, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in His sight," when there were no children but white children in our church?  Why did we support sending missionaries to preach the gospel to the black people in far-off Africa, yet never see black people enter our church doors to hear the gospel?

It wasn't until I and my family moved south with a job change that I began to see the hypocrisy of our fundamentalist racism.  Houston was one of the few cities in the south that had quietly begun to change.  It was there that I first met Christians who were able to talk openly about race.  Some were old-time racists, but a few saw the necessity for change.

I suppose we can justly blame the white churches in the south for their support of racism and Jim Crow laws.  They undoubtedly deserved much of the blame.  Some still hold the same racist views their fathers did.  But much of the blame also lay with the write evangelical churches in the north, if for no other reason than our silence.

We failed to see the church as pictured by Paul, " ... where there is neither Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all" (Colossians 3:11).

Today we celebrate the achievements of the Civil Rights movement as though we had something to do with it.  I wonder, have we really repented of our unconcern and passive racism?

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE REWRITING OF OUR PAST

Winston, the hero of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984 was employed at the “Ministry of Truth … which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts.”  The Ministry of Truth’s main task, of course, was to continually realign the past to suit the present.

This sort of thing, however, does not only occur in fiction.  Many modern nations would appear to have taken their cues from Orwell’s novel.  For instance, young people in China today, I’m told, have little if any knowledge of what occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989, or of the horrors of the “cultural Revolution,” or other horrors of their nation’s past.  Of course, Orwell had plenty of examples in his day, on which to pattern his novel.

The rewriting of history by authoritarian regimes is repugnant to most Americans, as grounded as we are in the freedoms guaranteed to us in our Constitution – freedom of speech, of the press, of worship.

Yet a few weeks ago, as members of our House of Representatives piously read through the U. S. Constitution, those who actually listened and were familiar with the document, noticed an omission almost immediately.  I heard this pointed out, so I sat down with my copy and watched a video on the web.  The omission was in Article One, Section 2, having to do with the appointment of legislators to the House of Representatives.  The number was to “be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.”

It was this statement that was left out.  Why?  I have not heard the rationale, and I suppose that a possible reason for the omission was that being referred to as 3/5 human might offend said persons, i.e. African Americans.  So just leave it out, right?  It was like removing the N-word from Huckleberry Finn (see my previous post).

We in America don’t have an official “Ministry of Truth,” although many of our political leaders would seem to be engaged in similar activities.  But we don’t need to look to Washington for such truthiness.  It seems to be a national pastime.

It seems to be considered a matter of patriotism to exalt our past.  We want to promote our founding fathers and other leaders of the past as great heroes, as righteous, godly men.  Those historians who point out the sins and injustices of America’s past are termed “revisionists.”

But I believe a true patriot is not a person who believes myths and half-truths about our nation, but one who loves his or her country enough to desire to know and reveal the truth about it.

And the truth is that our nation was a nation of racism from the start.  Many of our founding fathers held slaves.  Slavery was written into our Constitution.  Our “Manifest Destiny” of ruling the continent from sea to shining sea included the suppression and sometimes slaughter of indigenous and other minority peoples.

We’re told by some that the past is the past and we can’t change it, that we in this generation are not to blame for the status quo, that we’re not responsible for the evils of our ancestors.  I suppose that’s correct.  But if that is so, then why do we want to take credit for their good accomplishments?

So let’s face our past.  Let’s not sweep it under the rug.  Let’s do what we can to right the wrongs of the past, including our own.  And let’s try to make sure that future generations – our children and grandchildren – won’t have to cover for us.

“Our country, right or wrong!  When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right!” – Carl Schurz, 1872

A CUTE KIDS’ STORY?

Last week we learned that an Alabama publisher announced that it was going to release a new edition of Mark Twain’s, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in which “the N-word” will be replaced by the word “slave.”  Twain uses the N-word, we are told, 219 times (which according to Stephen Colbert, qualifies him as a rapper).
I personally loathe the N-word and realize that its use is offensive to many African-American young people and children.  But really – do we need to clean up an American classic to keep from offending?  If we start here, why don’t we also move on to re-writing other classics to remove language that is offensive to other racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups and women?  How about violence and sex?  We’d have enough work on our hands simply going through Mark Twain’s writings (except for sex – I don’t recall much of that in his writings).

