Social Justice isn’t as Dangerous for Evangelicalism as White Guys

Maybe you’ve seen that there is a conference scheduled for Birmingham. A bunch of white guys are going to talk about “Dangers of Social Justice for Evangelicalism.”

Screen Shot 2019-05-24 at 6.09.57 AM

detail of panel from event page

Maybe you remember Mormon white guy Glenn Beck saying that social justice was a perversion of the gospel, and that you should leave your church if they used that phrase.

Maybe you remember white guy Supreme Court Justice Powell, before he was a Supreme Court Justice, writing a memo in 1971 to prominent white guys in business. Among other things, he told them that they needed to wise up to the threat posed by social justice preached from pulpits.

Maybe you are aware that for fifty years, coalitions of mostly white guys have been trying to root out social justice from mainline denominations, or destroy them from within if they cannot.

All of these white guys are right. Social justice IS a threat to evangelicalism.

Of course,  #Not all white evangelicals. Some, I assume, are good people.*

The danger of social justice to evangelicalism is that people might begin to see clearly that white evangelicals do not speak for Jesus. Or Christianity. Or God.

That people might begin to see the connection between a violent atonement theology and violent systems of oppression.

That people might see that the doctrine of hell, and the notion that we all deserve it, gives those in power an excuse to inflict hell on others, either personally or through policy.

That people might begin to realize that a great theological starting point to subjugating a continent, enslaving people, and committing genocide, is defining sin as rebellion.

That white guys might lose something.

Yes, unless white evangelicalism can reckon honestly with its past and define itself as something other than a tool of white supremacy, social justice is a danger to evangelicalism.

Or perhaps the real danger to evangelicalism is white guys. 


*The defensiveness around these statistics is interesting. Several evangelical authors try to spin these numbers in a positive direction. Christianity Today says that white evangelicals saved the day in Alabama’s senate election by not showing up, effectively giving credit to white evangelicals that should go to black women. The authors at CT and The Gospel Coalition object to the framing that 80% of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. It isn’t true, all of these authors argue, that 80% of white evangelicals voted for these candidates, only that 80% of voters who identified as white evangelicals and showed up at the polls did. Yet nearly-identical percentages voted for both Moore and Trump, and in surveys, 70% continue to view Trump favorably. So while it may be true to say “not all white evangelicals,” it misses the point that there is something specifically about being white and evangelical in this historical moment that only white evangelicals can deal with.

If they actually cared about abortion…

L0029516 CMAC, What Parents should tell their childre

If Alabama politicians and preachers really cared about preventing abortion, we’d have comprehensive, medically accurate sex education in schools. This new bill criminalizing abortion is entirely about controlling sexual behavior and taking away bodily autonomy.

A few years ago, some conservative clergy proposed a resolution in our local denominational body about defunding Planned Parenthood. The resolution was tabled until we could talk through it. I offered to meet with its authors to see if we could craft a resolution we could agree on.

None of them showed up for the first meeting.

Since they chose not to participate, those of us who did show up kept the goal of the original resolution—reducing or preventing abortion—but chose to focus on a policy that actually applied to our state: comprehensive, medically-accurate sex education in schools.

That got their attention. They showed up to the second meeting to oppose this change. They would not even consider a resolution that included comprehensive sex education. Abstinence was the only choice. The only compromise we reached was withdrawing the resolution.

I asked if any of the authors had met with the people at Planned Parenthood whose jobs they were trying to defund. They had not. I offered to facilitate a meeting between representatives of Planned Parenthood and the clergy who drafted the resolution. They declined.

I don’t know how they could have made it any clearer: They didn’t care about preventing abortion. Nor did they care about even hearing from the other side.

Alabama politicians likewise have made their goals and values clear: In addition to rejecting exceptions in cases of rape or incest, they are entertaining a bill which makes false accusation of rape a felony. This is intended to intimidate women in light of the #metoo movement. All of these policies taken together are about subjugating women.

I support the right to an abortion, and see religious justification for restricting that right as a failure of empathy and imagination. Ethics requires us to imagine situations in which we have to apply our norms or policies—to put ourselves in someone else’s place, to “do to others as you would have them do to you.” If we create a rule or law, we have to imagine what it would be like to be subject to it.

I believe there are people of good faith who disagree with me about public policy, and are sincere in their desire to reduce or prevent abortion. I just haven’t met many yet.

Good Friday

Christ_and_the_Abbot_Menas_Louvre_E11565_n02

A friend who attends First United Methodist Church in Dallas said that at tonight’s Good Friday service, anti-LGBTQIA protesters gathered outside their church to condemn the church for being an inclusive congregation. He said it felt appropriate, and I agree. But I also felt moved to write the poem below, made up almost entirely of scripture references.

