;)
tagged: Criswell College, Globalization, Immigration, Lamar Cooper, Racism, Rastis, TEA Party, urban“I’m not a racist, I just don’t want a black President…”
Posted by Rastis in Church & Missions, News & Culture
I actually heard someone say that while I was on a business trip right before the election. The young man who was driving me to various rigs said that he was registering to vote for the first time specifically so he could stop Obama from winning. That was when he said it. Somehow, there was a disconnect between holding racist opinion and actually being a racist.
It is hard to believe that racism is alive and well in our “progressive” era. Not only is it alive in our culture, it is alive in our denomination. Recently, Lamar Cooper, the interim president for Criswell College, used a racial slur in one of FBC Dallas’ Sunday school class which aired via radio during the most listened to hour of the week on KCBI. Every Sunday school has “that guy,” the one wants to talk about politics, organize to support referendums and boycott offenders in the cultural war. Perhaps you are that guy (if so, on behalf of the rest of us: just quit it). This man made a statement supporting the Arizona law about illegal immigrants. That is when Dr. Cooper erred and aired his slur for 300,000 plus listeners. In response, FBC Dallas has issued an apology and has pulled the show from the air. Dr. Cooper has also issued what appears to be a pre-written apology.
It is not my desire to throw Dr. Cooper under the bus. He only represents the tip of the ice berg. The immigration issue has been smoldering at a low boil for quite some time. The issue has reached the flash point on a number of occasions. One such point was when the Hispanics lined streets of Dallas waving Mexican flags in protest of impending legislation. This angered many white people. Their anger is evident in the TEA party gatherings. I do not have a problem with people wanting to enforce the rule of law. If we are going to have laws, we should enforce them. My problem is that the church is linked too closely with the politics of immigration. When you let people know you are headed to the middle east, you get all sorts of invites to hear people speak who are from that part of the world, regardless of their agenda. Some friends invited me to go hear Brigitte Gabriel. I had never heard of her before that night; she was a fear-mongering ethnocentrist at best. Some of her “throw-away” comments at the end were about how she was not an Arab-American or Lebanese-American or any other kind of Hyphenated-American, but just an American, and how we should build a wall across the border to keep people out. Both of these statements garnered standing ovations. Clearly she verbalized what the crowd was thinking and feeling. The main problem I had was that this gathering was held at a church in a community which is almost 40% Hispanic. The very next day, they hosted TEA party. Can this church have any credibility in the community after such rhetoric? They need missiology driven by the scriptures not politics and their cultural frustrations. I don’t want to single this church out. One is merely a few clicks away from discovering churches all over the country who sponsor TEA party events.
In response to the globalization happening in our country and the many racist tendencies we have, I want to look at immigration from three perspectives.
Immigration as Divine
Immigrants occupy much of God’s attention. God continually chided his people for oppressing the immigrants. Conversely, as controversial as the story of Lot is, the Rabbis were willing to call him righteous (even with out Peter informing them) simply based on his great hospitality to the two visitors who came to Sodom. David Rogers has written a good post concerning the instructions to take care of the immigrants, so I will not belabor that point now. I want to focus on the question of who brings the immigrants here? Read what Psalms 107 has to say:
4 Some wandered in desert wastes,
finding no way to a city to dwell in;
5 hungry and thirsty,
their soul fainted within them.
6 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress.
7 He led them by a straight way
till they reached a city to dwell in.
Is God the one responsible for bringing immigrants to places where they can receive rest? Verses 8-20 describes with accuracy the nature of the globally displaced. They are longing and hungry souls, in darkness and the shadow of death, prisoners in affliction and in irons, lacking the council of God, under a heavy burden of hard labor. But when they cried to the Lord:
13…he delivered them from their distress.
16 For he shatters the doors of bronze
and cuts in two the bars of iron
Do you think that the 20 million people worldwide who are in slavery today would take solace in such verses?
God desires to restore the earth to take care of the people whom he loves:
33 He turns rivers into a desert,
springs of water into thirsty ground,
34 a fruitful land into a salty waste,
because of the evil of its inhabitants.
35 He turns a desert into pools of water,
a parched land into springs of water.
36 And there he lets the hungry dwell,
and they establish a city to live in;
37 they sow fields and plant vineyards
and get a fruitful yield.
38 By his blessing they multiply greatly,
and he does not let their livestock diminish.
Psalm 107 establishes what Ray Bakke calls a “theology of place.” We often forget that the earth is the Lord’s and we design laws to keep others off of “our” part of the earth. How often we forget that not all law is rooted in absolutes. Acts 17:26 indicates that God determines borders and rulers. The purpose of this is that they should “they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.” Which leads to the next point.
Immigration as Strategy
Many people who experience globalization firsthand feel as if they have lost their cultural equilibrium. I once lived in an apartment complex where my family was one of the only English speaking families. I counted more than twenty languages! While this is very perplexing indeed, it serves a great missiological purpose. Who has heard about the problems in Sudan and wanted to help Sudanese people? Now, who wants to live there? Probably most of you don’t, or perhaps you do but health reasons or other obligations prohibit you from doing so. Globalization, the great ethnic mix-up, allows you to reach just about any people group in the world without ever leaving the states. In fact, many of these peoples are more unreached here than they were in their home country. This happens because in their home country we were at least focused on sending people to them to reach them with the gospel. Back here, however, since they live in a different part of town from us and don’t speak our language, we typically ignore them if we see them at all. Through globalization, some of the least reached people are placed right in the backyards of one of the most churched countries. There are more Jews in NYC than in Jerusalem. Houston is the 4th largest hispanic city in the world and has the most Nigerians living outside of Nigeria. Miami is either the first or second largest Cuban city in the world. Chicago and Detroit have one of the largest concentrations of Muslims in the country. Southern California has the highest concentration of Vietnamese, with Houston and Arlington following close behind. Globalization presents great opportunities to those who are kingdom focused.
