Racial Profiling and the Christian
American Christians should be just as committed to fighting the injustice of racial profiling as we are to fighting sex trafficking, homelessness, abortion and the other important justice issues of our culture.
Unfortunately, we are not.
The American Church is largely silent on the issue of racial profiling. When Christians do identify racial profiling as the injustice it is, we commonly receive resistance and even hostile opposition from amongst our own. This was illustrated when RAAN President, Jemar Tisby, posted his excellent article Shopping While Black: The Problem of Racial Profiling. In response to the article an anonymous user (clearly white and presumably Christian) posted a comment minimizing the injustice of racial profiling and essentially laying the blame for its existence at the feet of black Americans. I would like to believe that the anonymous user’s comment is an anomaly and is not representative of the views of a number of American evangelicals.
But I can’t.
Experience has taught me that the anonymous user’s comments accurately represent the opinion of many of my fellow white evangelicals. On the one hand it is terribly discouraging to see so many who are unwilling to “weep with those who weep” as their brothers and sisters live under this injustice daily. On the other hand I have tremendous hope because my fellow white evangelicals are committed to the Scriptures and, I believe, will fight against racial profiling when they see it for what it is: always evil, never justified, and continually disrupting the Shalom of our communities.
Racial Profiling is Always Evil
Racial profiling is always evil. There are many reasons for this but the most important is that racial profiling isolates race as the defining aspect of a person’s identity. This is contrary to the Biblical doctrine of the imago Dei which teaches that as God’s image bearers we are each an immeasurably complex blend of physical, spiritual, volitional, moral, emotional, intellectual, and societal factors. Racial profiling ignores this diverse complexity and reduces the glories of our humanness down to one category: our physical skin tone.
In this way, racial profiling guarantees that God’s image-bearers will be treated as something less than image-bearers. As we evangelicals know, the God we worship is not pleased when his image is dishonored. In fact, God points to the devaluing of his image in human beings as the basis for capital punishment in Genesis 9:6.
One may try to argue against the point above by claiming that in fighting crime we cannot observe every aspect of someone’s humanness and, thus, must limit our initial attempts at preventing crime to physical things we can observe. This, of course, cannot be true in a country that claims “innocent until proven guilty” because every form of profiling necessitates that certain groups of people are treated as “guilty until proven innocent.” Yet, even if it were true, it would still not explain racial profiling. People are not labeled as potential criminals by any other physical aspect of their humanness. There is no “driving while long-necked” or “shopping while big-eared” issue in our country. This is because we have adopted only racial categories as a relevant indicator of one’s potential for criminal behavior.
Moreover, race is not a divinely revealed category. It is a socially constructed category. Even worse, this socially constructed category was not invented to explain reality (such as real and actual differences between ethnicities), it was invented to create reality (namely a hierarchy of races which would “justify” the dominant group’s oppression of “lesser” peoples). Racial profiling is rooted in the same oppressive system that was created to perpetuate the horrors of slavery and genocide and is therefore a stench in the nostrils of the God who says, “I, the Lord, love justice” (Isaiah 61:8) and commands his people to “let justice roll down like waters” (Amos 5:24).
Racial Profiling is Never Justified
Racial profiling is never justified because, as seen above, it is evil. Within a biblical worldview, evil is never justified no matter how “useful” it may be. It is also never justified because it is exclusively applied to minority populations and never applied to the dominant population.
To illustrate this truth simply ask yourself which of the following celebrities is most likely to be pulled over on the basis that they might be undocumented immigrants. Would it be Edward James Olmos or Justin Bieber? Selena Gomez or Michael J Fox? Intuitively we all know the answer. People who look like Edward James Olmos and Selena Gomez – both of whom are US citizens born on American soil – are pulled over every day simply because they “look” like they might be undocumented immigrants. People who look like Justin Bieber and Michael J. Fox – both of whom immigrated from Canada – never have this experience.
Similarly, Wall Street crimes are almost exclusively committed by white men. Yet how many white men in suits are being pulled over because they “fit the description” of these criminals? The highest percentage of marijuana users and meth dealers are also white men. Yet I have never had a retailer follow me around the store or a real estate agent steer me away from a certain neighborhood because I share the same skin tone as those who commit the overwhelming majority of these crimes.
This is because racial profiling (like the category of race itself) is created and enforced by the dominant culture and, therefore, does not apply to the dominant culture. Members of the dominant culture have the unique privilege of being individuals whose perceived potential for criminality is only affected by their own decisions and not by the decisions of complete strangers who happen to share their skin tone.
This is the privilege being enjoyed by the anonymous user who commented on Jemar’s post. (S)he assigned the blame for racial profiling to Jemar for not publicly denouncing “the black ghetto culture that feeds these negative stereotypes” and not directing his outrage “at the minority of African Americans (sic) who commit your surrounding communities (sic) overwhelming percentage of…crime.” As a white American, the anonymous user will never be asked why (s)he has not denounced the white American culture of greed that produces Wall Street crime, or the white American culture of drug addiction that allows for countless white drug users and dealers. (S)he will never be personally held responsible for the crimes committed by strangers who share her skin tone and will never be expected to publicly condemn the white Americans who commit the overwhelming percentage of crime in her community.
And she should not be.
Because her race is not a reflection of her potential for criminality and her “people” are not a monolithic group for whom she must give an account when certain of its members do wrong. The anonymous user should have the privilege of being an individual who is treated as an image-bearer. And so should everyone else. Unfortunately, racial profiling privileges white skin while punishing people of color. For this and other reasons it is never justified.
Racial Profiling Disrupts the Shalom of our Communities
Lastly, racial profiling disrupts the shalom of our communities by strengthening the divisive perceptions that justify its own existence. Racial profiling begins with a stereotype that it then, by its very existence, reinforces.
How does it do this?
Imagine there were a stereotype that an overwhelming percentage of Christians park their cars illegally and politicians chose to use this stereotype as a justification for devoting additional law enforcement resources to policing the Christian community. This would result in police forces regularly visiting Christian churches, Christian concert venues, and Christian bookstores (do those still exist?) in search of illegally parked cars with more vigilance than in other communities. As a result of these additional resources focused on the Christian community there would eventually be more illegally parked cars found in the Christian community than in any other. This isn’t necessarily because Christians are illegally parking any more frequently than any other community, it is because law enforcement has policed this issue in the Christian community with greater intensity than in other communities. Yet that obvious fact wouldn’t matter. The country would be even more convinced in their perception that “those Christian love to illegally park” and law enforcement would be even more biased in both pursuing and convicting Christian drivers.
This is what racial profiling does to communities of color. It bases its existence on the stereotype that certain sorts of crimes are committed frequently by people of color. This stereotype then justifies an increased police presence in communities of color and provides police and other outsiders with prejudiced “probable cause” to search for a crime and expect a crime where a crime would not otherwise be assumed with any other population. This leads to an increase in searches and stops, which leads to an increase in citations and arrests. This increase then strengthens the stereotype that such crimes are committed in the respective community thereby giving law enforcement and the general population the “evidence” that racial profiling is necessary and effective. Of course this isn’t necessarily because people in this community actually commit these crimes at a higher rate than the dominant culture, it is because racial profiling leads law enforcement to police this community in a way it doesn’t police other communities. As just one example, it is this inequitable approach to policing communities that has led our nation to incarcerate African-Americans for marijuana use at four times the rate we incarcerate whites, despite the fact that whites use marijuana at a higher rate than blacks.
The consequences of racial profiling on the shalom of our larger community are too far-reaching to cover in this article. Suffice it to say it hinders our ability to live as the unified community Christ died to create. It is a prevalent factor in the continual physical separation between white and minority Christians. White Christians tend to avoid moving into neighborhoods with large minority populations, often because of assumptions related to crime rates that are highly influenced by racial profiling. Christians of color who might desire to move into a more integrated neighborhood are often unable to do so due to the effects of decades of racial profiling in real estate, lending, and criminal justice. Racial profiling is also a prevalent factor in the relational distance between us as it has led both groups to distrust the other.
Jesus is not pleased with these results. In fact, his famous story of the Good Samaritan was designed to correct such foolishness. In telling the story of the Good Samaritan Jesus intentionally appeals to the racial profiling of his Jewish audience, knowing they will expect “their own” to behave one way and the Samaritan to behave another. He then turns their expectations upside down and reveals not only that their racial profiling is without basis but that it is keeping them from obeying God’s Law. May we all repent of our tendency toward practicing or even tolerating racial profiling so we may keep God’s command to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Great beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog website?