Good Friday

Jesus said his yoke was light
But you make it look too easy
Galloping with joy, entirely too unburdened.
So we said you were abolishing the law
Instead of fulfilling it. 
We tied up heavy burdens for you
That we did not have to bear.
We locked the kingdom of God to you,
afraid to go in ourselves.
We crossed land and sea to make converts
And told them to write unjust laws and oppressive decrees
To kill the gays in colonized lands.
We made your yoke unequal to ours;
While we enjoyed every permitted pleasure
Of marriage, family, divorce, and adultery,
We laid our sins upon you,
And pierced you for our transgressions
Insisting you take up a cross that was never yours,
A yoke none of us had to bear,
Of celibacy, of mortification, of violence,
A circumcision not of the flesh or heart,
But of the soul, of the brain.
You bright and shining ones, Children of light
Who dared to love because God is love,
We called you gluttons, and friends of harlots and drunkards.
Even our own children we smashed against the rocks,
Exiled them to strange lands
And stifled their songs,
Sacrificing them to our angry gods
Though it never entered Her mind to do ask for such.
(How could She forget her nursing children,
or show no compassion for the children of Her womb?)

The pastors among us
Talked of welcome without affirmation,
Betrayed you with kisses,
Said “peace” when there was none offered,
And dressed your wounds as though
They were not serious.

Yet wisdom is proved by her children.

You did not accept a cross
Foisted upon you by unbelievers,
You refused to be the sacrificial lamb,
To give us the catharsis we wanted,
You opened your mouth to say a mumblin’ word
About dignity
And humanity
And love

And eventually
We began to find
Jesus.


 

scripture references (roughly in order of appearance, though I may have missed some):

Matthew 11:28
Matthew
 5:17
Matthew
 23:4
Matthew
 23:13
Matthew
 23:15
Isaiah 10:1
2 Corinthians 6:14
Matthew
 5:32
Isaiah 53:4-5
Acts 15:10
Romans 2:29
Ephesians 5:8
1 John 4:8
Luke 23:26
Matthew 11:19
Psalm 137
Jeremiah 19:5
Isaiah 49:15
Luke 22:48
Jeremiah 6:14

The Captain Marvel I Remember

The Captain Marvel I remember was a black woman. I started collecting the Avengers comics in the mid-80’s. In 1987, Monica Rambeau (as Captain Marvel—she later became “Photon”) was chair of the Avengers. I remember Storm being leader of the X-Men. And in the New Mutants (my favorite team), Danielle Moonstar was the leader. As an adolescent white dude in the mid-80’s, comics were about the only pop culture media in which I remember seeing women of color in leadership.

I stopped collecting for awhile, and I missed the major Carol Danvers story. So “Captain Marvel” for me has always been Monica Rambeau. If I were to pick a superpower for myself, it would have been her ability to transform into multiple kinds of energy. When they introduced Monica as a little girl in the recent Captain Marvel movie, I couldn’t help elbowing my wife and whispering “she’s going to be badass.”

IMG_1940

Captain Marvel gets nominated to lead the Avengers — The Avengers 279, May 1987, page 5

I’m not in any way saying that this deprogrammed me or counteracted the enormous implicit bias I was trained to have. Nor am I dismissing all the sexism and lookism and tokenism that comics geared toward adolescent boys often reinforced. BUT these stories embedded themselves in my imagination and subconscious. 

IMG_1941

Doctor Druid and Thor showing their fragility.

I’m sharing this because I remember this stuff from my childhood. It reinforces the importance of representation in our imagination and the stories we tell. Superhero movies, as Mr. Glass says, are our modern myths—they tell us who we aspire to be. When we are doing science fiction or fantasy or superhero stories, we’re engaged in subtle acts of resistance to the dominant narrative. We’re imagining that the world could be otherwise.

And the reason it causes so much backlash among fragile white dudes is that they correctly sense that it threatens the status quo. In the above panel, Doctor Druid and Thor both react in predictable ways, questioning Monica’s ability. Later on in the story, She-Hulk confides to Black Knight that she prefers a less hierarchical and more egalitarian form of leadership, and she hopes Captain Marvel will step up to lead the group. 

The comics I collected seldom mentioned race as part of the storyline. Danielle Moonstar’s Cheyenne heritage in The New Mutants is far more explicit than Monica’s blackness in The Avengers. In that sense, my favorite comics promoted the false narrative of colorblindness. But it also shows Monica talking with her parents about sidelining her desire to start a business. The story gives her a past, a family, and an internal life.

