The Blind-Spot of Political Conservatives… and how it got liberals elected

•November 28, 2008 • Leave a Comment

The historic election of 2008 was a crushing defeat for Republicans in both the white house and congress. The role that conservatism played or didn’t play will be debated for years to come. In the aftermath, conservatives find themselves blaming, regrouping and generally trying to figure out what went wrong. The thesis of this article is that conservatives strengthen the argument for socialism and wealth redistribution when we fail to offer valid alternatives to address the problem of poverty. Consider the following:

  • 10 % of the world population owns 85% of the world’s wealth. 1% of the world owns 40% of the wealth.
  • The combined assets of the seven richest people in the world is worth more than 41 nations combined.
  • Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
  • Nearly one billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
  • 1 billion children live in poverty (50% of the world’s children). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5.
  • 26,500 children died today due to poverty. That many will die tomorrow and the next day.

 (Source: “Poverty Facts and Stats” www.globalissues.org)

Equality and Inequality

I hope it is now politically safe to state the obvious truth that everyone does not possess equal ability. While we all possess equal value as human beings, it is self evident that some folk are naturally more gifted than me and vice versa (how much more gifted depends on who you ask). Granted, everyone has different types of talents but we would be hard pressed to say that all talents are equal or that everyone possesses the same measure. It naturally follows that those with a greater capacity to produce will consequently possess a greater capacity to earn.

“There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

This does not in any diminish the religious mandate or historic necessity of addressing poverty. Aristotle summed up that necessity by saying “The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.” Furthermore, Nazism proved the damning nature of advanced skill that is not accompanied by the moral qualities of justice and compassion. Elite-ness requires more than ability alone. 

The complexity of this topic does not allow full discussion of relevant principles such as the ethic of self-reliance, the behavioral causes of poverty and the valid points of elitism. Our goal instead is to make a brief point about two political philosophies which are now competing in America’s culture war: conservatism vs. socialism. The term “liberalism” is often confused with socialism even though it means something quite different. The reason for this is that many who are described as “liberals” “progressives” or “left wing” today are actually advocating economic socialism. In reality it was the ideas of liberalism (individual liberties and equality of opportunity) that formed the founding principle of the United States: “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Unfortunately, a good word has been hi-jacked by socialist ideas that are in direct opposition to freedom.

Socialism (i.e. Communism)

The political system of communism or socialism forwards the idea of redistributing wealth. That is, a government, serving the interests of the working class, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then redistribute benefits to the poor. Karl Marx, author of “The Communist Manifesto”, made the now infamous slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” While this sounds noble in theory, conservatives rightly point out that it turns ability into a liability and need into an asset. One need only to look at the former Soviet Union and The People’s Republic of China where, despite aggressive government control and redistribution, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly. In fact, there is no example of socialism leading to any prosperity comparable to that of American democracy. The three wealthiest regions of the world, North America, Europe and Japan are precisely the places where capitalism has been embraced the most. Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

Or Abraham Lincoln:

“That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” – The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Reply to New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association” (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

The False Connection Between Capitalism and Greed

Students of history will recall the conditions that gave rise to socialism in Europe and Russia during the 19th century. Actually, it was much the same forces that gave rise to American colonization and independence prior to that. The feudalism, aristocracy and monarchial nature of that region caused much greed, disparity and lack of opportunity, particularly among the common man. The American revolution was a direct and so far successful reaction to this. History has proven that economic disparity will always exist regardless of the political or social system that is in place. Furthermore any system can be abused whether socialism, capitalism or any other. This is the nature of man. But it is the exercise of democratic capitalism (free markets and private ownership) that has produced the greatest prosperity and freedom anywhere in the world. True to human nature, some have exploited this freedom as an occasion for greed and the hoarding of wealth.

Committed conservatives should be deeply concerned that the greed of a few is tarnishing their message and the image of America in the world, notwithstanding the anti-American propaganda which is aided by this greed. The tarnishing of conservatism is the strengthening of socialism. George Washington said, “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” (Circular to the States, May 9, 1753)

The Effectiveness of Conservative Empowerment 

Empowering the poor with a “hand up” rather than a hand-out must be developed further by compassionate conservatives. The 1996 welfare reform, “Welfare to Work” achieved success in reducing poverty and unemployment but little more has been discussed. Why do we rarely, if ever, hear popular conservatives talk or write about other proactive ways to address poverty? The non-profit and faith-based sectors show tremendous promise here and need further support.