The account aided me a acceptable deal. I have been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided vivid clear idea
Rather than arguing, we should just tell each other how we fail as a church in this area, and what we are doing right. But I guess there’s no wrong in asking questions about the article, just make sure your heart is in the right place when posting (this is NOT directed at anyone in specific, just people in general)
I love this article and Im so glad this was written. As someone who works at the jail and sees the reasons why people come to jail and how people ended up in jail because one min they made a minor traffic violation and then the next the cops are searching the car for no reason only to find a dime bag or smaller of weed is ridiculous. The worse is when cops go through all that only to find nothing. One of my coworkers was harassed by the police while walking on the sidewalk. They didnt know she worked at the jail, she reported them and got them suspended. It is never okay. It produces mistrust of authority and division in communities. The truth is that whatever the majority population is in an area they should represent the majority in the jail. Thats just basic math.
Good morning Tyshan. There is great hope. God is waking up some of His people. Many times in the past few years high profile Christians and our organizations have ask for forgiveness for the churches part in these types of things as the words of our mouth revel our heart attitudes. I think Jesus would be pleased with His church if we looked in the mirror and ask for forgiveness for that guys sin. I continue to do that and ask God to forgive and change what I know is so deeply ingrained in my soul.
Hello, everyone. I’m encouraged by all the comments and interaction here. I’ve read most but haven’t had a chance to read all of them and can’t respond to each individually. I would like to say some things generally though, in hopes that this may clarify some things and answer a number of the questions or objections that have been raised. Nathan rightly noted that I did not provide a definition of my terms, specifically what I mean by “racial profiling.” He is right to point that out and that was an unfortunate oversight on my part. Because I was responding to a prior article by Jemar I assumed a certain definition of the term but did not explicitly tell the reader that I had done so, largely because I have only ever heard the term used in one way.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to correct that oversight and define my term here. For the sake of simplicity I’ll just use the Wikipedia definition, which captures perfectly my understood definition when I wrote the article: “racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement.” I was using the term in this way, in reference to law enforcement, which is why each of the three main points is illustrated with a law-enforcement-related situation. I believe this was Jemar’s intent with the term in the prior post as well.
Many of the comments have disagreed that profiling is always evil. Those who do have offered several examples of when profiling might be appropriate, many of which have been unrelated to law enforcement. For those things that are unrelated to law enforcement I would argue that it is not “racial profiling” in the technical sense and thus cannot prove or disprove my claim that racial profiling is always evil. Such examples may be examples of prejudice. They may be examples of stereotyping. Some might even argue they may be examples wisdom. All of this would make for an interesting debate and helpful conversation, the seeds of which are in many of these comments. But those issues are for a separate blog on something other than racial profiling.
When defined as it is above, I believe racial profiling is always evil as argued in the original blog. The governing authorities are to “hold no terror to those who do right” (Romans 13:3) and exist “for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14). Racial profiling punishes and terrorizes those who do right instead of those who do wrong and does so solely on the basis of a person’s perceived race. It allows governing authorities to use their God-given authority to treat people as less than image-bearers by criminalizing how a person looks instead of who a person is or what a person does. As Phillip has pointed out in his comments, there are at least a half-dozen biblical passages that condemn doing this in personal relationships. How much more should we condemn it when it is done in the name of justice and in the power of the state?
I hope the above definition of “racial profiling” clarifies what I’m arguing in my post, whether or not you find the argument compelling. Thank you for interacting with the ideas. I’m glad to see so many Christians participating in such an important conversation.
Thank you Cole for your response, I see the wisdom in waiting to comment. Now that I have had time to reflect on what myself and others have said, I would reword some and take back other things. However, I am thankful for this discussion. And having been engaged from the second day, I found it instructive and cordial. I did not see a need for clarification as I assumed most would understand the meaning and sense of how you were using “racial profiling”. As a writer that uses his skills to make a point, I am sure you would want to make your self clear to even those who would disagree with you. In that sense perhaps a correction was needed. It seems to me though, that there is an attempt to undermine the position that racial profiling ,as an evil, still exists or ever existed. To my way of thinking, non forensic racial profiling is a manifestation of the root problem; racism. Some are much more interested in how the church is and has been involved. We think it would be pleasing to God for us to look in the mirror. I look forward to the discussion you and others will have on this as you attempt to please our Lord in the difficult work of unifying the saints here on earth.
In my experience, I have found it helpful to begin this type
of conversation with clarity on “profiling,” which I tend to think is
morally neutral or even an affirmation of the beauty of diversity. Personally,
I don’t think the Lord would have me go through life and not notice the
differences which He has created among us as human beings created in His image.
On a somewhat related note: yesterday my wife was profiled. We went to lunch
and discovered that Senior Citizens get a 10% discount. When my wife asked for
her discount, the person behind the cash register profiled her and concluded
that my wife was too young to be a senior. My wife felt pretty good about that
observation even while she pulled out her license to prove that she qualified
for the discount.
Profiling, it seems to me, is part of life. The issue for me, is whether I
profile in a prejudicial manner. When I reduce a person to a physical attribute
or pass judgment on a person because of a physical attribute, just to name a
couple forms of prejudicial profiling, I not only miss out on an opportunity to
enjoy the complexities of a person created in the image of God, I also sin
against the Lord.
Prejudicial profiling is the problem I face. Plus I have found
“Prejudicial Profiling” a more accurate descriptor of my experience
than “Racial Profiling” for there is so much of the former that flies
under the radar if we focus on the prejudice which arises from the
acknowledgment of racial differences, such as national, ethnic, and tribal.
I’m thankful for this dialogue despite a few misguided assumptions and implicit jabs that have been taken. This conversation is complex and the dynamics of the participants involved is even more complex.
Nevertheless, RAAN (along with Cole Brown) haven’t checked out. Podcast coming eventually involving the co-founders, Cole Brown and a special surprise guest who is an expert on Thomas Sowell. We should have a confirmation soon. Also Cole may write another post to clarify some things.
Remain charitable to all of whom you speak of and carry on. Wish I had time to engage this more but via comments but I don’t. Remember perspective matters and we as a network try to make decisions based on prayer, knowledge and wisdom. We really don’t care about being right, we just want to pursue God honest truth. Grace and peace!
many of us are looking forward to this Podcast. Thankyou guys for setting the tone.
Cole Brown…..knock knock…., is any body home.
If we are to have HEALTHY discussion, it can’t be assumed that one group is evil and bears ALL the responsibility while the other group is completely innocent and bears NO responsibility. Both blacks AND whites bear responsibility in regards to matters of race. The sin of racism needs to be examined by ALL involved (because we ALL can succumb to it. Unchecked racism has no place in the body (or society at large) and unchecked resentment has no place in the body of Christ (or society at large). Until that is acknowledged, we’re simply left talking AT one another and in circles. Left only with the tired tit for tat game of ‘I’m more oppressed than you!’ ‘Uh uh, I’M more oppressed’.
Most definitely. I wholeheartedly agree, Donte. I hope the new comment I just posted helps clarify that I am certainly not assigning blame to one ethnic group and excusing another. The blog was not intended to address racism in general (which is a heart issue for which all people must be held responsible) but racial profiling in particular (which is a law enforcement issue for which all people cannot be held responsible). I read through most of your comments below and appreciate your perspective. Thanks for taking the time to read and interact.
Appreciate the forum by which to cordially discuss these issues brother Brown. This issue is obviously one that is touchy and not always discussed both biblically and in love. Appreciate your article and the dialog that it has generated here and elsewhere. God bless you brother.
Hey Donte, Just following up to read Cole’s responses, I find it interesting, you and I had a discussion about rap last week preceding the current rap controversy. Anyway, to your point of shared responsibility for racism, I agree. For who is primarily responsible in America, I disagree. In the American reformed church, how many black pastors are held up as leaders, i.e. on conference panels. How many black pastors are “qualified”? If the number you come up with is small, who initiated that and is the keeper of that?
Thanks for the excellent article!
This is a massive issue, and I’m sure more bloggers and commenters here have sat at their keyboards, wondering where to even start.
Part of the ‘problem’ is that many ethnic or minority Christians are so conscious about being gentle, winsome, and caring, that the intensity of what it is to live on the unhappy side of these issues doesn’t come out. Now, I totally appreciate a point Edward Gilbreath has made nicely, that slamming people who are ignorant or offensive shuts off potential to explore and unpack the issues, and just makes people superficially polite. But, surely this also depends a bit on the context? Surely there are times when the oppressed can answer back to a mainstream fool’s folly or at least put a bar in place that says, ‘ok, engage with this, but get some background first.’
Nathan requires proof for the ‘empirical truth claim’ that the white dominant culture systemically disadvantages and marginalises minorities. And yet, so much of what is written on this site, reflections on experiences of that exact problem (proof, in other words), apparently demonstrates mere assumption. That is a clever way of controlling whose voices are heard, and what weight those voices are given, a very standard feature of racialised societies.
Disadvantaged communities could come back and say, ‘no, you show to us how our vivid, painful, shared experience of continuing disenfranchisment is not real.’ But of course that’s not their place, is it? The people with the most to lose will decide who gets to demand proof.