Immigration as Devastation
Historically, our typical response is not missiological but is ethnocentric. The very presence of suburbs and ghettos demonstrate how well we have received immigrants into our country. The presence of ghettos demonstrates who well received they feel. When they are not received well, immigrants choose to wall themselves off with people who are like them. The presence of suburbs has historically signaled the unfortunate phenomenon of white flight. White flight has had a devastating effect on inner city churches, social structures, and the economy. I recently wrote an article discussing some of the changes that have occurred in Detroit just as a test case. How can we say we have a heart to fulfill the great commission in our city when we have to commute to do the job? How can we say we want to reach the world with the Gospel when we simply move every time they get too close? In my city, I have noticed that where they white folks originally moved to is now undergoing transition again. Many international folks are moving into these once white suburbs. What are the white Christians doing in response? Not reaching them with the Gospel, unfortunately. Sadly, they are repeating the mistakes of their parents. They are building new suburbs even further out. How far will God have to send these people before we wake up and just do our job?
Psalm 107 closes with a scary reversal of roles. Usually immigrants are the “poor folk.” When this happens through oppression, God turns the economic scales on their heads:
39 When they are diminished and brought low
through oppression, evil, and sorrow,
40 he pours contempt on princes
and makes them wander in trackless wastes;
By contrast, in their place:
41 but he raises up the needy out of affliction
and makes their families like flocks.
What should be our response to God’s sense of “place” and justice?
42 The upright see it and are glad,
and all wickedness shuts its mouth.
43 Whoever is wise, let him attend to these things;
let them consider the steadfast love of the Lord.
I fear our response is not gladness but redoubling our efforts and digging in. How soon we have forgotten the steadfast love of the Lord.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Rastis:
I have made an appeal at http://www.baptistlife.com/forums in the SBC Trends post on Ergun Caner, Obama and FBC Jscksonville, for leadership in the SBC to read David Remnick’s magnificent biography on President Obama, the Bridge.
There is much grand Baptist history in this moment as you will see in the links in the Ergun Caner thread at bl.com, most notably and most recently FBC Auburn Alabama pastor Jim Evans thoughts in a column published this weekend.
Evans knows how the ghost of the Baptist Shaped Judge Frank Johnson shadows this moment in American History for the good.
Johnson, a Lincoln Republican, which is good bit different from a Tea Party Republican.
Rastis,
Wonderful article! As we seek God’s face for revival in America, and in the SBC, I think there is a lot of repenting and turning from our wicked ways that will need to be done in the area of racism and xenophobia.
When we look at the Bible from the lens of God’s perspective on immigration, it is amazing to what degree that theme is interwoven into the whole grand narrative of how He is going about His objective of redeeming a people for Himself out of every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Here are a few examples:
*He called Abraham to be an immigrant.
*Joseph, and the rest of the descendents of Jacob, were immigrants in Egypt.
*In the law of Moses, there are some very specific guidelines related to the way the people of Israel in the land of Canaan were expected to show hospitality to immigrants.
*Ruth was an immigrant.
*Both Israel and Judah were carried into forced immigration in Assyria and Babylon.
*Daniel and his friends, as well as Esther and Mordecai, were immigrants.
*Joseph, Mary, & the Baby Jesus were immigrants in Egypt.
*Jesus Himself was an “immigrant” (of a sort) from Heaven to Earth.
*Much of the early advance of the Christian movement spread throughout the world on the wings of Jewish immigrants “scattered abroad.”
*According to NT imagery, we all, as Christians, are sojourners (or immigrants) in this world in which we now live.
I think it is high time we woke up and smelled the coffee instead of hosting tea parties in our churches.
Immigration, whether legal or illegal, presents us as Christians with unique opportunities to reach people for Christ in one of the freest nations on earth in an environment that is not openly aggressive against the gospel. I think there is blame on both sides for why immigrants tend to move in and form relatively uniform communities, but I agree that most of the onus is on us, the host people.
I am very concerned when I hear Christians begin to omit important words when they speak on politically charged issue. Words such as illegal. Your lack of distinguishing legal immigration from illegal immigration speaks volumes in itself.
I can understand the church praying and providing for the physical and spiritual well being of all people without discrimination. However there is a difference between watching out for their well being and the supporting of their illegal activities.
It makes me proud to hear someone tearing down the “hyphenated American” labels that are nothing but racial walls that have been put up to keep people amongst “their own”. You seem to think keeping everyone separate in this country is a good thing. Yet you have stated that it is hard to believe that racism is alive and well in the country today. I contend that it is people such as yourself that are determined to make people stand out based upon their ancestry that have kept racism alive in America. If you really want the melting to pot to work don’t try to keep the ingredients separate. Let them mix together to form a new creation that has a new appearance, smell, and taste.
If anyone wants my full recipe for American stew just ask.
I don’t advocate illegal immigration, but the question of what to do with illegals is challenging. Should our first thought be one of deportation or evangelization? In many countries it is illegal to witness, bring in Christian literature, or even to be a Christian. Ought we avoid violating these laws? I’m not saying illegal immigration is fine and dandy, but I find it to be much more gray than black and white as some would have us believe.
Another word we lack in this debate is “refugee.” It seems refugees exist in other countries, but in ours they are merely “criminals.”
Kevin,
As I wrote in the post to which Rastis links here in his post, the main issue for us as believers, I believe, has to do with our attitudes, and not so much the merits or problems with one policy vis-a-vis another policy. I am open to hearing and considering the merits of various policy alternative on their own two feet. But, not to using inflammatory rhetoric towards people created in the image of God, based on their ethnicity or country of origin (independent of whether they are “legal” or “illegal”).