It is important to understand the dangers of expanding government and trying to legislate morality. However, it behooves us as Americans to somehow, in some way, keep a moral and ethical check on greed, materialism and unnecessary levels of disparity. These were the same excesses of feudalism and monarchism. By doing so, we effectively weaken the redistribution arguments of socialists. While no one dismisses the financial consequences of irresponsibility and vice, true conservatism doesn’t simplistically reduce the cause of all poverty to personal dysfunction. Surely we can offer a broader solution than simply pulling oneself up by the proverbial bootstraps. Surely we can do this without exalting government as the answer to all social problems. Welfare assistance from a big government has only made poverty worse. But, for the good of America, conservatives must advance an alternative message and plan that addresses the dangers of extreme greed in face of extreme poverty. In so doing we expose socialism as irrelevant.

The great Russian critic of communism, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, popularized the Russian proverb, “The yes man is your enemy, but your friend will argue with you.” We strengthen conservatism by criticizing ourselves more intensely than we criticize our enemies. We only strengthen America by pointing out the exorbitance of executive salaries that are larger than some national economies. Most people of any background or intelligence see this as problematic when much of the world is starving. Moderation, equal opportunity and compassion are not code words for liberalism. They are moral values which Americans, especially conservatives, should publicly champion more often. By refusing to do so we legitimatize the complaint that we pander to the rich.

Our founding fathers did not believe in equal outcome but they fought for equal opportunity, especially for the disenfranchised. So should we. It will not only empower the less fortunate to do better for themselves, but it will provide the biggest blow to the socialist tyranny of excessive government and redistribution.

A Divine Mandate

Finally, for those of us who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, both Old and New Testaments give a mandate for helping the poor (Exodus 22:21-22; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 24:19-21; Matthew 19:21; James 2:1, 8-9; 1 John 3:17). While we cannot overlook Biblical admonitions against enabling irresponsible behavior (2 Thessalonians 3:10; 1 Timothy 5:3-10), these never contradict the more prevalent teaching of compassion for legitimate needs.

There is an overarching benefit to opposing greed in ourselves and others. Increasing our earthly wealth can be the strongest distraction from increasing our spiritual wealth. Earthly gain is beneficial but lacks in producing lasting happiness. You’ve never seen a funeral hearse pulling a U-Haul because you can’t take it with you when life is over. On that day, our spiritual condition is the only possession that will matter.

Church Growth in Laodicea

•November 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

As with most who are new to the pastorate, I find a greater interest in church growth, church health, revitalization and Christian leadership.  The market provides a dizzy-ing amount of books, blogs and brains that each offer studies, surveys, examples and applications that address a myriad of issues.  Statistics, seminars, speakers and scholars offer a plethora of advice on how to attract the un-churched, recruit volunteers, “do” church more effectively, and improve the perception of Christianity to non-Christians.  We have been taught how to be purpose-driven, seeker-sensitive, culturally relevant, glocal, missional and a dozen other buzz words that I forget.

 

Much, if not all of this outpouring of ideas is in response to the obvious fact that the Church in America is experiencing a great decline.  The findings of George Barna, Tom Clegg and others have been sited enough for most of us to know that we are in trouble.  The U.S. is closing three times more churches than we are opening.  We now have the world’s third largest population of non-Christians and North America is the only continent in the world where Christianity is not growing.

 

In the midst of all of this information, a simple question keeps gnawing at me.  What is the real problem?  One of the main defendants on trial is the church institution.  We are told repeatedly, and with good cause, that the church has not changed to meet its culture.  Methodology is outdated.  Our focus has become introverted to maintenance instead of extroverted to mission.  We must re-connect with our culture, listen to the lost and contextualize our message and method accordingly.

 

I agree with this.  Much of this researched information is helping many churches to make needed changes.  The methodology of the church institution has not seen significant transformation since Martin Luther and company in the sixteenth century.  It is desperately needed.

 

Yet I can’t get away from the question:  is there something more fundamental that we are missing?  What is the emphasis of scripture as it relates to these issues?  I’m not such a fundamentalist that I reject all information that doesn’t have a chapter and verse attached to it.  And I am a Jesus follower enough to be thoroughly committed to the authority and relevance of scripture, especially when it comes to questions of mission and methodology of the ecclesia. 