What proof will do? What do generations of Native Americans, African Americans, First Nations Canadians, Indigenous Australians, Maori New Zealanders and countless other colonised peoples have to do, to convince you their daily experiences of discrimination, hurt, exclusion and frustration are true, not to mention the weight of intergenerational trauma, and the effect of policies and structures whose painful toll continues?
If you hold your assumptions as humbly and flexibly as Sowell suggests, surely you have thought about the possibility of that oppressed crowd of humanity being right, and you being a little mistaken. What I’d like to know from those who agree with Nathan and Zac is, what do you fear most about admitting reality is the way you assume it’s not? And what would change for you practically in your life if, hypothetically, you were wrong?
This is awesome! Though I disagree with you, this is the type of interaction I strive for. It’s a coherent argument that doesn’t misuse Scripture or immediately categorize me as racist or devious for disagreeing with the black perspective. This is the type of dialogue we need.
As to your question: loved it. I’ve never thought about it. Will think on it and try and respond later with an answer. Thanks for the interaction.
Hey Nathan, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your enthusiasm, staying power and well articulated view. I agree with you that this is a great conversation for us, even for me as I feel small but grateful to be included. I do disagree that you have not been categorized by Mr. Wagenaar though. I’m pretty sure the third paragraph of his response is directed at your views; the one that starts with “Nathan requires proof”. I think he is describing you as “clever”.
I’m ok with that. If I can’t take jabs at my views on this then I don’t need to be involved in the conversation. I’m perfectly fine with sarcasm, hyperbole and the like. Christians needs to learn to fight with each other better and develop thicker skin when arguing. I love a good argument though I think that might make me Jewish. Oops…stereotype! Bazinga!
I tell you Nathan, the very thing you mentioned is what I have enjoyed and learned so much from; like theThabiti Anyabwile and Douglas Wilson Internet debate about Mr. Wilson’s book on race. The tone of their discussion was firm but very charitable and it seemed like Christian love to me. The same goes for my take on John MacArthur’s and John Piper’s back and forth on the “Strange Fire” comments. I want to be like that when I grow up. Maybe you would pray for me to be that gracious in person as I tend to be more verbally retaliatory, (sin).
Sorry for the delay coming back to this. There are probably a half dozen time zones between us that disrupt the flow a bit
I’m in no position to judge that) I meant that the dominant culture strategy of getting into a position where you decide who gets to speak, what proof is, whose perspective is authoritative, etc, is a clever and subtle form of control, as opposed to the blunt and obvious kind. We can lock people up, beat them, lynch them, cut off their hands, in order to keep the privilege where it is. But those things are crude, and inflammatory, easy to expose, even if hard to challenge. Discrimination is most powerful when it is practically invisible to the dominant culture, even to the good hearted, who like to think they would help tear it down, if they could see it was really there.
I’m sorry if you read any ‘categorising’ or ‘jabs’ into what I wrote. It was less about Nathan than it sounded, and more about the type of thinking his views represent.
I did not mean to call him clever (although he very well might be
Thanks Sean for your response, I will tell you I am grateful for your defense of Nathan the person with out endorsing Nathan the view. I think I have been to often ready to unlovingly verbaly marginalize a person for thier view. I need yours and others perspective on how I am perceived by what and how I say. I hope I am learning from people like Nathan and you. I believe one thing I was able to articulate though, is that you were thinking in terms, as I saw it ,as describing Nathan’s views; so I said: “directed at your views”. But then you went on to describe the person who hold those views; and followed with “clever” anyone who holds them, his type, him. The reason I say “able to articulate” is that he confirmed that is what you are descibe him as, “calling him”, in his responce to me. In other words, I read it that way in agreement with you, and he read it that way in agreement with me, His reponce to your dicription of him is he is fine with the tools of grammar that you use to do that. I would add that if we are to “judge all things” ,and you suppose we are not in a “position to judge” peoples’ character by the words they use, how do we proceed with them? I hope my starting place is biblical. For instance, to my way of understanding, if a man says he is saved I would start there with him. But in order to know whether God has put me in his life to be used to save or sanctify,I am commanded to watch his life and listen to his words to make sure of which I am call to do. I hope some one would do that to/for me. I respect ,and long to make my own, the balanced approch that you represent. I have limited education and my wife/editor is not here today. Please except this lame excuse for writing.
I absolutely loved this article. As a white male living in a gentrifying neighborhood, I see day in and day out the affects of systematic racism on my friends, family members, and neighbors.
In regards to some of the comments that have been made on the subject, I am disappointed with some of the dialogue.
A couple of observations from the dialogue below:
1) The argument that profiling is more cultural than racial is not true at all. I am a white male that dresses like a “gangster (to quote from the comment section), and drives around listening to loud “gangster” music. However, I have never been involved in a profiling situation. I have never been accused of shop lifting while “dressed” like this. I have never been pulled over for “listening to my music too loud” or because my windows “were too tinted.” However, my black friends have been accused of these things in the exact same neighborhood. If that isn’t profiling, I don’t know what is. If culture and not race is the reason for profiling, why have I never been profiled? Not even once? Clearing I would fit the description. However, every African American I have ever spent time with has been profiled. My friends who are medical doctors who dress like “medical doctors?” Profiled. A good family friend who once ran education policy for an entire major U.S. city, who has a degree from Harvard? Profiled. I believe the argument presented in this case does not represented reality within America’s social structures. Not even close.
2) The reason why articles like this even have to exist is because within Evangelical Christianity, there isn’t a forum for people who hold to the perspective of the writer. I have been dubbed a theological liberal (even though I am really a theological conservative) because I would agree with the arguments presented in this article. Therefore, to much of Evangelical America, to hold the position of this article would mean you would not be featured in most Evangelical magazines, websites, blogs, etc. I, for one, do not think there needs to be a forum between Zach, Nathan, and RAAN. Forgive me if I sound overly harsh, but the perspective of both Zach and Nathan here is a typical white evangelical perspective. Any arguments they have presented here I have heard a million times over. It would take literally no time at all for me to find websites, blogs, and information that fight the reality of systematic racism and thus hold a similar if not identical perspective as to what has so far has been presented. I am so thankful that RAAN exists, and that a range of perspectives held within Evangelical Christianity, can be accurately presented.
3) I was once opposed the idea of systematic racism, as well as the role of both myself and ancestors in its negative contributions to American society. To those of you who don’t believe there is an “underground” form of racism today (to quote from the comment section), I would ask the following questions:
1) How much time do you spend with people who are not the same racial ethnicity as yourself? When and where do you spend time with people who are not like you?
2) Have you ever lived/spent time in a gentrifying area?
Some questions worth answering I believe.
To answer your questions:
1) I spent 40 hours a week teaching mostly African American children.
2) West Jackson, Mississippi (not the safest part of the city if you’re not familiar with the area).
The problem with personal, isolated experience is this: I’ve literally had the complete opposite experience as you. So, who’s experiential truth is valid? The popular narrative on this blog (and I would argue the standard narrative portrayed among the national media) is to say that you are correct and I am wrong because well…well because it just can’t be true.
That being said, I am not “necessarily” opposed to the conclusion of the post (though I heartily disagree), the main issue I have (and Zach as well) is that the logic in the article is non-existent. It borders on the circular. Also, and again, you have found issue with this in your comment; if our churches want to strive to communicate with one another and reconcile whites and black so that we can harmoniously worship Christ then we need to dialogue with those Christians for whom we disagree. The line of reasoning that says, “Whites believe that and since they’re the majority then they can’t be right” is never questioned on this site because they never force themselves to interact with those types of people. It might be true, whites may indeed oppress the minority cultures/races, but this is an empirical truth claim that needs to be proved, not just assumed. If that were written as a thesis you’d never get it passed because you never deal with your assumptions. As Christians it is our duty to know why we believe what we believe even if that means questioning our assumptions.
You seem to suggest that you believe someone holding the “majority” view should not be engaged with because their arguments can be found ubiquitously. However, I wonder if you would have that same argument if you are a Christian ministering to an Atheists? As a pastor, I engaged with Atheists all the time. Many of the questions they ask such as: the problem of evil, unreliability of the bible, the hypocrisy of Christians, all have been asked for hundreds if not thousands of years. The objections to Christianity are prevalent in the media, internet and literature as well. However, when an Atheist comes to me, I don’t say, “OH YOUR VIEW AND THE ANSWERS TO THE YOUR OBJECTIONS CAN BE FOUND ALL OVER THE INTERNET… AND THEREFORE…. I DON’T SEE A REASON TO TALK TO YOU.” I actually genuinely hear where he/she is coming from, even though I have heard their objections a million times, and try to discuss and talk them through it.
