Are White Farmers Being Genocidally Killed In South Africa? In A Word, No.

The question of how white South African are being treated has been in the news quite a bit lately. Specifically, I’ve seen the claim that there is a form of genocide being committed on white farmers. 

South Africa has a crime problem, and that includes a high murder rate. No one disputes this. The question is if the murder rate in particular reveals that a white population (specifically white farmers) is being targeted. 

This blog has become increasingly focused on trying to find the truth hiding behind click bait articles, fake news and biased perspectives. This seemed like a good opportunity to do some digging. I’m sure there is more to find; feel free to post links that would add further light to this discussion. (Note: the statistics available are not as tight as I would like. I work with what I can find.)

The Up/Down Side of Labels

Labels make it easy to offer a quick identification: Christian, atheist, Buddhist, conservative, Republican, liberal, Democrat, evangelical, socialist, Ohio State fan. (O-H!) Labels also make it easy to apply all of our own bias and baggage to that overly simplistic identification - how many of you are still working to get past that Buckeye reference?

Is there a way to use labels well, or are they simply going to undermine our ability to understand each other? Can they ever be a helpful shorthand to help us connect more quickly, or will they always tend to create unfair categories that divide rather than unite us?

I've been thinking about this more often as a Christian in terms of what it means to have a 'brand':

“A brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing Association). 

Businesses want brand recognition. This is often accomplished by iconic images such as the Coke or Apple logos. A brand is a shortcut: we see an image (or hear a jingle), and we are flooded with all kinds of instinctive connections - for better or worse.  There has been a recent push in church circles to more fully invest in purposeful branding so that people build a the kind of connection we want them to build between the name of a church or a church logo on a bumper sticker.

Everything is branded, intentionally or not. Everyone takes away impressions of  businesses, organizations, churches, schools, sports teams, car dealers, and products that build thoughts and emotions over time.

The question isn't if something is branded. The question is how it's branded, and what kind of impact that brand/label has on those who see it.

So, like I said, I've been thinking about what it means to have a 'brand' as a Christian.

What do people think when they hear someone say, "I am a Christian evangelical"?  That's a huge question already, but there are other labels that brand us as well: Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. Conservative. Liberal.

As a Christian, how concerned should I be about whether or not the labels I willingly apply to myself could be a huge roadblock to effective evangelism? I don't mean my identification as a Christian, though I think there is room to talk about the best way to boldly state our identity in a way that carries the least amount of baggage to those around us. (Should I say Jesus follower, for example?) I'm talking about anything else that I don't have to say to be true to my identity in Christ.

What is the brand of Trump, Sanders, Obama, or the Clintons that Christians takes upon themselves, intentionally or unintentionally? What is the brand of a Republicans or Democrats? What is the brand of evangelical? Conservative or liberal? I know what I associate with these people, parties, and labels, but what do others see when they see me branded with this? These are all brands, for better or worse, and it's just as important that I know what I mean when I apply it to myself as it is to know what others think when they see it branded on me.

This question has been haunting me, because it's not just about me. It's about the reputation of the church, and of Christ. I need to get this right. As a follower of Jesus, I am constantly branding myself when I freely choose labels, and I have to remember that what others see in me through their filters, they will project onto the faith community of which I am a part, the church I attend, and the God I serve. It might not be fair, but it's reality.

* * * * * 

Last week, Beth and I talked through this issue - well, we started to talk through it :) You can listen to Etcetera 22: The Up/Down Side Of Labels on Soundcloud or on various podcast apps (such as Podcast Addict or Stitcher Radio).  As always, Beth and I appreciate interaction with you! Feel free to comment on this blog, the Etcetera blog, or on the Etcetera Facebook page.  We value your feedback as well as any ideas for future guests or shows!

LINKS ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE

Political Labels, Political Identity, and Bias
Read the Label: The new political group No Labels shows why labels exist
Media: Label Whores
Are the labels 'right' and 'left' still useful shorthand for political belief?
Defining 'Evangelical'
No, Evangelical Does Not Mean "White Republican Who Supports Trump"

Economic Trends Even People Like Me Can Understand

All the recent discussion of the U.S. economy has piqued my interest in an area that is notoriously hard to understand. Who gets credit, and why? How easy is it to establish cause and effect? As I have been researching, I am struck by how one can paint remarkably contrasting views of the economy by isolating particular areas, or particular time frames. To get an idea of how we are doing overall, we need to see the Big Picture set in the context of our history. Before I get to some specifics on both those things, a few thoughts that have lingered with me as I have been reading. 