And isn’t the word “slave” itself offensive?  Would Huck’s friend Jim feel better being called “slave Jim” rather than “N…. Jim”?

What is truly saddening is that Mark Twain stood out in a nation and century that accepted racism as a normal fact of everyday life.  This book – a tale of the friendship between a runaway slave and a runaway white boy – is not racist; if anything, it is anti-racist.

I first heard the book read by my fourth or fifth grade teacher. Interestingly, the number of years since I first heard about it is about equal to the number of years from its publication in 1885 till I first heard it. In my day, in an all-white school, the N-word didn’t seem as uncomfortable as Huck’s relationship with his “Paw.”  The story, however, was one of my first exposures to the concept of equality of the races.

Perhaps the action of this publisher is symptomatic of our refusal in America to honestly view our past.  It is only one of many efforts to clean up our history and literature, to make them compatible with our American mythology and not with the truth, to get rid of the skeletons in our closets and to refuse to admit that we are a nation of sinners and members of a race of sinners.

Perhaps it is also symptomatic of our failure to see adult literature as what is and of our viewing of much of our literature as simply cute kids’ stories.  This is nothing new.  It happened in my childhood days as it does today.  I read Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Dickens’, and many of Twain’s works as a child or young teenager without always comprehending their deep thought and truth, which was often hidden beneath a veil of satire.  I guess I sort of blame my teachers for not helping me to read beneath the surface.  And I fault today’s teachers for not finding the teachable moments in the reading of Huck Finn.

And I believe that the same is going on not only with literature, but with history and even the Bible.  The great stories of literature and history are Disneyfied to make them cute and compatible.  Those in the Bible as well, are cleaned up and made cute; this has been going on long before Veggie Tales (I remember the flannelgraph stories – Uni).

What is ironic is that today’s kids are exposed to sex, violence, sexism and racism – even the N-word, in all aspects of our cultural media: music, TV, movies and games.  An exposure to good literature, honest history and accurate Bible teaching would seem to be what’s needed for them to get it all in perspective.

THE IMMIGRATION QUESTION

Having spent much of my ministry reaching across racial and ethnic lines, and having studied what the Bible has to say, I have become quite passionate on these matters and have been a bit outspoken in this blog, as well as elsewhere.

I am saddened by the fact that many of my Christian friends hold views that I feel are unbiblical and sometimes even downright unchristian. Some feel that these issues are political and/or economic and have little to do with our Christian faith. This is especially the case in regard to illegal immigration. That is why I was overjoyed to find the book, Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church and the Bible, by M. Daniel Carroll R.

Uni and I have known Danny and his wife Joan for over 25 years, and though I would not consider him a close friend, I have known him well enough to be impressed by his deep and humble walk with Christ.

Danny is presently Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Denver Seminary and is adjunct professor at El Seminario Teologico Centroamericano in Guatemala. He is the son of a Guatemalan mother and an American father and in a real sense has a foot in each culture.

He tells us the title to his book is a double entendre. Yes, there is a literal physical border to our southwest which divides the United States from all of Latin America, but he tells us that “for Christians there is an additional border. It is a metaphorical decision point.” We must choose whether our stand in the debate is “based on the Word of God” or “on other grounds” (page 23). We “Christians must think about and act on Hispanic immigration as Christians.”

Before diving into the biblical teachings on the issue, in the first chapter the book gives us some background: a brief history of Hispanic immigration, questions of identity and questions of economics. The book also points out the impact of Hispanic immigration on the churches.

The second chapter is devoted to showing that much Old Testament history is the story of immigration. Peoples were on the move from Genesis on: Abraham, Jacob and Joseph. (Was Ruth an “illegal alien”? See the book of Ruth, cf. Deuteronomy 23:3.)

The third chapter deals with the Old Testament teaching on hospitality – care for the stranger. The various Hebrew terms for stranger or sojourner are discussed. Provisions were made for the alien along with those for other at-risk people: widows, orphans, hired workers, servants and the poor. Danny sums it up in a rather eye-opening statement: “ … the arrival and presence of sojourners were not a threat to Israel’s national identity; rather, their presence was fundamental to its very meaning. The people of Israel could not be who there were supposed to be before God and the world if they forgot who they had been and from where they had come” (pages 109, 110). See Leviticus 19:33, 34.