I would assume you would never do that to an Atheist… but you seem to suggest you would to a Christian brother (assuming Nathan is a Christian) or sister who disagrees with you on the issue of race.
I actively engage regularly with my Christian brothers and sisters who do not agree with my position on issues of race. In fact, it’s a weekly thing if not daily thing. I desire first and foremost to be unified with those within Christ’s body, and I am all for communicating with those who I hold differing views with.
That being said, like I suggested above, rarely are issues such as those that this article addresses given a platform with Evangelical Christianity. I believe those holding the majority view should be engaged, absolutely. But I don’t think that RAAN has to provide the context to do it, especially since only a handful of those that seemingly stand in opposition to the content are calling for it.
I have a biblical question that I have had relating to this issue for a long time. It’s kind of a retorical queston, but I am ready to be schooled if I’m wrong. I may be out of bounds here because I have never heard Romans preached this way.
In Romans 1:20 I believe it’s saying that we know God’s divine nature through what has been made. It seems to follow that we see God’s image in man that He made. I think the context is to unbelievers (all of us at least at some point) and so we have no excuse not to see God’s divine nature when we look at any man. Here is my question: if my line of thinking is correct, then is the penalty described in the following verses what we are seeing now? I might add that when I have talked to other believers about Romans chapter 1, some speak as if the information described there is erased when we become Christians and so we are free to suppress the truth of God’s divine nature without the penalty promised. Is it possible, according to Romans chapter 1, that God would turn us over to a debased mind because of this historic unrepentant sin?
“Is it possible, according to Romans chapter 1, that God would turn us over to a debased mind because of this historic unrepentant sin?”
Who is “us?”
The people who enslaved Africans and brought them to the America’s, both North and South, and to the Middle East are all dead. The people who enforced Jim Crow in America are almost all dead and the people who were on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement will be dead in a generation.
Also, I believe Paul is talking about idolatry in that context but don’t quote me on that because I don’t have a Bible sitting in front of me.
Hey Nathan, I probably need to be doing something else beside commenting, but I own my own business and work comes in shifts and it gets slow this time of year for me, so I read allot. I just started commenting a few short weeks ago. Let me confess my sin of lazyness the past few days and maybe I need to limit my comments and go do something in the shop…right after I reply. I guess my question would roll over to Romans chapter 2 verse 1. At some point Paul has to be talking to us or at least warning us. In chapter one I think he is describing how no one can say at judgement ” but you never told me”. On the point of exsisting racsists, the ones I have met are alive and well; some are leading our country, businesses, media and churches. I am a recovering one myself.
Could you define “racist?” One thing I’ve noticed in these types of conversations is the differing definitions of racism people use.
The only way I know to dfine racist is to tell you of some of what I have witnessed that I deem to be racist. It seems logical then for me to ask you to use scripture to define what you mean by racist. So I will tell you a story. I was in a men’s bible study class one Sunday morning. A prominant member of the church, and I think business owner, made a comment about the Houston Rockets loosing a game the night before. He said we should put on our white hats and white coats and go down there and see if they would play a little better next time. I immediately got up and went to get my dark skinned friend and asked him if he would come with me to that class. He did, not knowing why. When we got there I asked the man who made the comments to repeat them. He declined.
My passions were high and I am sorry I handled it that way, even though my dark skinned friend’s wife thanked me and told me that most people would never say or do anything about the comments.
I have had an Elder use the “n” word in my office, but that is a much longer story and involves me being reprimanded. These are two of many occurances and I will leave it to you to say whether they are acceptable ways of communicating in a non racist way. To me these things are racist. I can feel the tone of my attitude as I talk about it still. It breaks my heart to know how I responded in anger. I apologized to all the people as I became part of this problem instead of loving them in a biblical way.
One of the commentators stated, “haven’t had time to sift through all of [the comments] it, nor am I promising I will.” Then, what is the point of having this blog/forum? It seems to me that both sides are wasting their time in writing all the comments, if they are not willing to even spend time with and TRULY hear the other side of the argument. I agree with what this website and network is trying to do. However, I also believe that it is a detriment to the website that people who are for the vision, will not even respond genuinely and take time to hear the other side of the argument.
Even though I might disagree with certain comments that Nathan makes, I agree with his suggestion that there should be a serious of blog posts that interact with both sides.
Sam,
Thanks for chiming in. Quick context for you that might be helpful. 1.) I lived with Nathan and Zach for over a year. So there is more to this conversation than meets the eye. We’ve talked plenty.
Now I choose those conversations wisely. 2.) I have 6 jobs (literally) plus part-time seminary. 3.) I don’t speak for RAAN. RAAN is a microphone not a voice for African Americans. Others are free to chime in. 4.) I didn’t write this post. 5.) If I tried to correct respond to every comment in this post I would have been in my phone and ignoring the people in front of me most of the day.
I realize you don’t know me or any of the above but even if 1.) wasn’t a reality I wouldn’t spend most of day trying to respond to all of these comments. This doesn’t mean that we’re dropping the conversation. More to come brother.
Would it be a bad idea if this pastor or you do a series of interactive blog posts with Nathan or Zach? (Or anyone who has a difference in view) I think it would be beneficial to everyone to hear both sides of the argument.
A series of blog posts maturely dealing with dissenting views would be a great help. People need to know that there can be honest disagreement, even within the church, on this issue and others like it.
One of the main issues I have with this piece and these sort
of ‘racial dialogues’ is the amount of responsibility that’s placed on one
group and not the other. While I’m sure Mr. Brown means well, I’ve always found
it extremely frustrating as a black American(and irritating and somewhat condescending) when ‘enlightened’ whites
(along with their black counterparts) totally ignore the things within black
culture which are harmful to the race and to the uplift of the race (something
Mr. Brown did in this piece).Yes, we can look at white folk and speak about the
ways in which they need to examine themselves (especially those within the body
of Christ) in regards to racist attitudes and the like. Fine. No issue with
that.
But, I often times find these ‘dialogues on race’ to be extremely one
sided. With one group bearing all the burden (usually whites) and the other
being absolved of ANY responsibility (usually blacks/minorities). Why this is,
I don’t know. Maybe it’s because it may be perceived as ‘blaming the victim’ if
you do so.
I’m not going place all of that blame on whites. We ALL have
to INDIVIDUALLY stand before God one day and give an account. And no black
person is going to be able to justify his/her sin or foolish choices by blaming
it on white people or the white racist power structure in America. The same way
no white person is going to be able to justify hating someone of another
ethnicity/race because they aren’t like them or as ‘superior’ as they are. God
isn’t hearing ignorant answers for sin such as that. Nor is He going to hear persuasive sociological arguments.
In terms of racial profiling being ‘evil’, I think the
author misses the mark here and don’t convincingly show from Scripture were racial profiling is outright sinful.
An example: I’m a black man. Say for example I went down to
a southern town that was mostly white and had a known history of racist
incidents or sentiments. Would it be ‘evil’ for me to keep more of an eye on
the white citizens of that town as opposed to say it’s black citizens? Or it’s
Latino citizens? I don’t think so. In the process will I give the suspicious
eye to white folk who are genuinely not racist? Yup. Does that make my
profiling ‘evil’? No. It simply means that with the given data I have at hand,
for better or worse, whites make up the majority hate crime suspects. It would
be foolish to NOT be extra cautious when dealing with the white citizens of
that town.
I have lived in the hood/inner-city. I know first hand that
(sadly) many of the perpetuators of crime in that particular area ARE black.
So, if you’re a cop (or even a storeowner) operating from hard data (whether statistical or even empirical) which tells you that blacks commit the majority of crime in
this particular geographical location, would not common sense tell you to keep
an eye on them more than other ethnic groups in the area? Now, does this mean
that folks like me and some other law abiding black citizens will get the
stinky eye. Yes. Is that fair necessarily? No. But, my ire is honestly going to
be directed more so at the knuckleheads committing the crime and adhering to a
culture which embraces the worst aspects of human behavior than I am the profiler.
There are some things that can NOT be placed at the feet of white people or
‘majority culture’. I’m reminded of Bill Cosby’s now infamous ‘Pound Cake
Speech’ in which he pretty much addressed the same issues. Other blacks such as
sportswriter Jason Whitlock and more recently Don Lemon have all spoken on
issues within the black community that must change and reexamined. Cultural
habits and pathologies that must be dealt with. And when whites DO speak out on
these things, we can’t jump the gun and always assume they’re doing so because
they’re ‘racist’ or naive or ‘unenlightened’. Likewise, when blacks speak out
on these issues, it must not be assumed that there ‘sellouts’ or ‘Toms’ or
‘airing dirty laundry’ (as both Cosby and Lemon were accused of recently).