Having said that, I think it is important that we work toward a system in which the rule of law is respected. Perhaps there are complications and nuances that I don’t understand regarding this. If so, I would be interested to hear the arguments related to this. But, it seems to me the best way to combat illegal immigration is to prosecute employers who use and take advantage of illegal laborers, without helping them to become legal, and who reap the profits of not having to pay for benefits, pay dirt-cheap wages, and keep workers submissive to unusually hard work conditions out of fear of being turned into the authorities. Plain and simple, immigrants come, for the most part, because they can get work. If they knew they couldn’t find work, they wouldn’t come. The real target needs to be those who continue to make it worth the risk for those who are struggling to make ends meet in their own country to come and try their luck on something different.
Rastis,
I feel the Lord has brought the world to our door. I further feel we should use every opportunity to reach those who have come. I said that to ask this, “Exactly what are you saying?”
I get the feeling you oppose the “Tea Party Movement” and equate it strictly with immigration. I also perceive that you oppose the Arizona law authorizing state officials to enforce federal law. But I’m not sure.
David Rogers.
My above paragraph seems to refer to you also. I’m not opposed to hosting Tea Party meetings. I know of very few Believers who oppose immigration. Certainly there are some. However, I have no problem with those who seek a political solution to the problem of illegal immigration.
I’ve investigated several “so-called” racial profiling cases which have occurred since the enactment of the Arizona law, and NONE that I’ve found are different from standard procedures already in place along the border.
What many of you seem not to understand is that everything which happens within 300 miles of the border is different than anywhere else. Along the border, one cannot make a cash transaction in excess of $4,999.00 with out completing copious paper work. It is to prevent the “casas de cambio” from laundering drug monies.
Black, white, brown, and mixtures thereof are randomly stopped and asked for identification within about sixty miles of the border, except in California and Arizona where the second East West highway is nearly one hundred miles from the border.
I know Assimilation is a “dirty word” on this site to many, but as long as groups refuse to integrate, and assimilate into the culture by adding their own distinctive attributes to the existing mosaic, there will be fear of cultural annihilation by those with a vested interest in the contemporaneous culture. That fear will drive them to adopt policies detrimental to that culture. That is why many very good and loving people have begun to actively assert themselves in tea party movements across the country.
But the Tea Party Movement is NOT even primarily immigration. The Tea Party Movement is an anti-big government movement. It sees the immigration reform acts as a monstrous power grab by liberals with an eye on more voters who will be dependent upon government services, thereby making them indentured servants of the Democratic Party.
Immigration is simply one component of the Tea Party Movement which seeks a return to states rights with an emphasis upon the Bill of Rights.
I know that this world is not my home, and I am a sojourner in the land, but I’m also a steward, and as such required to be active in the preservation of the land.
Now, I know I’m going to be called racist and other things, just in polite terms, but I’m not. I’m about to be the proud grandparent of Ethiopian Grandchildren. I’ve always worked in cross-cultural and multi-cultural ministry as a language missionary with the HMB and then overseas, where much of our ministry was to immigrants from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Vietnam, and other countries doing the “three d” jobs in Korea. I’m now in the first predominately white church I’ve pastored in nearly forty years since I first left the South. I’m an outspoken opponent of “ethnic” churches believing that the Holy Spirit overcame those ethnic and social barriers in the Book of Acts, and we’re expected to follow suit.
David,
I also think that we need to do more to make the path to citizenship easier in this country. The test is already easy enough (from what my friends have said who’ve taken it). But to actually become a citizen is a long and difficult process.
David, I love the last line of your first comment. I will shamelessly steal that some time sure, no doubt!
Kevin, the omission was intentional; the post was about a missiological approach as opposed to a political one. Does a persons immigration status change our response?
I don’t know where you heard me say that we should keep people separate… I didn’t have a problem with Gabrielle citing that she was simply an American without a hyphen, the crowd respose merely serves as evidence of great frustration. My desire is to see us answer the issue out of biblical missiology rather than frustrated politics.
I do not think we–the church–should advocate illegal immigraton. At the same time, the earth is God’s, and we are called to obey him with our allegiance before any earthly king. When I talk with someone from another culture, the whole immigration status just seems to be an unnecessary question.
There are good reasons to be against illegal immigration, but ethnocentrism and racism are not good reasons. I am agianst illegal immigration primarily because it leads to exploitation and even slavery. My concern as a believer is for justice, not politics. I think if we approach the issue with politics and rule of law as our priority then we will never get to the gospel. Not only will we never reach the gospel with immigrants, but it will jade our perceptions of those indigenous persons from diverse cultural backgrounds. After all, there is no way to discern their status by looking at them. Perhaps this is just one of those things we need to not ask about for the sake of our conscience and the gospel…
Andrew,
I agree with you that the citizenship path should be streamlined, however, there are bureaucracies whose very existence is dependent upon maintaining the somewhat dubious rationale for that existence. Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating entities which spend almost as much time and effort justifying their existence as they spend doing actual work.
Mike,
I do realize that the tea part. Is about more than immigration, that is simply the latest issue. Concerning the party itself, I am very conservative politically so I identify with them on one level. However, I fear that the chuch’s union with it is more of a liability than an asset politically, and that, missiologically, it compromises the gospel.
Mike,
I am not so much opposed to the Tea Parties, in and of themselves, as I am to the idea of churches hosting them. I would be just as much opposed to churches hosting the left-wing counterpart to Tea Parties. This, to me, seems like a good example of what I called “The Seduction of Political Idolatry” a few posts back here at Impact.
To tell you truth, I must confess I don’t really know all that much about what the Tea Party movement stands for. I don’t tend to follow politics all that much, except when it intersects with issues of faith, and how I, specifically, as a Christian, ought to respond. There may well be some planks of the Tea Party movement that make sense from a political and/or economic perspective. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on that. But, if one plank of the Tea Party movement is inflammatory rhetoric aimed at immigrants (I would have to do my research to confirm this), then it is likely that I won’t be a big advocate anytime soon.