IMG_1942

Internalized oppression is a thing. Monica feels she needs permission to lead because she’s a woman. (The fact that she’s black is never mentioned).

It’s a comic book from the 80’s, so there are some dialogue choices and storyline choices that make me cringe. But I remember that these comics expanded my imagination in ways that I only now can appreciate. I am looking forward to seeing the Captain Marvel that I grew up with transform into a living beam of light and burn a hole through steel.

What Christians Do

It’s interesting to me that there are few descriptions of what early church worship was actually like. We have fragments, sure: they met in homes and broke bread with glad and generous hearts (Acts 2:46), sometimes discussion dragged on so long that someone fell asleep and fell out of a window (20:9). But the book of Acts doesn’t spend a lot of time detailing what the order of worship was.

Most of the action happens outside of worship. The apostles get dragged before religious and city officials (Acts 4 & 5) and they speak boldly and get killed for it (7). Philip proselytizes an Ethiopian eunuch (8), Peter extends the reach of the church to Gentiles (10), and so on. If Acts is the story of the early church, most of that story is not worship.

I want to be careful here: As Will Willimon has said, there is a tendency to downplay worship, as if the real activity of the church happens outside of worship, as if the important work of the church is whatever those outside of the church deem worthy. I happen to think worship orders the life of the church. Worship is central. When Paul sends greetings in his letters, he sends them to the church that meets in Nympha’s house or Prisca and Aquila’s house. Apparently meeting together for worship was a regular feature of life for the early church. We just don’t know much about what actually took place there.

The public life of the church, the stuff that Acts records, is about disciples doing the kinds of things that Jesus did: meeting with the wrong sorts of people, scandalizing religious and political leaders, getting in trouble, and seeing God do amazing things.

I am struck by the discrepancy in what Acts describes and what church professionals describe. For most of my ministry, I’ve listened to church professionals talk about how to get more people into a sanctuary and how to get more people involved with the stuff the church organization is doing. I just don’t see that emphasis in Acts. I don’t see mega-churches; I see micro-churches. I don’t see programs; I see practices. There are a few situations in which the apostles speak to large crowds, but those are usually tense situations where they are as likely to be killed as to be celebrated. Most of the situations that are recorded in Acts are meetings with just two or a handful of people. Most of the activity of the church is in the streets and around tables.

Framing Hoover’s History

Screen Shot 2018-12-06 at 9.29.02 AM

Several folks have asked for the manuscript of my portion of the presentation on Tuesday night. I will be updating this manuscript with links and notes to the research I conducted. As usual, the words below don’t entirely match what I said, but they are pretty close:

December 4, 2018

Questions White People Are Afraid to Ask: Historical Frame

The proverbial tip of the iceberg is the 10% of a situation that is visible, while the 90% remains invisible, below the surface. The killing of EJ Bradford is the very tiniest tip of a pattern of violence that is invisible to most white folks who live in predominantly white communities. What happened on Thanksgiving night was the outcome of decades and centuries of intentional policy and strategy. What we’re going to do in the next 30 minutes is frame these events historically, culturally, and spiritually. William Faulkner said, “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even the past.” The past is the present. So I’m going to share with you a bit about everything that led up to the killing of EJ Bradford. (Recent reporting on the protests is available here.)

William Hoover’s family were bigwigs in Jefferson County. There are a couple of things he is remembered for. He was an advocate of traffic safety. He coined the slogan, “Drive carefully; the life you save may be your own.” He was president of The Club, which sits on top of Red Mountain and looks down on Birmingham, literally and figuratively. And he was also known for being a militant segregationist. He founded the American States Rights Association which opposed integration. He published Neo-Nazi propaganda. He also founded Hoover Academy in 1963 so white kids wouldn’t have to integrate in West End. In the 1950’s he bought lots of land along Highway 31 and planned a new city for whites only.

Hoover

William H. Hoover, Sr.

The first attempt to incorporate the city of Hoover happened in 1964, the same year the Civil Rights Act was signed. They succeeded in 1967. (More history of Hoover is available here and here, and be sure to check out John Archibald’s article here.)

People who don’t understand how history works might say, “well that was over 50 years ago. A lot has changed since then.” Sure, a lot has changed. And a lot has not.