If you love someone, then you call them out on their foolishness and sin. That
goes for white folk AND black folk. There are many ways in which we as black
folk shoot ourselves in the foot, and we have NO ONE to blame but OURSELVES. It
breaks the heart to see the ways in which many young blacks engage in behavior
which reinforces and plays right into some of the most ugliest stereotypes
about us. To constantly say that black people’s actions are the results of a
‘racist’ society only hurts them and robs them of the most basic human right.
That is, being competent human beings who MUST take responsibility for choices
made. It also reinforces the notion and says to them that there is NOTHING within their culture to change.That everything is fine as is. There issues are to be blamed solely on white America. That there isn’t sin in their heart to be dealt with.
This just helps to further normalize the sin issues and
the culture which is often times counterproductive and self-defeating.
(especially for young blacks).You can NEVER achieve TRUE progress that way. How
can we even give the Gospel to these communities properly if it boils down to:
‘your sin is the result of racist whites and a system that is against you’. I
don’t doubt for one second the sincerity of Mr. Brown’s post. I just think that
whether he knows it or not, his line of thinking, his ‘white benevolence’ can
sometimes be more harmful than beneficial.
Good morning Donte. I read all of your long post and I think I would agree with most of your line of thinking. I fall into a third catagory though: the on the way to being “enlightened” white. Seems like I have been profiled….. little joke.
Pastor T. recommended a book that I am now reading by PhD. Christena Cleveland named Disunity in Christ. It’s pretty good stuff. I have some issues with her descriptions of Jesus, but that’s why I’m writing here because I have some issues. That aside, she writes on Page 61 “Using a test called the implicit attitude test, Keith Payne found that american participants of varied races automatically associate black men with violence and white men with nonviolence - when people are shown pictures of black men they quickly assume that they are violent, but when people are shown pictures of white men they quickly assume that they are nonviolent. Sadly, this is the default perception; it’s simply a natural by product of the way that black and white men are catagorized in Western society. However, Payne found that when participants believed that their bias against black men should be suppressed and were motivated to suppress it, they did not associate black men with violence any more than they associated white men with violence.” I find that, from a social science perspective, very interesting and unfortunately true in my case and as my my wife has confessed to me, her perception also.
Hi George. Thanks for your response. I have often found that one of most frustrating things about ‘dialogs on race’ is that they’re usually framed within a ‘us vs them’ ‘villains vs victims’ sort of context. It assumes the black man is the enduring victim and the white man the enduring villain. It usually puts in whites in a position in which they have to prove and examine while the black person teaches them. It leaves the black person with little to no responsibility. The study you mentioned is indeed interesting and has in many ways, become a reality. You exchange the black person as ‘savage’ in exchange for the white person as enduring racist. It leaves the white person in a position in which they can never speak to very real and damaging issues within the black community (even if done out of love and a desire to see genuine change) for fear of being labeled as ‘racist’ or naive or blaming the victim’ (sadly, this oftentimes happens with fellow blacks as well who speak about issues within the black community, especially in public).They only need to address they’re own sins. This does not help relations at all and simply replaces the faces of the heros/victims and the villains. The same way in which white folk need to examine their hearts, black folk need to do the same. There can’t be a lopsided view of responsibility, something which I see in regards to race relations. In regards to my ‘enlightened white’ comment, again, I have no issue with white people examining themselves. That’s fine. That’s needed. But, it must never come at the expense of ‘black responsibility. If ‘enlightened’ means you place all blame for black problems at the feet of white people or society at large, then you do more to harm than help. I’d rather have 5 Pat Buchanan types who would be willing to call out foolishness within black culture (even if done from racist motivations/sentiments) than one enlightened white who doesn’t do so and who is content to allow blacks to wallow in a culture which in so many ways has not profited us because of his adherence to multiculturalism or cultural relativism. That’s not love to me. Anyway, sorry for the long winded response..lol..Definitely enjoyed your feedback
P.S.
Two books about race and culture which I have found profitable has been Thomas Sowell’s ‘Black Rednecks and White Liberals’ and ‘The Forging of the Races’ by Colin Kidd.
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments. I wish your views were more common.
As do I, not because I think I’m right and everyone else wrong per se, but the dialog is so oftentimes framed in ways which draw from the same ideological playbook. There indeed ARE folks (yes, even black folks) who have a differing view/approach in regards to matters of race. Those voices can’t be left unheard.
Hey Donte, Thanks for the book suggestions. I am just in the last 15 years reading anything at all without pictures. I’m one of those guys who basicly slept through highschool. I found myself in jail in 1999 with a potential 50 year prison term ahead of me. God saved me in that jail while reading through the Gospels. I have limited abilities on how I articulate my thoughts and experiences, and sometimes emotions, so I appreciate that you don’t condescend to me or marginalize my experiences. I take your point that all are not the stereo type we think them or make them out to be. This point is burned into my mind. I visited the church that Voddie Bauchum pastors recently on a Wednesday night. We were reading through Francis Shaeffer’s book How Should We Then Live?. I had read some of the book and found I disagreed with some of Shaeffer’s description of the churche’s responsibility involvement in the instigation of segregation. As an aside, I should tell you I went back later and read more closely to find I had more of an agreement than that gleened from my first predjudiced reading. Anyway, I was “ready”. As I began to descent from the moderators views, a loud voice came from the back in defense of the leader of the study. The tone was “not here, and not now!”. WOW. Not only did Professor Baucham disagree with my point, I embarrased myself in an argument with him in front of about 40 men. He makes your point an experiential one for me. I still don’t agree with him on the point I was trying to make but it seems to me he likes his life just fine. I guess my question is what to think about all of those who are stuck in a system with no way out for now. Do we blame all of “them” for where they are? Do we just make schools, communities and churches for our own? I know it is much more complex than any one persons experience. I have found the book Bloodlines by John Piper helpful. There is a section in the book that starts on page 61 where Piper references Bill Cosby’s and Juan Williams’s works that sounds a great deal like your view. But on page 62, Piper warns his readers: “Before I let Cosby and Williams describe the heartache of decline since the civil rights era, I should make clear that other black voices find Coby’s and Williams’s message to be misleading and unhelpful.” Piper also makes your point that it is not so black and white this black and white issue.
Hi George. Thanks for your response. I’ve been enjoying our conversation thus far. One interesting point you bring up is Piper writing that there are voices within the black community that consider folks like Cosby and Williams to be misleading and/or unhelpful. He’s right here. But, in many cases they’re considered ‘unhelpful’ not because there arguments or solutions are wrong per se, but because they don’t fit within a certain racial ideology that in a lot of ways has been established among black intelligentsia and elite (I’m reminded of a very polemical and unflattering book written by Professor Michael Eric Dyson shortly after Cosby’s infamous ‘Pound Cake Speech’). When folks such as Williams and Cosby say and write what they do, they don’t do so because they don’t care about blacks or because they’re turning a blind eye to systemic racism (something their critics assume they’re doing), they understand (like many) that there is ALSO responsibility that lies at the feet of black folk ourselves. They’re deeply rooted in a black culture of yesteryear in which in spite of some of the most HENIOUIS and overt racism against blacks, we maintained a since of pride. A since of dignity. A black culture where achievement (whether educational or moral) was a high priority. Where even in the face of hate, we still made things happen. Where we held one another accountable for foolishness. I’m reminded of ‘Black Wall Street’. It was a black community in Oklahoma in which black commerce and business thrived. Sadly, it was eventually burned down by racist whites, who more or less were envious of the successes of it. I’m also reminded of Jackson Ward, another black community in which blacks thrived economically. I’m reminded of Dunbar High School, which was a predominately black high school where blacks excelled and routinely scored higher on tests than there white counterparts. All of this is in the era of Jim Crow. There are many more examples to name (the success that Booker T. Washington was able to have at Tuskegee, which greatly benefited blacks). This is the history and cultural ethos folks like Cosby and Williams draw from. This black cultural tradition that so many of our ancestors died for. Bled for.They’ve seen the decline. They’ve seen the decline in the black family structure. In morality. In education..etc etc. This troubles them as much as it does me and many other black folk I know. They (as do I) understand that YES, there is racism out here. Yes, white folk need to examine themselves when needed, but not ALL of the problems within the black community can be placed at the feet of white folk or blamed on ‘white privilege’. This has been the ideology that’s been pumped into minds for so long by intellectuals and so-called leaders. They, like I, refuse to give white folk that sort of power. That sort of God like sovereign and omnipresence control over ALL aspects of black life. There is a refusal to allow ‘blackness’ and black culture to be defined solely by perpetual victimhood and strife. By unaccomplishment and stagnation. By complacency. By low exceptions.