America is not a melting pot. That metaphor is antiquated. I believe they’re calling it a “salad bowl” now to better describe the new flavor with distinct ingredients. If we were a melting pot, we would all have to assimilate, not just the immigrants, since they would be adding more to our culture and changing it. The truth is the dominant culture doesn’t change that much despite the great influx of foreigners. Do you note the influence of African, Asian, Middle-eastern, or Latin cultures on your Sunday morning service, or does church remind you of how things were when you were a kid, with the possible exception of people of color in attendance and music with a beat?
I’m not saying we have to adopt all those elements, but it’s hard to respect the belief that we are a melting pot when the only cultural variance we accept comes in the form of ethnic restaurants. We’ll accept traditional dress and music so long as it only occurs during a festival (which still might be evidence of non-assimilation) or a mobile human zoo (parade) for us to look at, but our acceptance of other cultural elements comes with great resistance.
Instead, we try to eliminate the differences between culture groups by telling them to pick up the dominant group’s values and traditions. If whites may possibly be a minority and Hispanics a majority by 2050, we feel that our cultural values are in danger and push even more forcefully for the adoption of our values. We claim that we’re trying to foster acceptance, toleration, and community, but really we’re just trying to make people white like us.
I’m not a xenophiliac who’s rejected his own culture in favor of another. I appreciate my heritage and culture and I’m not going to trade it in for someone else’s. But at the same time, I’m not going to insist that someone else adopt my values and traditions either (except my wife, who will tell our children that Santa is real
. I’ve heard plenty of Christians complain about people wearing turbans or saris or listening to norteña as if the people doing those things aren’t assimilating. Maybe the complainers are just insecure.
Andrew,
Great insights. I think a good cure for a good deal of xenophobia would be for those who have always been a part of a majority culture to live for an extended period of time as part of a minority culture somewhere else in the world. That, and gaining a good grasp on the meaning of the grace of God.
Jerry Vines and Ed McAteer seem to have lost some of their influence on David Rogers and Sean McKenzie.
As McAteer was quite influential in keeping Bellvue Baptist of Memphis in the religious right in the heyday of the CR; so did Vines church West Rome have a distinct right wing ID in that time.
But I detect more mercy and sensible goodwill in DAvid Rogers than I detected in Ed McAteer.
Likewise Sean McKenzie has evolved considerably from what was known as West Rome’s ideology. Seems like some of Susan Shaw’s Mother’s Sunday School class got in the water as Sean was from that area now in nearby, Calhoun Georgia.
I do not have the answer for this matter; but I don’t see the SBC in Orlando speaking to it in any kind of credible or prophetic manner.
There is an interesting and passionate discussion at baplife.com on public policy forum if anyone wants to take a look.
In the meantime the witness of Sean McKenzie who was raised in Jerry Vines West Rome part of town when Vines was in full throttle there.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16018
I am a Southerner, I have a 200+ year Southern heritage, and I love the South. But I am also a nearly 60 year old Southerner, which means I am old enough to remember water coolers marked “Whites Only” next to a spigot marker “Colored.” I am old enough to remember signs in restaurants which read something like, “We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone.” I am old enough to remember having to go to the back door of the best BBQ joint in my hometown because they had one of those signs too–and it was whites they declined to serve in the dining area. I am old enough to still remember the names of two of the three African-Americans who integrated “our” junior high school (Reginal Beck and Gloria Farrior, and I am embarassed I do not recall the third). I am old enough to remember when the State Police dispatcher in Anniston (Alabama) started giving out descriptions as “black” instead of “colored,” and I remember thinking, as a nearby (underage) small town police dispatcher, “Well, I’ll never change the way I describe ‘em.”
It was a long road from hearing my father, the police chief in Talladega, Alabama, tell others, “Just a minute, I have to go wash the n—– off my hands” after he met with local Civil Rights leaders to where I am today. There is an unsung hero in my journey: an African-American man named Acie Truss. You won’t find him in the annals of the civil rights movement; in fact, he (like my first detective partner on the Montgomery Police Department, Sidney Williams) was on the “blue” side of the police barricades during the civil rights marches. I am pretty sure Acie was not a member of the NAACP. But he was one of the first two African-American officers my father hired. His place in my heart is not because of his politics–I don’t think he even had any–but because he was real, and he became my friend (and my father’s too).
At the first church I served (in eastern NC), the pulpit committee let me know right quick (and this was in 1986) that they had fired one pastor because he invited an African-American couple to church, and they actually came. At much larger town church I served in central-western NC, the chairman of ushers (also a deacon and treasurer) bragged about giving directions to the nearest Catholic church to a Hispanic couple who came (this was about 2000 or 2001). The congregation I now serve is racially and ethnically mixed; but only a couple of years ago, one of our African-American members who is an ordained minister interviewed with a pulpit committee not twenty miles from here. One of last things he was told was, “You need to understand now: we aren’t as ‘diverse’ as what you’re used to.” And he never heard from them again.
Whenever someone speaks about “assimilation,” I think about a comment made to me about a year ago. After an African-American minister preached here in a very traditional African-American style while I was on vacation, one thankfully now former member told me, “Those people are welcome to come here, but if they do, they need to change and be like us.” My family assimilated in America, and sometimes I wonder what we lost in that process. Supposedly, my great-great-great grandfather, who came to America in the 1760s and fought in the Revolutionary War, could speak almost no English even when he died in the 1830s. Maybe his children or even his grandchildren knew where he was from originally, but three generations is typically the life span of such memories. My father did not know, and I am pretty sure his father did not. The legend grew that he was from Ireland and his language was Galic, and maybe it was. I have discovered that the last stop on the eastern side of the Atlantic his ship made was Larne, but is that where he boarded? And even if it was, does that prove he was Irish? I once assumed it was; but since my and his last name is actually Arabic. . . I am not so positive. On the other hand, one of our African-American members can trace his ancestry by name back to Africa and specificially to what part of Africa, even through slavery. . . and his American linage is about as long as mine. But he knows. And while it does not make him ANY less American, it informs his life and his family in a rich and beautiful way that my family lacks.