 

So what says the Bible regarding church growth, revitalization, mission and such?  What verses immediately jump to mind?  Most of us know the broad themes of the Great Commission and the Pauline theology of the church.  But how much emphasis does Jesus place on the perception of the church by the unchurched?  What importance is given to cultural relevance in the pastoral epistles?  What steps were taken in the book of Acts to accommodate the sensitivities of seekers?  I’m not suggesting these are unimportant.  These issues matter.  My only question is what weight are they given in the divine record?  At least from this writer’s perspective, there seem to be other issues that are given much more emphasis.  What are they?

 

Whether we look at the law, history, poetry or the prophets, the centrality of the Old Testament seems to be man’s personal and corporate righteousness before God.  The prophets were concerned with how Israel was perceived by other peoples, but not for the purpose of image or attractiveness but rather for the purpose of God’s glory.  Israel’s success was not so much dependent upon the relevance of her methodology as it was her obedience and walk with God.  The bulk of New Testament theology is on the dynamic of what it means to follow Jesus and be like Him.  The Great Commission is not to grow congregations, but to make disciples!  The latter should produce the former but a large congregation does not equate to Christ-living disciples.  We aren’t called to have good churches but to be good Christ followers.

 

Don’t misunderstand.  The ideas of seeker-sensitivity and cultural relevance offer valuable insight when balanced with scripture.  Technology, creativity, interaction and visual communication have become indispensable tools for effective ministry today.  But is it possible that the simple problem with American Christianity is American Christians?  Is the worst problem irrelevant methods or indifferent members?  Jesus and His apostles taught by example a passionate, authentic faith.  What could be more relevant than Christians whose daily holiness shines forth to an increasingly debased and insecure world?  What could be more appealing to the unchurched than a person who loves unconditionally and practices the joyful compassion of His Lord?

 

I simply contend that if we want better churches, we need better Christians.  While our methodology can and should be questioned, our sacrificial commitment should never be.  Every American pastor has struggled with the need for more and better volunteers.  Mid-week attendance has been a struggle for half a century now and the Sunday night service has all but vanished.  Has it been replaced by any meaningful alternative?  How many people did the average church member personally lead to Christ last year?  How many did the pastor personally lead to Jesus outside of Sunday alter call?  How many people show up for prayer meeting?  How many churches have a prayer meeting?

 

A family once moved from South America and attended our church.  The couple were successful church planters and ministers.  They love the Lord and serve willingly.  On their second Sunday, the lady humbly approached me with a sincere and non-judgmental question.  She gently asked, “Pastor, why don’t the people worship?  In my country we spend extended time in worship and prayer.  What is wrong here in America?”  Several responses went through my mind: 

“Well, our culture really values family time.”  Translation: Dad can’t wait to get home from church and watch the football game. 

“We worship all the time, not just at church.”  Translation:  We worship many

different things.

“Our church is not as emotional as others.”  Translation:  We worship passionately

when we feel like it.

            “Our worship is improving.”  Translation:  If only we had more professional sounding music then people would worship.

 

The only verbal response I could muster was to ask her to pray for revival.  Are we so focused on church growth that we don’t see our own need for passion growth?  A renewed heart results in renewed worship, renewed mission and a renewed church. 

 

Is it not possible that the biggest problem is Laodicean Christianity?  We are well fed, well educated and well funded, more so than any church in history or the present.  Yet the impoverished and persecuted churches of Asia and Africa are producing more new churches than we are new believers.  Is it too simplistic to think that our greatest need is the relevance of personal revival, a purpose-driven purity and sensitive seekers of God’s presence more than the things of this world?

 

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 

 

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.  I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  You say, `I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 

 

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

 

To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.  He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”   Revelation 3:14-22

PRO-LIFE HYPOCRITES

•November 26, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Every four years we Pro-Lifers get worked into a lather over a candidate’s abortion stance, that is until the day after the election. We “save lives” by simply voting for the “right” candidate, then we’re done.  I may not make friends for this, but can we be honest about something?  No office holder, not even the president, has the power to single-handedly outlaw immoral acts such as abortion. Our form of government is based on a balance of powers which keeps each branch in check. The legislature and Supreme Court are the place where abortion issues are ultimately decided, which raises an important question: What are you doing about it? If your answer is nothing then you’ll probably stop reading here.

Still with me? Then consider a fresh look at our accountability to God for the holocaust of the unborn.

Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins. James 4:17

It is possible to focus so much on a candidate’s position that we forget about the cause itself. If we are as pro-life as we say with our mouth, does our responsibility end at the voting booth? Abortion rates do not change based on who lives in the white house. Sending fiery e-mails that vilify pro-choice candidates makes us feel good and its much easier than actually getting involved. We rant about the evils of those who don’t vote like us but do we bother to contact our elected officials and community leaders? How much time do we spend praying over the issue? Changing laws will never change hearts.

Sadly, none of our rhetoric, fighting or even our vote will itself end abortion. For those like myself who claim to be for the unborn, what one thing have you done for them other than marking a ballot? Am I really more righteous if all I do to prevent the murder of the unborn is vote every couple of years? For those who say you are against abortion but voted for a pro-choice candidate, what are you doing to counteract your candidate’s reckless disregard for babies being mutilated and ripped from the womb?

How many abortions could be prevented if every pro-lifer walked out of the voting booth and put some action behind their ballot? Volunteer to counsel a pregnant teen, donate to an adoption service, consider foster parenting or ask your pastor if you can organize a pro-life prayer meeting. Ah, but that actually takes some commitment! The mutilation of the unborn continues while we sooth our conscience with an “x” by a politician’s name.

In no way do I belittle the importance of voting. It is a Christian duty and it makes a difference. But for years we have wrapped ourselves in self-righteous garments of a “pro-life vote” while our hands stain the paper ballot with the blood of 1.37 million babies a year in the U.S alone (42 million worldwide).

Forgive me brothers and sisters, but perhaps we should focus less on condemning the “evil” politician and more on bringing about real change. The battle will not be won or lost in the voting booth, but with our hands, feet, words and most importanly our knees. I humbly challenge you to look in your heart and ask yourself what you can do about this great evil. Our newly elected leaders certainly aren’t. Doesn’t it seem hypocritical to shout at the enemy but never join the battle? Of course, shouting is much easier.

Is it a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate?

•November 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

How could a true, born-again Christian vote for a pro-choice candidate?  I have been asked this question several times during the most recent election.  I also know personally some believers who despise abortion but voted for a pro-choice candidate because, as much as it rattles some people, they believed he was the best man for the job.  There are obviously valid disagreements over who to vote for, but if it affects our standing with God then it is a serious matter indeed.

 

This important question reveals divisions among many Christians, even some evangelicals.  For this and other reasons, it needs a Biblical response.  The authority of scripture is to be taken very seriously.  I believe the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God.  This is the defining cornerstone of evangelicals.  Because I believe in the supreme authority of God’s Word, I am very hesitant to take a stand where the Bible does not.  We are warned against “adding to the words of this book.”  It is therefore important to make a distinction between Biblical truth and my personal beliefs.  I must avoid the temptation to exalt my personal belief to be equal with scripture.  That being said, Biblical issues are of great importance to God and must affect how we vote.

 

Scriptural teaching covers a broad spectrum of issues.  It is to our peril if focus on one or two sins such as abortion and homosexuality while ignoring others.  However, if a political party or candidate takes a public position on a moral issue then it is not the voter who has singled out the issue.  Electing a person to public office usually increases that person’s ability to advance his or her views in some way.  Obviously this is true for some offices more than others.  In any event, we have a responsibility to find out the candidates comments, voting record (if any) and published positions, especially on Biblical issues where God has given His position.  Our obligation as Christians and citizens is to seek the truth from reliable sources, pray diligently for God’s wisdom and vote accordingly. 

 

Evangelical Christians hold certain principles very sacred.  One of God’s most important creations, if not the most important is that of human life.  Human life belongs to the Creator of life, not the created.  He grants us the most evident and fundamental of all human rights, the right to live.  Further, the right to life is the right upon which all other human rights are based.  Without the right to life there are no human rights.  If unborn human life is not to be defended and protected, then there is no reason to defend the human species.

 

God’s image within us causes us to rightly react with horror at the evils of child abuse, the Nazi holocaust and other examples of ruthless violence.  To the charge of “one issue voting”, many Christians ask what could be more important than preventing a scalpel from entering a woman’s cervix, cutting her unborn child into pieces so it can be sucked out through a catheter?  Each year 42 million babies experience this and similar procedures including 1.37 million in the U.S. (www.abortionfacts.com).  Some believe this constitutes a violation of God-given rights and conscience leads them to vote accordingly.