There seems to be a false dichotomy which essentially says that until every last vestige of racism is stamped out in society and in the hearts of whites, blacks will remain at the bottom. Will forever be America’s ‘underdogs’. There will never be black mobility. I call that foolish nonsense. So many blacks have spit right in the face of that and continue to do so. One doesn’t have to deny the reality of racism to also understand that WE (as in black) have a responsibility too. It is NOT all on white folk. Keeping whites constantly and forever ‘on the hook’ will get us nowhere and honestly it will always keep us resentful of whites, and that’s a sin that is just as damaging as racism. It’s destructive. Being somewhat of a former black nationalistic ‘militant’ myself (praise God for His grace in delivering me from that ideology) I know the mindset well.
When looking at the issues within the black community, there are so many nuances and different things which are contributing factors. The first is sin obviously. Then you have the destruction of the black family (which ironically was more intact during Jim Crow, but has declined sharply since the 60’s, due in part to the welfare state, the black middle class moving away and the War on Drugs, among other factors), out of wedlock births, the ineffectiveness of a lot of ‘black’ Churches in black communities and the Gospel not being faithfully preached. Adhering to a ‘gangsta’ culture that has done NOTHING good for young black males.
So again, I can’t look at whites and say ‘See, what you’ve done! See how slavery has messed us up Fix all of this!’. That’s bunk and quite frankly it keeps black folk almost in a state of servitude and stunted childhood. Always depending upon the benevolence and on the grace of white folk to redeemed our conditions. I find that condescending and an affront to the very humanity of black folk. So yes, again, there is responsibility to be had ACROSS THE BOARD. Not just whites, but EVERYONE. Until we have this balance in our ‘dialogs on race’ then all further race discussion honestly become pointless. It’ll just be the same song and dance. The villains will remain villains and the victims will remain the victims.
Donte, man thats good stuff. This is some of what I learn when I turn down my own redoric. I can hear and see your points. I think from my side though, I see more of a responsibility of the church in the matter than the church has been and is willing to take credit for. I would gravitate more in the direction of an article I read on the blog thefrontporch written by Thabiti Anyabwile: “Why Focus on African American Churches?” In that article, under the forth heading, “Some Ask in Willful Ignorance”, he articulates much of the truth of what I have experienced in the churches I have attended. At the end of the first paragraph he states: “They believe attaching the adjective “Black” to any effort is tantamount to racism.” Those are the very words my Pastor, a graduate of a very well known Southern California seminary, said about RAAN. He sat in my office and asked me if I thought RAAN stood for reverse racism. I am not shocked anymore at what I hear, but I am shocked sometimes at who it comes from.
Definitely agree with you George that THAT type of silliness needs to be addressed and stamped out in the Church. I’m down with anyone willing to stamp out racism (no matter who it’s coming from) in the Church. There is NO room in the body for that. I’m reminded of the controversy over the Christian rapper Propaganda’s song ‘Precious Puritans’, a song in which he more or less says that some blacks may not be as readily comfortable with the Puritans since some of them owned slaves (think Johnathan Edwards, a man whose work I find truly invaluable and who I respect, but nonetheless owned slaves). People were quick to accuse Propaganda of playing the ‘race card’, when the point of the song (had they bothered to pay attention) was that even sometimes among us Christians, we have major blind spots and that none of us should be held in God like status (he even makes a quip at himself in the song, not wanting people to put him on a pedestal and to realize that he still has faults). Although I PERSONALLY can read the Puritans and profit from their work (need to get around to reading this huge biography I have on Edwards..lol) or hear them lauded without feeling too uncomfortable, I DO understand how some black folk can be uncomfortable due to the fact that they owned slaves, so I can’t/won’t readily dismiss that sentiment. That’s probably the one thing that sometimes white folk do that can be annoying.
But, I’m reminded of something someone on Twitter said the other day in regards to race (and I’m paraphrasing) ‘Some people see racism in EVERYTHING and some people don’t see racism in NOTHING’. That for me pretty much sums up this whole issue. We have to find that balance and we have to allow ALL folks to have a chance to speak, not just those of our ideological persuasion. We all (especially those in the Church as you said) have to sit down and speak openly and honestly.
Hey, George, do you happen to have an email address by which I can contact and we can dialog further? Lord knows I don’t want to continue to blow up this comment section..lol!
Donte, There is a rap that came out just a few month ago that x-Pyro Phill Johnson commented on the strong doctrinal truth that it delivered. I was stunned and ashamed. I had some young friends that tried to introduce me to some a few years back, but you know that is the music of “the rebellious”. I have even said that. I have to tell you this story. We were sitting in this small group, about 8 of us white folk, and the discussion of rap came up. Of course I made my usual condiscending remarks and the group agreed and then out of no where this guy who is in his sixties breaks out in a rap. This guy reminds me of Mr. Rodgers. I liked him before that, but now I liked him allot. That did it. I still don’t listen to rap as a personal choice, but I now confess my own personal bias. I am new at blog commenting and I only have my business E-mail. I own my own business, so I think it not wise to give it out. You are welcome to look me up in The Woodlands or Spring, Texas. As to blowing up this comment section, is that a bad thing? I am new at this. I realy don’t know.
I definitely understand the negative view of (secular) rap, seeing as that the majority of it IS NOT good or God honoring at all and just reinforces some of the most negative things about black folk, so I wouldn’t automatically assume someone racist for not liking it per se. But, yes, no problem. Definitely understand you not wanting to give out personal info. As to us blowing up the comment section, probably not a bad thing per se, but I just didn’t want our dialog to take up so much space that it turned into a never ending convo with endless comments. I guess I’ll go ahead and close it out for now, but I will say that it has been a pleasure dialogging with you brother George. I definitely appreciate your perspective and your concerns. It’s my hope that in the future, matters of race can be discussed within the body of Christ in a way which is God honoring and respectful as it has been done here. May God bless you brother and may he keep you. Grace and peace
Thanks Donte for your kind thoughts as I learn to comment. Talking to you has helped me see the things I need to work on in my face to face reponses. It is good hear your case so graciously articulated by you and others.
I thought this was a great article. And a great follow up to ‘Shopping while black’.
It’s always difficult to argue against intrenched, socially constructed evils. Like a pair of dirty glasses they cloud everything so that even the truth of God becomes obscured.
I’ve seen racial profiling in my community, though not experienced it myself (I was born the “winning” colour). I even spoke to an Aboriginal man who said that when he went to shops with his white boss, his boss, taking advantage of the fact that all attention was placed on the Skin colour of his friend, would shoplift! There is simply so much wrong with that picture.
This article does not actually demonstrate how “profiling” is wrong. Making the claim that profiling is evil is not the same as proving it.
The main argument is that “racial profiling isolates race as the defining aspect of a person’s identity . . . contrary to the Biblical doctrine of the imago Dei.” The claim is that racial profiling reduces humans to “physical skin tone” and “guarantees that God’s image-bearers will be treated as something less than image-bearers.”
There are three problems with this argument:
(1) Not all profiling is race/ethnic based. In fact, most profiling is more about culture than a particular ethnicity. Policemen, clerks, and airport security usually take into account how a person behaves, including how he/she dresses and speaks. A white person dressed like a gangster is just as likely to get profiled based on his appearance as a black person dressed like a gangster.
(2) It does not follow that all profiling reduces humans to skin tone. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Rather than reducing humans to skin color, the profiler uses appearance (not limited to skin color) to make an assumption about a person’s behavior and character. The profiler is not concerned with ethnicity but a person’s entire being. The profiler may be wrong, but he is making an educated guess based on statistical trends.
(3) Not all profiling is negative. Cultures can certainly gain a negative reputation, but they can also gain a positive one. Mexicans are known as hard-workers. Asians are known as strong students. They may therefore get a job over a white person. These generalizations of course do not always prove true. But to not make such a generalization is to reject the data before you. Cultures and people groups earn reputations for a reason.
Zach (and whoever thinks he’s right),
Your argument reveals that you don’t take Jesus’ exhortation to “love your neighbor as yourself” seriously. We all are guilty of profiling but to justify the action does not consider others more than yourself.
If profiling had absolute 100% conviction, then you would have a point. But the fact that you could wrongly accuse a person that you don’t know screams self preservation and not sacrifice.
Judging one’s outer appearance is anti-Christian and reveals lack of maturity at it’s root. The Bible is clear that those that do are thinking with their natural minds and not their spiritual one. Not passages below:
1 Samuel 16:7 ESV - But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”
1 Peter 3:3-4 ESV - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
Proverbs 31:30 ESV - Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
1 Timothy 2:9 ESV - Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,
Dressing “like a gangster” isn’t wrong or good reason to profile. Profile a culture is just as wrong as ethnic profiling. Their are droves of dudes who dress “like gangsters” that love Jesus, thanks to Christian Hip Hop. Nothing about their dress is sinful.
Your thinking is extremely dangerous and I hope you reconsider.