•  The world's economy and the U.S. economy are intertwined. Major events in one impact the other. Cause and effect goes both ways. 
• “Acts of God” (hurricanes, volcanoes, drought, fire, etc) can have a huge impact in an economy. People are displaced, out of work, and in need of a lot of assistance.  Looks what's happening in California right now. The economy is going to be rocked (at least $300 million at last count). Hurricane Harvey cost $73.5 billion. Hawaii is out $12 million, not factoring lost tourist dollars. These all happen on some administration's watch, and there will be some kind of downturn, but it won't be their fault. 
• Acts of mankind can be incredibly disruptive as well (assassinations, terrorist attacks, wars, banking regulations that cause a housing market crash, etc.) 
• Presidential administrations inherit the previous administration's legacy, for better or worse. How quickly the new administration’s policies impact the economy is not entirely clear, especially since it can be influenced by the previous three things on my list. 

Now, for what it’s worth, here are some things worth considering when we talk economics. I offer these if for no other reason than to note that a five minutes news story or youtube monologue will almost certainly fail to do justice to the Big Picture set in the context of history.

So will this post. Do your own research too. Feel free to add to the breadth and depth of what I offer here (or correct me if I am wrong) for the sake of all of us learning.

The Problem With Planned Parenthood's "Unstoppable" Campaign

Planned Parenthood has a new “Unstoppable” campaign.  In the section for reproductive rights, we read the following: 

“Everyone deserves the freedom to make their own decisions about their bodies... for women to live full, healthy lives and plan their futures...People deserve quality prenatal care, and the ability to give birth in a safe and welcoming environment without fear of preventable causes of maternal death... We should be working towards a world where our bodies are our own, and women are able to access full reproductive care.”

At first glance, those look like pretty good quotes. Is it possible that I am going to find myself - against all odds - in agreement with a Planned Parenthood campaign? Let's take a closer look at these points. 

Let Them Bake Cake (4/4): Third 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 dealt almost entirely with the unresolved questions swirling around the political or legal side of the issue. 

Part Four will address this unresolved question: Is the argument of those who decline to participate for religious reasons a biblically solid argument? Are they actually complicit in sin by offering material aid to an event which they believe promotes and celebrates a moral ethic to which they are opposed?

I offer my thoughts not as a definitive answer, but as a reflection of where I am on this issue based on a lot of reading I have done and conversations I have had with other Christians who are at times significantly at odds with each other on how to respond. I welcome thoughtful critiques.

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?

Let Them Bake Cake (Part 1/4): Pastries, Supreme Courts, And Same-Sex Marriage

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 this week in favor of Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Bakeshop in Colorado, who declined to craft a customized wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. It was a "narrow" ruling that really sets no precedent, as it focuses on the process rather than the position. Mark Goldfeder gives a good summary for CNN:

"The Colorado Civil Rights Commission removed all nuance from the case: It literally and openly compared Phillips to those who would use religion to justify slavery or the Holocaust. In the words of one commissioner, "it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to -- to use their religion to hurt others."As Justice Kennedy explained: 

"To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical --something insubstantial and even insincere....This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's antidiscrimination law -- a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation...[t]he government, if it is to respect the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices." 

And so, for this reason, among others, the court found on fairly narrow grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's First Amendment free exercise rights. The government officials were required to give his claim religiously neutral consideration, and instead of being tolerant and respectful even while they may have disagreed with his position, they were overtly hostile to, and even questioning of, his sincere religious faith.

In addition, "the state law at the time afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline creating specific messages they considered offensive, and the Colorado commission had previously allowed three different bakers to refuse to put an anti-gay message on a cake."

What it left unresolved was "whether business owners have a free speech right to refuse to sell goods and services to same-sex couples." This doesn't address "'bakers, florists, photographers, videographers, calligraphers' and other businesses, 'where the government says, look, we don't much care about your religiosity. We just think you have to provide these services for same-sex weddings.'"