We are all immigrants or the children of immigrants.
John Fariss
I fixed the first link which was to the huffington post article.
Here is a link another link with more prominent SBCers making asinine racial comments.
John Farriss:
That was a great testimony you shared there. For sure you will want to read Tim Tyson’s Blood Done Sign my Name if you haven’t already.
One of the favorite stories of Pulitzer Civil Rights Historian Taylor Branch of Parting the Waters was about the Anonymous elderly black fellow who joined the March for a day on the road from Selma to Montgomery and this white fellow from the North was getting discouraged about three miles into the walk, saddled up beside him and asked:
Do you think anything will be different when we get to Montgomery; do you think we will win anything there?
And the Old Fellow said: “We Won when we started walking.”
That’s it; that’s what this current episode in immigration and assimilation is all about. Here or in Mexico things will be better eventually; and the battle is already won once folks like the Children of Israel start walking toward the Promised Land.
Once they start walking, they are already there.
Dear Rastis,
I understand that you wish to separate the the “missological” from the “political”. Your moralization seems to be centered upon race – for example “whites” are immoral because they oppose Barrack Obama – they are immoral and racist if they support the immigration law of Arizona or any immigration law which would seek to restrict immigration into the sovereign borders of nation states; whites and Christians are immoral and “racist” if they move to the suburbs. Yet in all your argument, it seems that both the political and the missological are melded together in a morality play based upon ethnic and racial distinctive – at least that is how I read it.
A great piece written by Dennis Prager considers this argument:
http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=6bd64a64-c3e6-482f-ab71-22bc9ae022f7&url=why_left_talks_about_white_tea_parties
Is racism immoral? By all means – we each are created in the image of God no matter the skin color or ethnic origin. Are Christians commanded to reach the world as well as help the poor? Absolutely. Are we “missologically” required to “be in the world yet not of it.” Yes, this is a no brainer. Morality plays in all directions though – which I brought out in David’s post. Does God play a zero sum game in terms of sin? And in your process of attempting to compartmentalize the differences between “politics” and “missions” are you condoning the abandonment of the role of government in determining laws as ordained from the hand of God (Romans 13) and the immorality of those who ignore laws to serve themselves no matter how much we would be sympathetic to why they might do that? What happens to the poor person who steals bread from the grocery store and gets caught? I agree that as Christians we have failed if that poor person has a need and feels that this is the only way to get some bread – but the Government persecutes the person because it is the law not to steal – it is both a moral and legal necessity which government is in charge (a mandate given to it by God) to deal with – a country of thieves would lead to chaos. In fact, that is the status of our border states today – chaos, because any fair dealing of law upon law breakers has been now put into the prism of “racism” – and what normal person, even Christian would want to be placed upon that pole of scorn?
So I assume that as part of your reach out to those in need, you are sharing with them the peril of usurping law, and how they have abandoned their witness by failing to have faith in God in meeting their needs without breaking the law of two governments. This is your dilemma – and I would argue that you are “straining a Nat while swallowing a camel” in noting the sin of some while white washing the sins of many.
Rob
Rob,
You’ve read much more into what Rastis said than is actually there, and I, for one, am disturbed by how much you’ve misrepresented what he said.
“whites” are immoral because they oppose Barrack Obama
What Rastis said was that the person who said, “I’m not a racist, I just don’t want a black President,” is espousing racist views. A person’s race should never be a determining factor in our vote.
they are immoral and racist if they support the immigration law of Arizona…
Rastis did not make any statement pro or con about the Arizona law or the people who support it. What he said was a prominent religious leader was voicing support of the law when he used racist language. Perhaps you don’t find the term “wetback” offensive, but I don’t know of any Hispanic, legally here or not, who enjoys being called by that term.
whites and Christians are immoral and “racist” if they move to the suburbs
Rastis was commenting on a phenomenon where traditionally wealthier whites move away when poorer immigrants move into the neighborhood. He didn’t call it racist, but did go so far as to accuse white Christians leaving the suburbs as neglecting an important ministry opportunity.
Andrew,
I think I will await the answer from Rastis. My reading of his post did infer that if a white person held to any contrary view then they would be considered a “racist” albeit not supporting the President, supporting current law vis a vis immigration, or moving to the suburbs. Of course the inference to the former is that Christians who move from the inner city are doing so for illegitimate reasons rather than legitimate ones based upon “race” morality. Read Prager’s post on the issue.
Rob
I have no shame or regret for espousing certain political views, such as:
1) It is right and good that we control our borders and make sure that those who enter this country do so lawfully.
2) That those who come to this country illegally are criminals and should be dealt with by the criminal justice system appropriately.
I believe those things as a law-abiding citizen and do not feel that I should have to apologize for believing in the laws of our country in this matter.
On the other hand, as a pastor and Christian, I have to see another side of this. The Sioux City area has a large Hispanic population and I am told that many of them are undocumented – illegal.
We help to start and support a hispanic church in the area. Whether the people of that church are legally here or not is not a concern at that level. we are here to minister to people.
I think my response to immigration is always going to be a little bit split – a legal, political position and a pastoral position.
Rob,
I am not sure we could make my post say your interpretation even if we were to play scrabble with the words… Andrew was correct in his reply to you, but I will answer some of your points directly.