Phil,
Are you not going to interact with Zach or I’s arguments? I understand you disagree with us but would it not be more helpful to interact with the specific arguments we put forth? Calling Zach immature and saying you have the last word will not encourage any constructive dialogue (which was the original point of my post). These type of arguments are never actually argued with. The assumed convictions are continually held and those who question them are lambasted for their questioning.
Nathan
Nathan,
I did interact with Zach’s argument by getting directly to the point. Racial profiling appears to be antithetical to the Gospel. I would go back an reword my statement as it wasn’t as charitable as it should have been.
Also my response was to Zach specifically not to your comments. I haven’t had time to sift through all of it, nor am I promising I will.
Thanks for being bold enough not to remain completely anonymous. Can’t guarantee that I’ll continue to engage this issue via comments nor do I feel obligated to. We will continue the discussion as a whole through various outlets as we wrestle to discover God honoring truth.
Would you and Jemar be willing to post a series of interactions on your blog?
Good morning Nathan. I went to bed last night thinking that you and I were alone in this discussion. I am glad to see it continues this morning and that you are right in there with it. I think it is good for us. Thank you.
One thing that seems to be lacking in the description of your perspective on American racism is the well documented history of intentional secular and church instigation of segregation aimed at one group of people inparticular. I know you would want to include those past events. Therefore, I find your starting place curious. I would think you would want to establish or reject origin to substantiate the claim of an ending, existence of , or denial of.
I am encouraged that the modern church has and continues to repent and turn from the racial profiling that is keeping Christians segrigated on Sundays. If I am honest about my own sin on this, I think I would have to start with James chapter 2.
Hey George,
Thanks for the question. I never want to minimize the past sins of one people group committed towards another. What has happened to millions of African’s in the history of the world-wide slave trade is the perfect example of man’s corruption and sinfulness towards his fellow man.
As to the intentional racism that was instituted in America, it was evil and disgusting. The intentional segregation of a people group because of the color of their skin with either the subtle or overt message of inferiority is evil.
That being said, I was not alive during the era of slavery. I was not alive during the era of Jim Crow or the Civl Rights movement. In fact I was born nearly 25 years after that great progression of American society. I cannot, and will not, apologize for sins that I never committed and for which the perpetrators and victims alike are no longer alive.
Racism in our country is no longer tolerated as overt actions (as to subtle versions see the paragraph below, and that’s an entirely different topic for another long post). Just take the actions of two of our Presidents as an example: L.B.J was a well-known racist and was known to use the N-word on a consistent and open basis. Was that tolerated by the culture at large? Yes. Fast forward to the last 15-20 years. If any President of the United States, let’s say George Bush or Bill Clinton were to call any black person(s) the N-word, what would happen? It would be the end of his political career. He would leave office in total disgrace.
Racism in our country is no longer tolerated as a viable option. This, however, returns the conversation back to whether or not one believes that racism has gone “underground” as some, or most, of the blog writers for RAAN would adhere to. Also, your view on more subtle forms of racism, in my opinion, is intimately tied to one’s view of whether or not the majority race is oppressing the minority through avenues of race and culture. I would submit that this not only doesn’t logically follow but it doesn’t happen, for the most part in the way this blog and others say that it does.
Nathan, the web site went down for a while. I had a fear that I had said something disrespectful of you or anyone else and they had pulled the plug. I probably think to much of myself. I have confronted people face to face too hard over my take on this issue of race and hurt people that I love because of my passion over this. I had a godly pastor tell me I am not a good representitive for this side of the debate. I took his correction seriously. I hope I stay in a gracious way that honors God. You would tell me if I don’t, I hope.
I wish I could say I had your experience with contemporary racsim. Unfortunately, I have witnessed overt and covert racsim in each of the past 15 years in a church setting since I have been a Christian. I expect it in the secular but I was shocked to find the depth of it in the church. Here in south east Texas, it is mainly directed at men of darkest skin. My wife, whom I have asked permission to share, has admitted a fear of dark skinned men.
I wish the people that I have heard use the “n” word were only secular. In fact, an Elder of a prominent local Reformed church used the word in my office in front of my wife. I have witnessed and confronted too many examples of covert racsim to list here. I don’t think I go looking for it. I hope I don’t.
I am thankful that we have a place to talk about it because I think people are afraid to get labeled if they speak up. I fear rejection like everyone else, I guess, but I just can’t seem to sit down and be quiet.
Of course you may live in an area where this type of thing is not so prevalent.
I love the church and I think it has been hurt by those who hold segregationist views. I want to begin now to live with the people I will be with forever. I will be lame at it at first I know, but I want to try.
I see that Al Mohler is celebrating several years at Southwestern. When asked what the next 10 years would hold for him, one of the things he said he wanted to achieve is work toward a seminary that looks more like America. If I remember what he was saying, he is talking about leadership diversification. Don’t quote me on that though. I think it is more evidence that change needs to, and is taking place.
Again, thanks to RAAN for this place to talk.
.
Zach I think this verse ends the conversation:
John 7:24 ESV - Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Jesus appeared to the foolish to be only a lowly crazy carpenter of Nazareth whose mother had him out of wedlock. Many judged him wrongly way and still do and they lose their souls because of it. The nature of the Gospel DESTROYS profiling. “Judge with right judgement.”
If you’re tempted to say that people should not dress a certain way if they don’t want to be profiled wrongly, you’re saying Jesus should have come adorned as a worldly king instead of a lowly carpenter.
“Irony - Strangeness between what might be expected and what actually occurs.” -Mark Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus
John 7:24 is a great example of irony. The irony was this: Jesus was giving the blind sight, healing the lame, raising the dead, walking on water, controlling storms. Who is able to do this but God? This was the irony of his statement in this context. The religious leaders had not judged rightly. Had they judged his actions correctly, even though he wasn’t dressed as a king, they would have correctly deduced that the man standing in front of them was the King of the universe.
Let’s forget for a moment negative stereotypes and talk about the positive ones. The Asian who is stereotyped as a good student or the Latino who is stereotyped as a hard-worker? Is that evil as well?
Finally, James gives a scenario where a rich man and a poor man both come into the church and the congregants show favoritism towards the rich (because he is rich) and not to the poor (because he is poor). In the story James describes the rich man and poor man by their stereotypical appearance and then proceeds to never condemn the congregants in the story for profiling the two men. Why is this? They judged each man rightly based upon their appearance. This seems very problematic for those who hold to this truths of this blog. I honestly would like some interaction on these points. Both Zach and I would honestly change our minds on these issues if we encounter a stronger argument than our own. What usually happens however, is that we are condemned outright before any interactions occurs.
The above statement is problematic. I’ll respond in points:
You said: “Jesus was giving the blind sight, healing the lame, raising the dead, walking on water, controlling storms. Who is able to do this but God? This was the irony of his statement in this context. The religious leaders had not judged rightly. Had they judged his actions correctly, even though he wasn’t dressed as a king, they would have correctly deduced that the man standing in front of them was the King of the universe.”
1. I thought this racial profiling conversation was about judging by appearance instead of actions. No irony here sir in relationship to what I thought we were discussing. You’re listing the things Jesus DID not how he looked. You seem to prove my point in that if they had judged him based on his divine acts (walking on water, sovereignty over nature, etc.) they would have judged rightly. Instead, he was judged wrongly because he was not only wrapped in human flesh, but one of lowly status as well.
2. You mention judging based on actions in relation to an individual (Jesus) when it seems you’re attempting to imply (correct and forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you) that it’s okay to judge individuals in the Black community based on the actions of some in the community. You can’t take the actions of the individual in this text (Jesus) and use the text to justify judging a collective based on the immoral actions of some.
CLARIFICATION: This blog is in no way attempting to justify that individual men and women should not be judged by their actions. Scripture is clear “You shall know them by their fruit.”
3. In your second paragraph, you mention that not all stereotypes are negative. Whether negative or positive, they can be misused by lazy humans who sin against other humans because as they encounter people they are (by their actions or words) making statements instead of asking questions. Stereotypes are not bad, they can be helpful. There is a science behind it. Scientists call it empirical generalizations. Sadly because we are sinful, we misuse them and we must be careful. Also when thinking through stereotypes, we tend to ignore a fundamental question that if not considered can lead to racist attitudes disguised as stereotypes. We must ask “why?” Why are Asians smart? Why are Latinos hardworking? I would argue that history and environment, not ethnicity, are huge factors in why we turn out the way that we do, but even then they are not ultimate since God is able to change hearts and minds regardless of the situation. I’m a testimony to that.
4. You misuse James 2 when you compare clothes to a person’s ethnicity. I would never accuse anyone of profiling a person as being rich or poor based on clothing as evil. What James didn’t do is what I’m trying to get people not to do: Don’t judge whether someone is good or bad based on their skin color or even their attire. So James’ profiling of the rich and poor man doesn’t apply here. Being poor or rich aren’t morality flaws nor do they make either person any less human than other people.
