"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 10): The Shift In Addressing Racism and Discrimination

In the first post of this series, I noted that my struggle with modern conservative evangelicalism is not with its theological orthodoxy. I still affirm doctrines that historically defined evangelical Christianity. The deeper question is whether our orthopraxy—the way we live out those beliefs—still resembles the commitments our mainstream leadership once publicly embraced. 

I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

In the previous post, I addressed the public shift in leadership - revealed through votes, endorsements, and voices (or lack of them) - in the evangelical stance toward the poor and underprivileged. 

Next is one of the other consistently important commitments: addressing racial justice and seeking reconciliation. [1]

The declarations and statements I posted spoke clearly about racism as a sin, acknowledged the lingering effects of our nation's history, and called Christians to stand with those who suffered under discrimination and injustice as it shows up in personal relationships and societal structures. 

"We deplore the historic involvement of the church in America with racism and the conspicuous responsibility of the evangelical community for perpetuating the personal attitudes and institutional structures that have divided the body of Christ along color lines. Further, we have failed to condemn the exploitation of racism at home and abroad by our economic system."

"The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination..."

"The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another...

"We deplore the failures in Christian consistency...[concerning]  racial, social, and sexual discrimination."

"While the United States has achieved legal and social equality in principle, the legacy of racism still makes many African Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities particularly vulnerable to a variety of social ills. Our churches have a special responsibility to model good race relations (Rom. 10:12). To correct the lingering effects of our racist history, Christians should support well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility."

"Such love for all peoples demands that we reject the evils of racism and ethnocentrism, and treat every ethnic and cultural group with dignity and respect, on the grounds of their value to God in creation and redemption."

"In the name of the God of truth, we...denounce and resist the racist prejudice, hatred and fear incited in popular media and political rhetoric.

"When accompanied and sustained by imbalances of power, prejudice moves beyond individual relationships to institutional practices. Such racial injustice is the systemic perpetuation of racism."

These statements do not speak reluctantly or quietly about racism. They speak with clarity, confession, and urgency at both an individual and systemic level. 

That is why the shift that is happening has been so disorienting. When advocacy for racial justice is offered today, it is too often dismissed ("This is a woke DEI agenda!") or turned back on the speaker: “Actually, it’s an anti-white agenda that is the problem.”  

Evangelicals can and do disagree about what the best public policy is for addressing racism, of course. But do we still recognize that racial injustice on both a personal and systemic level is something the church should grieve, actively oppose, and seek to heal? It appears not, considering the unwavering support for an administration that has been characterized by the following personal attacks and policy implementation.

Let Them Bake Cake (Part 3/4): The Second Unresolved Question

In the first post in this series, I offered an overview of the Supreme Court's ruling on Masterpiece bakery and its implications (or lack thereof).

In Part Two, I addressed the first of some unresolved questions that are sure to be hotly contested.

Part Three is going to deal almost entirely with the political or legal side of the issue. I am saving my perspective on what I believe Christians need to consider individually in spite of whatever law is finally enacted for a following post.

* * * * *

SECOND UNRESOLVED QUESTION (with a bunch of subcategories):

Is art speech? Is baking art, and therefore speech? (A group of bakers with a neutral position on the case itself filed an amicus brief claiming it is.) And if baking a cake is speech, is forcing a baker to bake a cake they believe communicates a message they don't wish to communicate the same as forcing someone to say something not only against their will but in opposition to their conscience? 

We sometimes say, "You can't say that!" ("Fire!" in a crowded theater; slander; language that incites violence that is "intended, likely and imminent"; the betrayal of state secrets). But what if the government moves from rules that prohibit certain kinds of speech to rules that compel certain kinds of speech?

We don't want the government to tell us if we can or can't kneel for the national anthem and we don't want the President-elect to insist that singers must sing for his inauguration, yet these are far more obvious examples of speech (or at least expression). Shoot, fashion designers refused to custom make clothing for the Trumps, and nobody complained. Clearly we don't have a problem with businesses withholding goods or services in certain cases when they feel their involvement express an alignment (at least when the cause is one with which we agree).