“Your moralization seems to be centered upon race – for example “whites” are immoral because they oppose Barrack Obama – they are immoral and racist if they support the immigration law of Arizona or any immigration law which would seek to restrict immigration into the sovereign borders of nation states; whites and Christians are immoral and “racist” if they move to the suburbs.”
I never actually said any of that. I don’t have a problem with whites–or any other ethnicity/color–not voting for Obama. I didn’t. Neither did I vote for his opponent–and for the same reasons. I have no problem with a state enforcing the law. If we have laws, they should be enforced. There is nothing wrong with moving to a different location when done for the right reasons. White flight, however, is a well documented social phenomenon which has devastated many cities on a number of levels and in many cases has neutered the church’s ability to fulfill the great commission.
Perhaps you should read my post on its own basis and not through the lens of Prager. For the record I am not a leftist politically or in any other sense.
“And in your process of attempting to compartmentalize the differences between “politics” and “missions” are you condoning the abandonment of the role of government in determining laws as ordained from the hand of God (Romans 13) and the immorality of those who ignore laws to serve themselves no matter how much we would be sympathetic to why they might do that?”
I don’t see anything in my post which would indicate that I think that the government should do nothing.
“In fact, that is the status of our border states today – chaos, because any fair dealing of law upon law breakers has been now put into the prism of “racism” – and what normal person, even Christian would want to be placed upon that pole of scorn?”
As a long time resident of a border state, I have trouble describing the situation here as “chaos.” Granted, Illegal immigration cause problems, but we are a fully functional society. I am not, as it seems you are assuming, advocating illegal immigration. Comment #9 lays out my concern over exploitation which occurs as a result of illegal immigration.
Rob, I don’t really know what to say other than to say that your eisegetical representation of my views is mildly disturbing.
Dave, responding to your comment #22:
I have by no means worked through all the issues I have with immigration. I definitely feel that same tension. Although I know we are to obey the governmental authorities around us, and no doubt the Roman government was more hostile to Christian faith in Paul’s day than ours is now, I have questions that I have to work through.
For one, we recognize that it is better to obey God than men, which means even though God tells us to obey the government, there is a limit. Most Christians have no problem supporting causes that violate certain governments’ laws, such as smuggling Bibles into China and North Korea, imposing economic sanctions on Iran, or destroying private property in protest (Boston Tea Party), etc. We also have no problem with Christians fleeing areas of intense persecution, even if they don’t immediately have a legal right to enter the areas they’re fleeing to.
It is difficult to reconcile the views on illegal immigration held by many Christians, and my lack of a firm standing on this issue counts as an encouragement of lawlessness for those on the far right. American Christians argue that the Revolutionary War was a God-pleasing violation of law and the American Civil War was not. I wonder what British Christians believe. Should we repent?
Is it ever right to enter (and live in) a country illegally? I think Elijah was considered an illegal resident by King Ahab. Perhaps David was too by King Saul. The 12 spies entered Canaan illegally, yet God was behind it.
I don’t want to justify illegal immigration, and I would encourage illegals to find a way to gain legal residency status or to return home. Children who were born abroad and came here illegally with their parents may grow up without a knowledge of the language of their country of origin, and even if they are very smart and get good grades in school, their opportunities for college and good-paying jobs are gone once they graduate and find they have nowhere to go.
A child in the U.S. illegally isn’t a criminal. But once they turn 18 they are? I don’t know. I’m still working through all of this. But I am wont to lay down a strict judgment either way until I have a better idea in mind. Anyone who thinks this issue isn’t complicated, regardless of which side they come down on, has not really thought it through beyond party politics.
I’ve lived and ministered along the border. It is a different world there, and there are different laws, as well as different interpretations of laws there.
I surrendered to preach in Yuma, Arizona in 1969. When I served my first church as Pastor, I was the only Pastor of any faith for over 1,000 miles of inhabited space, stretching from Wellton to Gila Bend. The problems then were enormous, but the effects of socialized governmental policies have made them completely untenable for State and local governments now.
Phoenix, according to FBI statistics has become the kidnap capital of North America, I’m told. I’m also told that 80+ percent all all crime in Arizona is now linked to illegal immigrants. Now I have no confirmation of those statistics, but even if it is just perception, then there is a problem which must be solved.
We must first seal our borders. That cannot be accomplished without an outcry from the great moderate middle of America. Everyone expects the right to support such, but the middle is rapidly being drawn toward the right because of the failure of the feds to act.
This in no way would preclude humanitarian refugees. We’ve always opened our doors to those suffering form disasters. However, there should be a time limit on their stay without advanced papers.
Following a massive disaster in Honduras around 2002 or 2003 we allowed thousands of refugees to come here and work. Most are still here. They’ve bought property, own businesses and have generally enjoyed the largess of America. It is time for them to stop living on refugee status. They need regular green cards, or citizenship.
David Rogers: I understand that in some areas use of church buildings would not be wise, but in many areas church buildings make excellent meeting places, and political meetings have taken place in church buildings for centuries. In the West the only buildings which could house a group was often the church building or a saloon.
We use our building for people to get medical treatment, social services, exercise, fellowship, community gatherings, etc. While I was serving overseas, we used our building as a kind of half-way house for Pakistanis. They met, ate, and some even began to attend our worship. Why not a political gathering with which one is in sympathy.
Mike,
In answer to your question, “Why not a political gathering with which one is in sympathy?”
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/01/29/stumbling-blocks/
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/11/11/morality-politics-and-a-broken-heart/
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/02/24/the-seduction-of-political-idolatry/
We’ll simply have to agree to a gentlemanly disagreement on this matter. I don’t dislike people just because they’re wrong.