In chapter 4, we are taken to the New Testament to see Jesus’ attitude toward outsiders. We also see Peter’s teaching on Christians as sojourners. Each section is concluded with “implications for today.”

I especially appreciated the fact that Romans 13 was dealt with in this chapter, albeit only briefly. For many of my Christian friends, the mantra on this issue is Romans 13. Danny answers that “Discussion on legality cannot be limited just to questions about complying with the present laws” (page 133). Though I agree, I wish he had dealt with it at greater length.

The book concludes with some final thoughts and the repeated admonition that we must approach this matter of immigration as Christians.

This is a brief book and can be read in a few hours, though it will take longer if the reader checks out all the Scripture references.

If anyone who reads this is forming or has formed an opinion on the immigration question, I would beg you, read this book before you set your ideas in concrete.

Bill Ball
10/22/2008

RACE, Part 2

Last week our local library had its annual book sale. I always like to go and pick up a pile of used books cheap. Often I find books that I would never look for in a book store or library. Sometimes I pick up some real classics that I have somehow failed to read.

One that I found this time, was BLACK LIKE ME by John Howard Griffin. I don’t know how I had missed reading it long ago. There are many books on my shelves that have to do with race relations and conflict, but this one slipped by me.

The book is a true narrative by a white man who became black. Griffin was a writer who darkened his skin by the use of drugs and dye and entered the world of the African American. The year was 1959, near the beginnings of the civil rights’ movement. The place was the deep south: Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The book was published in 1960 and is still in print. Griffin was the first white man to attempt to write from the black man’s perspective. He opened white people’s minds to the horrors of Jim Crow in the deep south.

Why hadn’t I read this book before? Perhaps it was because good Christian white folks (even in Michigan where I was raised) didn’t read stuff like this.

I grew up in what would have been considered in those days to be a reasonably integrated town. I went to high school with black students and had friendly acquaintances with many. But I didn’t live near them or work with them. And I definitely didn’t go to church with black people! “De facto segregation,” they call it nowadays. There was an underlying racism that usually didn’t come to the surface. It was kind of like sex. Everybody knew about it and most people practiced it, but nice people usually didn’t talk about it.

Though I had heard of them, my first exposure to Jim Crow traditions was in 1955. I was in Parris Island, South Carolina with my Marine Reserve company. We had a Saturday leave to go to Beaufort and 4 or 5 of us young white men took the bus. Being Michigan boys, we just automatically sat down on the back seats. We couldn’t understand why the bus driver glared at us so harshly, until a black lady got on. She looked puzzled and nervous and almost got back off. Finally she sat down toward the back, but 3 or 4 rows in front of us. The driver intensified his glare. When we figured out what was happening, we simply thought it was funny and had a good laugh at what we considered just a stupid tradition. It never occurred to us how humiliating and degrading it was to the woman.

I moved to Texas in 1966. Here, though I saw more blatant racism than in Michigan, I also saw efforts to make things right. I have seen tremendous improvements and changes in the last 41 years.

Yet I have noticed that racism continues, not only in the south, but also in my home state.

I taught for many years in a multi-ethnic Bible college. The original purpose of the college was to provide solid biblical and theological education to members of minority communities, especially the African American community. I have been exposed to racial prejudice in both directions and could tell many stories. Though this college has been tremendously used by God to bring about racial reconciliation, bigotry lingers, even there.

Why is racism still so widespread, even among those who claim to be followers of Christ? Why do we find even godly people who show great wisdom in other areas showing such narrow thinking? Why do I catch myself having these feelings?

-- Well, first of all, there is the fact that we are sinners. If we know Christ by faith we are new creatures, but the old “me” is still active. Read Paul’s lament in Romans 7:15-23.
-- While we may be more likely to admit to ourselves our other sins and sinful thinking, somehow we do a good job of deceiving ourselves in this matter. I can’t count the times I’ve heard someone say, “I’m not prejudiced, but …” (I’ve even said it more than once.)
-- For some reason we distrust anyone or anything that is different. I suppose this goes back at least as far as the tower of Babel.
-- We like to see ourselves as the standard and judge everyone else by that standard. This is the sin of arrogance.
-- We like to see our actions which should be done in love, as a sort of condescension toward perceived inferiors.