In 1974, Hoover built its own shopping mall, its first major retail attraction. In the 1990’s it got a significant upgrade at the Riverchase Galleria. Today,. Costco is its largest tax revenue generator. Macy’s is number 10. The median household income in Hoover is nearly 80,000 per year, compared with Birmingham, which is 32,000, less than half that. The median property value in Hoover is over a quarter million dollars; in Birmingham it is 80,000. In Hoover poverty rate is only 6%. In Birmingham, the poverty rate is about 30%. (Economic data sourced here and here.)

Why such a discrepancy? We’ve coined a term for what happened in the following decades after Hoover was founded. We call it “white flight.” But let’s call what it actually was: wealth extraction. How many folks have heard the term “redlining?” Redlining began in the 1930’s, and it was the practice of banks to surround certain neighborhoods with a red line and describe them as “undesirable” because they were predominantly black. Banks refused to give government-backed FHA mortgages to people in those areas. So, for decades, white folks could get a government-subsidized handout to build wealth, while black folks could not. As white folks built suburbs and government built big roads to access those suburbs and subsidized big cars so white folks could get back and forth to work, many black people were stuck in a Great Depression that never ended. A study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that the effects of redlining are still being felt today, because those neighborhoods have never recovered. Redlining and white flight, or wealth extraction, is a large part of what is responsible today for the “Racial wealth gap,” which means that white families have an average of 10 times the net worth of black families. The number one redlined community in the 1930’s was Macon, Georgia. Number two? Birmingham, Alabama. Folks, that’s why Jefferson county has more than 30 different municipal governments, most of which were created through white flight. If you’re white, the government has been backing your family’s mortgages and city development for nearly 100 years. You have been the recipient of a huge government handout that was not given to black families. Yet today, many white folks blame the people in poor neighborhoods for their own persistent poverty.

As a clergy person and a church planter, I also need to point out that churches are complicit. New churches were planted in these growing white suburbs, and when they grew to be megachuches with wealthy givers, white pastors said, “Look how God has blessed us.”

But let’s not just pick on Hoover. Let’s take an even longer and wider view. Because in 1901, a group of wealthy white landowners—former plantation owners—gathered to write our state’s constitution. The president of the convention stated their mission on the second day in his opening speech. Now this is a verbatim quote from the transcript, which you can find online: “What is it that we want to do? Why, it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State.” To establish white supremacy in this state. His own words, in the transcripts, which are available online. (The full transcript is available here. Knox’s quote is on Day Two.)

To establish white supremacy, they debated the merits of public education, and worried that public education would allow black folks to rise above white folks. They debated various ways to disenfranchise voters, and tried to figure out how they could maximize the impact on black voters while minimizing the impact on white voters; all without ever making the law explicitly about race.

Let me quote just a snippet from Delegate Coleman from Greene county at the 1901 Convention. They were debating how much property someone needed in order to vote, and he was worried that white folks in the black belt would be disfranchised along with black folks. This is what he said, and let me remind you that this is in the transcripts:

“It was never intended by saying that $300 worth of personal property of real estate, to prescribe qualifications which would enable a man to vote. The real purpose was to disable certain parties from voting in this State. Now we have been willing to concede to the white people of Alabama any provision that they could frame, and we are willing to do it now.

…If there is anything here by which any white man is disfranchised. I would like to see it pointed out. We thought we had them all in. Some gentleman said yesterday that we could not go on the stump [go out in public] and defend it, as it was. Why, fellow delegates, you cannot defend many things if you take the whole people into consideration, but you can defend it and satisfactorily when it is understood that by this provision, the ignorant and venal vote will be eliminated, and the white man continued in dominion in this State.” 

Translation: We can’t defend this as policy about race, but with a nudge and a wink we can make it acceptable, as long as it doesn’t disfranchise too many poor white folks as well.

Now, look, we all know Alabama has a racist and white supremacist history. You don’t need me to tell you that. But what I want to illustrate is that the people who worked to establish white supremacy in this state and in our cities were very strategic in their thinking. In these transcripts you can can see the architecture that would guarantee white supremacy for the next century.

And the whole point of these policies is to create plausible deniability, to be able to say, “Look, this isn’t about RACE — it’s about economics. It’s about local control of education. It’s about state’s rights. It’s about crime. It’s about drug policy.” All of that is a lie. 

Another way they ensure white supremacy was to make sure that property taxes were low and sales taxes were high. The reason is that the wealth of white landowners was tied up in their land. And by using sales tax, the burden of funding government could be shifted to poor people. These delegates from 1901 ensured that our public coffers would never be full enough to fund programs of social uplift. You see every year in the news that Alabama is too broke to fund education, too broke to fund state parks, too broke to fund medicaid expansion, too broke to keep voter registration sites open. You see how this works. Folks, this is not an accident. This is by design.