I was at a Baptist 21 event yesterday at FBC Arnold, MO, and they gave away The Color of Church: A Biblical and Practical Paradigm for Multiracial Churches by Rodney M. Woo. I’m really looking forward to digging into it. Unfortunately, the US Military does a better job of racial harmony then Christ’s Church. If the neighborhood church indeed reflects the neighborhood, then when we don’t live near one another, we probably won’t worship with one another.
Rastis,
“Rob, I don’t really know what to say other than to say that your eisegetical representation of my views is mildly disturbing.”
Join the crowd. All I can say about your response currently is that it is full of straw men and fluff.
Let me be frank with you and tell you what I do believe. A sin is a sin is a sin. I attempt with every fiber of my being to not allow my bias or rose colored “white” glasses to deter me from analyzing good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad. Not voting for someone because they are black, white, brown, or red is a sin. Calling people derogatory or racists names is a sin, weather it be from the lips of a white person or a black one. To descriminate based upon skin color in favor of a white, black, red, or brown person is a sin as well. To not allow legal services or priveleges to those who attempt by legal and lawful means to recieve those services or priveleges based on racial or ethnic differences is also illegal and a sin (there, no compartementalization there). For Christians who refuse to take the Great Commission to those because their culture is different, or to move away primarily because the people moving in the community are “not us” then that also is a sin.
What you did is what I protested = taking the two ancedotal incidents and then making an overarching indictment against Christians and the SBC based upon those incidents. Are all white people racists because one to whom you talked to said that they would not vote for a black guy “because.” Are white Christians racists and xenephobic because they support law and order immigration laws? Are Christians racists or otherwise because they would DARE stand in violation of your scruples in desiring to boycott businesses in response to societal sin (God have mercy on William Wilburforce and those who boycotted sugar in his day – how stupid and idiotic they were! Did they know they supported a lost cause?) Do all Christians have improper motives from moving from one neighborhood to the other because some have called it “white flight.” That is what I protested from your screed – a person who claims a certain allegiance to biblical principles of fairness, but then is overcome with such boorish hokum.
All I can say to your response to my chaos statement is “Denial is not just a river that runs through Egypt.” All one needs to do is step in an emergency room in Houston any given day, or run around with police officers in Phoenix and see the complete unadultered mayhem that has resulted in keeping a blind eye to a catastrophe in our midst.
Rob
Andrew,
I know you did not respond to me, but allow me this observation your #24. You would agree I hope that national borders and sovereign boundaries are quite different today than in biblical times – esp. when you take into account that some come across that border in the day and age of weapons of mass destruction where a test tube vial can contain enough poison to destroy a city, or a suitcase can kill 100,000 people at a time, or poison them slowly through drug abuse. We must seal our borders – we must do it. I have a family of small children to whom God has given me the responsibility to protect. This is not xenophobia – this is the right of life and survival. It is as simple as that. Upon that fulcrum and that one alone should you judge this. We are told, “Do not put God to a foolish task.”
Each of your incidents should be viewed on their own, not through a prism of connectedness. For example, I do not see our ancestors support of the Revolution connected to the current immigration debate. And in fact, most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence paid for there rebellion with their very lives. “We” cannot nor should we repent for our ancestors past sins – we did not commit them. We acknowledge them, vowing to never to do it that way again, and go on. In every generation there are societal sins that are covered up, or ignored, or otherwise. For our ancestors it was the failure of refusing to deal with the sin of chattel slavery. For us, our progeny may look back at our failure to deal forthrightly and righteously with the abortion and homosexual question – despite what Rastis thinks about boycotts and such “nonsense.”
Rob
Rob,
Correct me if I am wrong, but a straw man is a false characterization of a belief (and typically a response on par with the characterization). Can you show me how I used that fallacy responding to you? All I did was correct your misreading of what I originally wrote. Your comment 19, however, is a good example, of a straw man.
“What you did is what I protested = taking the two ancedotal incidents and then making an overarching indictment against Christians and the SBC based upon those incidents.”
The guy who said the title line is not a believer (so far as I am aware). But that is not how I made my argument. Again, I would encourage you to turn the radio off and just read the post for what it actually says.
Regarding white flight, I never said that all Christians who move are part of white flight or guilty of racism.
Regarding Boycots, that wasn’t really the main point–but as you are majoring on non main points, and points that I haven’t made, I may as well indulge. Boycots are a way to get what we want culturally without changing people’s worldviews. While on some issues this is important and perhaps even necessary, it seems like the results are short lived. These victories can conceal impending changes which are irreversible. For instance, by vote, we have in many states been able to pass referendums prohibiting gay marriage. These victories are surface level in that those of us who support such action will be in the political minority in a few short years and everything will be back on the table. If we don’t transform worldview, then we are fighting a loosing battle.
“Regarding Boycots, that wasn’t really the main point–but as you are majoring on non main points, and points that I haven’t made, I may as well indulge. Boycots are a way to get what we want culturally without changing people’s worldviews. While on some issues this is important and perhaps even necessary, it seems like the results are short lived. These victories can conceal impending changes which are irreversible. For instance, by vote, we have in many states been able to pass referendums prohibiting gay marriage. These victories are surface level in that those of us who support such action will be in the political minority in a few short years and everything will be back on the table. If we don’t transform worldview, then we are fighting a loosing battle.”
I never said otherwise – but that is not the point – neither was Wilberforce’s movement. I have always said that unless God changes hearts there is no change – sinners will always go to the lowest common denominator. Yet what kind of world do we want to live in in the mean time? And if we fail to stand for what truth in our culture, how can we manage to stand for Truth?
My concern is not what you believe or don’t believe, what you support or don’t support. My concern is how you go about it. In example, that little ad hominem about “turn the radio off” was fairly stupid and ignorant of you. I listen to nothing but music and Bible teachers on most days, so spare me your ignorance, quit with leftest clichés, or email me privately.