Many will tell me that it’s really not that way any more, that we have progressed beyond that sort of thinking. I disagree.

I’ve never been black, either like Mr. Griffin or in any other way. I can’t get inside the mind or the skin of another of a different race. But I have had somewhere around 25 years of dealing with people of other races. I’ve heard statements of pain and resentment. I’ve seen pain on the faces of those whom I have hurt, even when I didn’t realize I was hurting someone until it was too late. I have also felt the pain of being distrusted because I am white.

But I have also felt the love of those who dared to cross racial barriers and I hope they have felt my love. I also pray that those who have distrusted me because of my race have learned to see the love of Christ in me.

(Also read RACE.)

Bill Ball
10/31/2007

STRANGERS AND ALIENS

The issue of immigration reform is a hot-button issue. Congressmen and other politicians all wax eloquent about the problem or problems: 12 million illegal aliens, “porous” borders, the necessity for cheap labor, assimilation, etc., etc. And of course, my e-mail friends have forwarded to me various opinions.

I don’t have a simple solution to the problems, but I feel that as a Christian I must first go to the Scriptures to find out what they have to say. And they say a lot!

The Hebrew Old Testament uses at least two words over 100 times, which are essentially synonymous, Ger (verb form Gur) and Zur, both usually translated “stranger,” sometimes “alien,” or “sojourner,” depending on the English version. The words are usually applied to people living in the land of Israel who were not of Israelite stock. Sometimes, of course, they were used of the Israelites themselves. The Israelites were to take special care of strangers or aliens because they themselves had been strangers in Egypt. “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). Strangers were included along with the poor, widows and orphans as objects of their and God’s care (Exodus 22:21-27; 23:9-12).

The original “Law of Love,” often quoted in the New Testament was first stated in Leviticus 19:18, “ ... you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” And it is clear that the word neighbor did not apply only to one’s fellow Israelite as verse 34 shows, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” So when Jesus quoted the law of love, He would have understood it to include “the stranger,” as the story in Luke 10:25-37 shows. (Except in this story, it is the “stranger” who demonstrates love.)

When we come to the New Testament epistles we find that this teaching is expanded. “Hospitality” is a desired virtue. But this is not talking about coffee and cookies with our fellow church folks after the service. The Greek words usually translated hospitable and hospitality are philoxenos and philoxenia, literally "love of strangers" (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2). The word xenodocheo ("entertain strangers," in the sense of having them in for a meal) is also used in 1 Timothy 5:10.

In the movie, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” the bride’s father referred to her husband-to-be as a "xenos." The word for stranger (xenos) is used with a broad range of meanings, but usually had the idea of someone or something foreign or unknown.

In 1 Peter 4:9, we are told to be philoxenos to one another, which would seem to imply a mutual hospitality among believers. However, in Romans 12:13, it is part of the list which includes "sharing the needs of the saints," so it must go beyond “the saints.” In Hebrews 13:2, it is in addition to brotherly love (philadelphia) in verse 1. Also this verse goes on to say that by practicing this "some have entertained (xenizo) angels without knowing it."

When we tie this to the New Testament teaching that WE (Christians) are "aliens and strangers" in this world, I think we can begin to see a biblical rationale for "hospitality."

Putting these all together, I'd say that biblical hospitality includes, but goes beyond mutual entertainment. It implies also a reaching out to those "outside," and possibly opening our homes to them.

When we look at Matthew 25:31-46, it gets pretty convicting. “I was a stranger and you invited Me in. ... when did we see You a stranger and invite You in? ... to the extent that you did it to the least of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” The word "stranger" (xenos) is used four times and is classed with other groups of people in need. Also see Luke 14:12-14 (though the word "stranger" isn't used there).

So, when trying to come to a position regarding “aliens” (illegal or legal), we need to consider first, not the economic or political questions, though they may be important, but the biblical command to love; and the love which is commanded is not to be a love for self, or even “my country,” it is to be a love that desires to meet the need of those in need, especially the poor and the stranger.