Finally I want to clarify what I’m saying. My late professor in college taught me that words have meaning and mean different things to different people. He also stressed that extremes are often not good. So I want to concisely communicate and offer my current statement on racial profiling:
1. Profiling in general is not always bad.
2. Profiling someone based exclusively on class, culture or ethnicity and allowing said profile to lead to unjust actions or thoughts is always evil and should not be tolerated among Christians.
Thanks for reading. I’ll interact with you on this point further but I have no intentions of beginning a new debate on a related topic at this time.
Thanks for the response. I’ll make this reply short because here’s the point that I think is the main issue here; there isn’t a definition of “profiling,” or “stereotypes” given in this article. So, I’m reading contradictory statements between what you seem to be willing to say about those terms and what Cole is willing to say.
You said, “Stereotypes are not bad, they can be helpful,” and “Profiling in general is not always bad.” Cole, however, said, “Racial profiling is always evil.” Your second point, “Profiling someone based exclusively on class, culture or ethnicity and allowing said profile to lead to unjust actions or thoughts is always evil and should not be tolerated among Christians” helps clarify what you mean. Cole makes no helpful clarifications. It’s as if we were all using slightly different definitions of the word “racism.”
Thank you for your response because had you not posted your clarifications I would not have caught this. This is the true issue I believe. The blog writer never defined his terms and in so doing has needlessly contributed to the confusion.
If he is going to write another post then it would be extremely helpful for him to define what he means by those terms.
Thanks Nathan…in a phone conversation with Cole he admitted that he has been heavily influenced by Luther and tends to use hyperboles to get his point across. He intends to follow up and clarify. He’s such a humble guy. Thanks again for responding.
Good morning Nathan. Do you think that it is possible that RAAN (Cole) may be coming from a perspective that many have heart eyes of experiential evidence as to the difficulty in the segregated American Reformed church? Furthermore, do you think it possible for the church to be guilty of this sin of racial profiling as discribed as an “attitude” in James Chapter 2?
“The great problem-and the great social danger-with purely internal criteria (entertaining only the already assumed ideas of whatever guild of thought we may belong to) is that they can easily become sealed off from feedback from [the outside world]…What new idea will seem plausible depends on what one already believes. When the only external validation for the individual is what other individuals believe, everything depends on who those other individuals are. If they are simply people who are like-minded in general, then the consensus of the group about a particular new idea depends on what that group already believes in general-and says nothing about the empirical validity of that idea in the external world.” -Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society
The above quote is taken from Thomas Sowell’s landmark study on the impact of Intellectuals (those who’s occupation is the area of ideas as their main output, as opposed to dealing in ideas and their application in the real world) in American society. Sowell’s point is directed towards academia but I find it incredibly applicable to the area of race and culture.
When a person already assumes certain things to be true (i.e. White privilege, the inherent oppression of the majority race/culture over the minority) and only interacts, or entertains, thoughts that he or she already holds to, then we find ourselves becoming closed off to competing theories.
I submit to you to that the topic of race, culture, politics, etc. (Let us be honest, these are all intertwined in America today) has been closed off to any competing ideas. For example, it is often stated that white’s tend to believe one thing about race and culture while blacks tend to hold to a competing view on those topics. What is often assumed, and many times said bluntly, is that whites in America cannot be correct on areas of race because of their “whiteness” and their “majority position” in the culture. This line of argumentation is not only a form of ad hominem, it fails to take into account the many examples from history, past and present, where certain nations around the world have been run by the minority race and culture (and in some case murderously so). This would never be known if the assumptions are never questioned. Even worse, not only are these types of questioned not being asked, they are being condemned a priori before the discussion even begins.
In conclusion, I am the person for whom you are responding. The reason my comment was posted as “anonymous” was due to the fact that, for whatever reason, my profile kept posting as “Tom.” Also, I know two of the writers of this blog and I wanted them to interact with my argumentation, not see my name and picture and dismiss me a priori because of what they already know about my line of thinking on this topic. I would love to have further interactions with you (the blog writer) and RAAN because I believe the views of Sowell, and Shelby Steele need to be heard and the assumptions of what is already being said need to be, at minimum, questioned. If we truly want race relations to improve in this country we need, no we must, interact with people and authors who are outside our guild.
Nathan
You don’t seem to be coming from a “real world” application. Your view seems taught, not experienced. You seem very well spoken, I might add.
Could you define “real world” application? What would you consider “non-real world” application? And thank you for the writing compliment.
Thank you for your response. Before I reply I would like to express my appreciation to the people who started this site. I will try to uphold the high mark of respect and dignity that they have set, even though I tend to fail often. With regard to your question, I might replace the word application with the word experience. For myself I have no real world experience shopping while black. My position is only one of empathy. I do have real world experience with defending my minority neighbors, brothers and sisters, friends and enemies as I have seen them treated with an attitude of personal disfavoritisim by myself, my majority neighbors, brothers and sisters, friends and enemies. I am familiar with the cost and guilt of that, but no first hand experience to draw an application from in the “real world”. I hope my tone is gracious as I am not always a good judge of that. I consider myself at your educated mercy as I sense your intellectual prowess.
Thanks for the reply.
Just a few thoughts…I find the line of reasoning that says, “I am not black so I can’t possibly understand what they are going through” very dangerous. The entire point of discussing race relations in the church is to try and “weep with those who weep (i.e. empathize).” If the argument ends at “I’m white so I can’t understand” then there will never be an understanding between the parties. I’ll explain by way of analogy: If I am married and my wife and I get into an argument, and let’s say she says that I as her husband couldn’t possibly understand what she’s going through because I am not a woman, well how does that make me feel? Does this line of argumentation encourage or discourage my empathy with my wife? Does this encourage or discourage my willingness to continue discussion?
Also, I would agree with your point that I too have never been shopping “while black.” That being said, I did work in the food industry for 10 years so I served people “while white.” To ignore only one side of the story (which is what this article does) and only talk about the patron and not the employee is to only get the perceived injustice side of the story. I’ll close by way of another story that hopefully will get this point across.
I was attending an open Q&A about the topic of race and one of the audience members asked the speakers if they had ever been victims of racism. One of the speakers answered in the affirmative and went on to explain; he was driving down the street with his window(s) down when he stopped at a red light. Near to his car were a group of white teenagers. They decided they wanted to pick up rocks (May have been bottles. At the very least it was some blunt object) and thrown them at him. He concluded his story by saying this was done because he was black and they were white.
What that speaker had done is what I believe this article, and many others, are guilty of doing. That is, confusing and assuming causation with correlation. Yes those white kids threw something at the black speaker as he was in his car. But how does he know that it was because he was black? He’s assuming the reason. He’s assuming the cause. What if they were merely being dumb troublesome teenagers and his car was the first they had come across that had the windows down? I believe this article makes the same mistake. The author is assuming that the clerk, server, etc. is treating the black patron the way he is because he is black. How does the patron know that this is true? He doesn’t. He’s assuming the cause. And you know what they say about making assumptions…
Thanks for the conversation Nathan. I am over my head now in race discussions. I think I will try to see the issue we are discussing from the perspective of my brothers and sisters here at RAAN. Their tone seems to be firm ,but in context, kind and gentle. That is a biblical approch to me. I can learn from that. It seems like a new take on an old problem. These men are half my age but I see wisdom in their approch. Of course they will need older wiser men to guide them and I think they are teachable to that. They will make mistakes but I think God is in this with them.
Nathan, I love this comment and concede that many times people isolate themselves from opposing view and only entertain already accepted views. The problem is, I think, is that you are failing to recognize that many times it’s the majority culture who are isolated and only hear voices that reverberate there already held convictions. Also, just from the mere fact of being the majority, they have the ability to marginalize any voices that disagree with there assessment of reality; hence this website and others like it because if minorities don’t make there own space for their ideas to be heard, it will never be heard. If we look at American demographics it is mostly whites who live in segregated neighborhoods and mostly white (private or public) schools. So if your assessment is accurate (which I believe it is) the application would be directed to the ones you seem to defend in this post. Minorities by definition have to learn the majority culture in order to survive. Whites are not obligated ( and many times not interested) to learn black history( except when they want to highlight figures that fit either there caricatures of blacks or how they want blacks to be)
Continued from above: all African Americans must learn European history in order to survive. So many of the miscommunications and ignorance comes, not from the blacks not knowing the view and perspectives of whites but the reverse. So if any one needs to hear the other side, it is white Americans. White Americans have been able to voice there opinions to blacks for centuries without the possibility of a rebuttal. We have ingrained into our history your perspective. So the reason of our misunderstandings come from a lack of interest and desire to learn the black perspective from many whites. So I think you should see how your argument seems to apply to you rather than blacks as a whole, and RAAN network in particular. How about sit back and listen, and hear our perspective.