Rob
Rob,
I’ve never said anything opposed to greater border protection. I’m not sure what “sealing the border” would look like, and I seriously doubt the cost of such an operation would be viable, so I would prefer a different approach that simultaneously lowers the incentive to enter illegally and raises the incentive to enter legally. Besides, there are plenty of other ways to become an illegal immigrant beyond walking through a desert or crossing a river. A sealed border would contribute to an increase in the number of people overstaying their visas.
I’ve not yet heard of a terrorism suspect illegally crossing the border in Mexico (or Canada for that matter). That’s not to say it can’t or won’t happen, but all I can remember is that the people who conducted the 9/11 attacks, the shoe bomber, and the Times Square attempted bomber were all here legally. Besides, an illegal status is not conducive to hatching terror plots.
“Upon that fulcrum and that one alone should you judge this.”
Upon the fulcrum of the right of life and survival? Do you have any biblical support for saying that should be the only “fulcrum” for judging illegal immigration?
I don’t mean to assume the Revolutionary War and illegal immigration are related. I just have a hard time understanding when it is right to practice civil disobedience (or even outright hostility) toward the government that we live under. I’ve frequently heard people who oppose illegal immigration on the grounds of Romans 13 justify our Revolutionary War by contradicting Romans 13. As such I find it difficult to hear their arguments about how to correctly apply Romans 13 to illegal immigration. As I said earlier, we readily approve of Bible smuggling (which sometimes involves illegal border crossing) and the like. It’s going to take more than a paragraph for me to understand the full implications of Romans 13 on illegal immigration.
Your final comment on Rastis had nothing to do with me. Please address him when directing a comment at him.
Rob
That wasn’t an ad hominem. That was the metaphorical way of saying what I said in my first response to you: “Perhaps you should read my post on its own basis and not through the lens of Prager.” I will be more literal. It wasn’t even that far of a leap. You are the one who brought up the Dennis Prager article, who happens to also have a radio program. Whether you listen to it or read it is really irrelevant since it is obvious that you are interpreting what I say through Prager’s lens in spite of me and Andrew telling you that wasn’t what I was saying. If you don’t like the connection between radio-prager-the article-and you, then choose different sources.
As far as being a leftist, I am anything but. All you are really doing is misrepresenting my thoughts, labeling them as leftist, then rejecting them. That is a classic straw man. It seems at this point we are primarily having a hermeneutical disagreement–namely, you won’t read my words with authorial intent in mind.
To anyone who is still reading the comments:
The disagreement Rob and I are having serves as a prime example as to why churches should not host TEA parties at the church. Our disagreement is as much affective as it is cognitive. When people argue at the cognitive level over affective issues there is rarely progress regardless of how factually correct the cognitive statements might be. TEA parties have a certain stigma associated with them for political reasons. Most of the media and those on the left hate them. In the political realm I suppose this is ok. However, when we link the gospel with that stigma–from either side be it conservative or liberal causes people to reject both.
I probably cannot convince Rob of anything right now since I have offended what he affectively knows to be true, even though what I have said has little to do with those beliefs [I have predominantly addressed what Christian response and understanding should be, not what the government's response should be--their role is to enforce the law in any matter, this one included]. Since my views, however, are perceived to be from the “other side” they are characterized, labeled and rejected. If this can happen between two people who are in the same tent, how much greater is the chasm between ourselves and people from other cultures and worldviews?
I think Rastis makes a sublime point here about the Affective and the Cognitive that had it been policy in the SBC in the 70′s and 80′s the fouling of the Air of the Pastor’s Conference on the Eve of the SB Conventions; had Rastis thinking been implemented into policy the TAkeover would’ve been aborted cause the Pastor’s Conference’s of Criswell and the Skunk statements routinely fouled the Air.
To that end Helen Lee Turner in Southern Baptists Observerd makes a point similar to Rastis; makes it quite strongly to my satisfaction.
On the obverse, I tried to do the right thing bringing the Tax Reform discussion to panel at my local congregation in Alabama in 2003 and was never forgiven for it.
My impulse was strengthened by conviction by the witness of the Civil Rights Movement. I remain convinced I was doing justice work.
Now Movements like the Tea Party have used that as good excuse to do much lesser work.
I am proud of David Rogers for moving past Ed McAteer in his understanding of the Kingdom of God. Still there is a discussion that the CR seems ill fitted to understand in re The Church with a Capitol C and Justice work.
I haven’t been able to solve the riddle, but from what I understand, John Edwin Yoder seems to frame it most articulately.
But once it hits the spin cycle, things get distorted in a hurry.
This really is the last straw.
I have been accused of not being able to independently think for myself without relying upon others to think for me.
I have been accused of not being able to discern the difference between Biblical authority and political assent or decent.
#35 was a prattle of condensing and arroganct nonsense of which I have not seen at anytime during my affiliation with this site – since I am a co-founder of it.
The author of #35 has failed to even have the courtesy of contacting me privatly so that we could hash out our differences in a cogenial Christ like manner.
There had better be some contacting going on right away – I will await patiently for that contact very very soon.
Rob – pastor_rob@cbbaptist.org
Rob Ayers:
Me thinks you are way over reacting to all of this. You often dish it out, but here you pitch a tantrum when someone gently questions you.
The threat of “There had better be some contacting going on right away – I will await patiently for that contact very very soon.” is way over the line.
Please reconsider your post #37.
Rob Ayers for president of the United States in 2012 and I don’t care what his ethnic background is.
CB – I thought you had moved to Zimbabwe or something.
Dave,
It is funny that you mention Zimbabwe in the comment thread of this particular post.
There was once Rhodesia, Ian Smith and the Selous Scouts.
Now there is Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.
Can anyone honestly say the latter is superior to the former?
I think not.