The architects of white supremacy were strategic in their thinking. They set up a system that would outlast them and continue to deprive black folks of resources and give them to white folks. After they died, they could pull the levers of state and city governance from beyond the grave. They left a legacy that outlasted them, and they’ve continued to out-organize us for decades. How many of us are organizing to leave a legacy of justice for our children?

And unless you are directly affected by these policies, they are invisible to you. That’s the whole point. 

Hoover in 2016 rezoned large chunks of the city so they could deal with, what was called euphemistically, “the apartment problem.” The zoning and planning commission saw this as a way to prevent more apartment dwellers, namely black and Latino folks, from coming to Hoover for the quality education. Just as several years before they tried to end bus service to make it more difficult for apartment dwellers to send their kids to school.

And of course, all of this is rooted in the widespread belief among white people that black people are inferior. Oh not in so many words. Just that they are more prone to crime. That’s why we invented the phrase “black on black crime.” That they are not good parents or are not involved in their kids education. That they are “riff raff.” The implicit bias we live with has not changed in 50, or 100, or 150 years. And many of the the policies and systems which were set up to disenfranchise and disempower black folks have not changed. So even if you, in your heart, don’t consciously hate black people, it doesn’t matter—we have to change the implicit unconscious bias we live with AND we have to change systems and policies that are designed to oppress.

Let me say a few kind words about Mr. Hoover, who died back in the 70’s. He wasn’t an evil person. After all, he was concerned about traffic safety. He was a successful businessman who “gave back to the community.” I’m sure he loved him Mama and Daddy. He was, in many ways, like many of our friends, neighbors, and family. “Not a racist bone in his body,” at least not in terms of the people he actually had relationships with. Just as I’m sure Mr. Knox, the president of the constitutional convention who said white supremacy was the purpose of our state, I’m sure he loved his family and his neighbors. He was a pillar of the community. He’d probably give you the shirt off of his back.

But let me remind you of the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? And if you welcome only your own family, what more are you doing than anyone else?

The measure of our faith and our justice is how much we are willing to love and extend hospitality to people who are not our tribe. It’s how much we are willing to think about someone else’s history and their experience. And for that I turn the next portion over to Cat Goodrich.

Never Say This Phrase Again

“Black-on-black crime.”

White people, banish this phrase from your mind. Wash it out of your mouth. If you type it without scare quotes, cut off your fingers and cast them from you, for it is better for you to lose your fingers than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Let us state the social issue before us: Black men are being killed by police and vigilantes because they are presumed to be criminals. They can follow police instructions and still be killed, like Philando Castile. They can be killed for playing in a park, like Tamir Rice. They can be killed for wearing a hoodie and buying skittles, like Trayvon Martin. They can be killed for  exercising their second-amendment rights, like EJ Bradford. In all of these cases, the victims were presumed to be criminals by those doing the shooting.

They can be killed without consequence because the assumption is that black men are dangerous. Did the police officer / vigilante fear for their life? Of course they did: the victim was a black man, and everyone of us has been programmed to believe that black men are dangerous.

So when a black man is killed (again), and people protest his killing, some white folks (and a few black folks) respond with this dismissive, distracting rhetoric which reinforces the stereotype: “What about black-on-black crime?” “Why don’t you protest that?”

The genius of this evil turn of phrase is that it allows someone to sound concerned while they reassert one of the central premises of white supremacy: black people are defective. In some ontological, primordial way, their blackness is a signifier of their wickedness. They are prone to criminality. They are violent. So we need to address “black-on-black crime” before we can take seriously the idea that our black siblings are being killed without cause. According to this logic, ANY GIVEN KILLING of an unarmed or innocent black man is justified. Just like lynchings, modern vigilante justice will never be uncalled-for. Using the phrase “black-on-black crime” is a way of saying, “Black people brought this on themselves.” 

There are, of course, many other reasons this phrase is nonsensical. As others have pointed out, we do not refer to mass shootings, anti-semitic hate crimes, or white-collar insider trading as “white-on-white” crime.

Kulturgeschichte / Religionsgeschichte / Juden / 19. Jh.

An anti-semitic riot in 1819, an example of “white-on-white” crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots

But the phrase “black-on-black crime” is abhorrent because it is intentionally used to dismiss white supremacist violence against black bodies. It obscures the violence while it justifies bullets fired, blood lost, parents bereaved, and children orphaned. It is a euphemism, a slightly-more polite way of using the N-word.

Take those words out of your mouth. Throw them away. Never, ever, ever use them again.