Speaking of how causes can change perspective, let's compare what Arizona decided should happen in two cases involving expression: a tattooing case vs. a calligraphy case:

Let Them Bake Cake (Part 2/4): The First Unresolved Question

In the first post in this series, I offered an overview of the ruling and its implications (or lack thereof).

In Part Two, I will begin addressing some unresolved questions that are sure to be hotly contested. 

* * * * *

FIRST UNRESOLVED QUESTION

Is there a cogent argument that separates discrimination against people vs. discrimination against events or actions? In other words, can we treat someone fairly irregardless of their identity while drawing the lines at participating in certain activities?

Jack Phillips sold his goods to gay people all the time. In fact, he offered the couple in question an over-the-counter cake. It wasn't that he didn't want to offer his goods and services to them or to other gay people in general. He simply did not want to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding in particular, since he believed that would make him complicit in the endorsement or celebration of a particular event to which he objected on moral grounds for religious reasons.

As best I can tell, this has been the case in every court battle I've seen on this issue. The business owners have had regular gay clientele, and many have had gay employees. One florist had served a gay client for ten years without incident until she refused to do a same-sex ceremony. Clearly, the fact that someone was gay did not dissuade them from hiring them, selling them goods, and being friends. It was the particular event that tripped them up.

Phillips is not even denying them the right to use goods he has already made for general public consumption. He is not asking his clients to agree with him about what marriage is or is not. He is, however, committed to using his artistic talents (a form of speech, more on that later) to make custom cakes that only participate in a marriage ceremony he believes is symbolically meaningful and inherently religious, even if the clients do not.

So, is there a way that 'agreeing to disagree' is even possible in this scenario?

Post-Orlando Question #3: "Are Christians Creating A Dangerous Moral Climate for the LGBT Community?"

In the wake of the tragic shootings in Orlando, I decided to address several issues that dominated headlines for a time. Part One addressed the question of who was responsible for the shooting in Orlando. Part Two offered some thoughts on how we know when individuals truly represent groups. The third and final post in this series will address an even more complex dilemma:

“When it comes to the creation of a ‘moral climate’, is there a proper difference to be made between disagreeing, criticizing, discriminating, oppressing, dehumanizing, and killing, or is this all one thing on a continuum?”

After the shooting in Orlando, The Atlantic’s religion reporter wrote, “There is a loose connection that is very difficult to pin down between some of the anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric that we’ve seen in the U.S. not primarily from Muslim groups but from Christian groups that have laid a foundation for homophobia and transphobia. Although most of the groups that are supporting that type of rhetoric would not condone the type of violence we saw in Orlando, it does create an environment of bigotry and acceptance of homophobia against LGBT people.” 

Is this true? And if so, how is this climate created? And if it exists, is it as bad as many commentators are suggesting? Let’s start by looking at some common definitions of the words I listed just so we have a common starting point for this discussion.

• Disagree: have or express a different opinion
• Criticize: indicate faults in a disapproving way; to talk about the problems or faults of something
• Discriminate: recognize a distinction; differentiate; make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things.
• Oppress: keep someone in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority; to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints
• Dehumanize: deprive of human qualities, personality or spirit; divest of individuality; to treat someone as if they are not a human being.[1]

I am going to venture a guess that we all acknowledge that disagreeing and criticizing are just a part of life. We do it all the time. We think for ourselves; we have preferences; we believe some things are right and other things wrong.  It's a natural part of the human experience.

We also discriminate constantly. We do this when we shop, go out to eat, choose a college, and decide where to get our news. We do it when we choose friends or spouses. We do it when we decided where to live. It’s not so much that we make distinctions; it’s whether or not those distinctions are just or fair, and if we have navigated the process with proper emotional and relational decorum. We all practice discrimination in this form; the question is when it becomes unjust and prejudicial. We will come back to that shortly.

Does it go without saying that oppression and dehumanization ought to be avoided at all cost? We might disagree about when these things happen, be we all agree they should not.

So, how do we make a distinction between just differentiation and unjust discrimination? And how do we identify when unjust discrimination creates a moral climate that moves people from discrimination to oppression and dehumanization?