“If Jesus should come and knock on your door,
For a place to lie down, bread from your floor.
Would you welcome Him in, or would you turn Him away?
Then God would reward you on that great judgment day.”
(“The Tramp on the Street,” traditional folk song)


Bill Ball
5/8/2006

RACE, Part 1

The issue of race and racial injustice has been a problem in America ever since the settling of this land: the enslavement of African blacks, the wars against, and extermination of native Americans, the mistreatment of Mexican Americans, the mistreatment of immigrants and of ethnic minorities, especially non-whites.

The really shameful thing is that the (white) church has been complicit in these sins. It has often been those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians who have been some of the greatest advocates of racism. Frederick Douglass claimed that “Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall. For of all slave-holders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others,” (Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself, 1845, Reprint, Barnes & Noble, 2003, pg. 72).

Although matters have improved in the last 160 years, the church is still one of the most segregated places in America. But what does the Scripture teach?

There is only one human race, not many. Genesis 1:26, 27 – Adam was the progenitor of the whole human race. See also Acts 17:26 – “He has made from (EX – “out of”) one every nation of mankind to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (Later texts add the word “blood,” after “one,” but no change in thought.)

Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, Paul distinguishes between those “in Adam” and those “in Christ.” If the human race is divided, it is divided not by skin color, but between those who are Christ’s and those who are not (1 Cor. 1:18; 1 Jn. 5:19).

In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul argues that Christ on the cross, reconciled not only God and man, but also man and man. Though in this context, Paul is especially speaking of Jew and Gentile, yet in other passages, he makes it clear that this reconciliation eliminates all ethnic, national, gender and socio-economic barriers (Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28; Rom. 1:14). Paul is not stating that these differences no longer exist, as he still recognizes the various relationships, such as husband/wife, master/slave, Jew/Gentile. What he is stating is that In Christ and in the church there is essential equality and that this equality is to be lived out in the “outside” world as well.

James also argues (Jas. 2:1-13) that to practice discrimination is a violation of the Law of Love.

Arguments that need to be addressed:

“The Curse of Ham” – Genesis 9:20-27 has been used in the past (and undoubtedly is still used by some) to justify the enslavement of black Africans and to “prove” the superiority of whites. However, it should be noted:
1. The curse was not pronounced by God, but by man, and not only that, but by a man awaking from a drunken stupor. Though a patriarchal curse was effective, it does not (necessarily) imply a judicial pronouncement by God.

2. The curse Noah pronounced was not on his son Ham, but on his grandson, Canaan. It is not my purpose here to deal with the table of nations in Genesis 10 and 11, except to point out that not all of Ham’s descendants were black. The Canaanites were descended from Ham, and later passages in the Torah point out that they were the despised group, not, however, for their ethnic makeup, but their behavior. The great majority of Ham’s descendants were not under this curse.

3. The curse was undoubtedly carried out in the conquest of Canaan by Israel and possibly other conquests in what is now the historical past.

4. Even if this curse were valid today, it is not our obligation to make sure it is carried out. We often labor to alleviate the sufferings brought on by curses such as Genesis 3:16-19, which speaks of pain in childbirth and of difficult labor in farming.

5. As we saw above, Christ’s death has removed the barriers between races.

Slavery in the New Testament – How do we deal with the fact that the New Testament seems to accept the fact of slavery? Paul even urges obedience on slaves (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1, 2; Titus 2:9, 10).

1. It should be noted that neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocated the overthrow of current social systems. They spoke within their contemporary situation.

2. The slavery in the Roman Empire, while often cruel, was different from the American system. Slaves could sometimes actually purchase their own freedom. Often slaves were debtors or prisoners of war. This slavery was not based on race as the American system was.

3. The first generation African slaves were people who were kidnapped from their homes. The New Testament condemns kidnapping (1 Tim. 1:10). Even the Mosaic Law, which permitted slavery, condemned kidnapping as a capital offense (Ex. 21:16; Dt. 24:7).

4. The New Testament radically altered the slaves’ status. In Christ, he was a brother (Phmn. 15, 16). The slavemaster had an obligation to treat him with respect (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). While a slave was urged to be content with his position, he was encouraged to take advantage of freedom if he could obtain it (1 Cor. 7:21-24).

Bill Ball
4/2005