 

Another belief held to be sacred by most Bible believing Christians is the view of marriage being between a man and woman.  As the first covenant God created, even before government, Temple worship or the Church, marriage is recognized as the foundation of any healthy society.  As the family goes, so goes the world.  Sociology and history provide overwhelming evidence of the impact that the family has on children and society.  Consider that those raised without both mother and father:

 

…make up over 70% of the U.S. prison population.

…are 2/3 more likely to be raised in poverty.

…Engage in higher levels of anti-social behavior (ranging from running away from home, being suspended from school, and using substance to committing minor property crime, engaging in violent behavior, and getting arrested).

 

It is no exaggeration to conclude that departure from intact male/female marriage invites the eventual collapse of society.  Bible believing Christians understand the consequences of altering God’s created order and therefore oppose changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. 

 

To argue that the Bible itself is unclear regarding homosexuality is the result of either ignorance or extreme bias.  Honest readers understand the clarity of Old and New Testament passages such as Genesis chapters 18-19, Leviticus 18:22 (given alongside commands against incest and bestiality), Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.

 

There is disagreement among good Christians over one-issue voting.  Many Christians believe that moral issues such as abortion are so important that they outweigh all other political ideas, especially where the Bible is clear.  On the other hand what if the candidate shares my view on the “one issue”, but holds many other policies which I believe would be very harmful to the public?  What if a candidate holds some views that are Biblical and some that are not?  These and other questions lead some believers to avoid one or two issue voting.  

 

Moreover, few voters, if any, totally agree with every position of the candidate they vote for.  Most would agree that it is possible to vote for someone without supporting his or her every position.  It is very probable that one day our only choice will be between two pro-choice candidates.  Some will foolishly refuse to vote believing this is somehow helpful.  Others realize it is possible to vote for a pro-choice candidate because you believe he is the best candidate, while at the same time strongly opposing his abortion stance.

 

These differing views all have valid points to consider.  The danger to avoid is to elevate one’s personal belief as a salvation requirement, especially where the Bible is silent.  There are matters of conscience upon which we are allowed different opinions (see Romans chapter 14).  The Bible is clear about the sanctity of human life and about homosexuality.  It is not so clear about making a bad choice in the voting booth or voting based solely on one or two issues.  Scripture addresses the former but, as passionately as we may want it to, it does not address the latter. 

 

Another observation worth noting is that no single office holder, not even the president, has the power to single-handedly outlaw immoral acts such as abortion.  Our form of government is based on a balance of powers which keeps each branch in check.  The legislature and Supreme Court are the place where abortion issues are ultimately decided, which raises an important question.

 

Is it possible to focus so much on a candidate’s position that we forget about the cause itself?  If we really are pro-life, does our responsibility end at the voting booth?  Abortion rates do not change based on who lives in the white house.  Sending fiery e-mails that vilify pro-choice candidates makes us feel good and its much easier than actually getting involved.  We rant about the evils of those who don’t vote like us but do we bother to contact our elected officials and community leaders?  How much time do we spend praying over the issue?  Changing laws will never change hearts. 

 

Sadly, none of our rhetoric, fighting or even our vote will itself end abortion.  For those like myself who claim to be for the unborn, what one thing have you done for them other than marking a ballot?  Am I really more righteous if all I do to prevent the murder of the unborn is vote every couple of years?  For those who are against abortion but voted for a pro-choice candidate, what are you doing to counteract your candidate’s reckless disregard for babies being mutilated and ripped from the womb?  How many abortions could be prevented if every pro-lifer walked out of the voting booth and volunteered to counsel a pregnant teen, donated to an adoption service, considered foster parenting or asked their pastor if they could organize a pro-life prayer meeting?  Is it possible that we allow abortion to increase because we do nothing more than support a politician?  Doesn’t it seem hypocritical to shout at the enemy but never join the battle?  Of course, shouting is much easier.

 

Plato said, “The punishment which they suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.”  The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy and therefore the responsibility of citizens who wish to remain free.  It ensures that government is by the people and for the people.  God has graciously allowed us to participate in the process of governance through our vote.  My vote is my approval, in some measure, of one candidate over another.  In Romans 1:32 we read,

 

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

Offering any measure of approval is an act that should not be taken lightly.  For me personally, it would seriously violate my Christian conscience to vote for a candidate with unbiblical views on weighty matters such as abortion and homosexuality, given that I had another choice.  A candidate’s views on issues of this magnitude reveal a lot about their character and who they are as a person.  Their character determines how they will govern in all areas.

 

Of course many things should be considered when choosing a candidate.  Cultural background matters to some.  Others are swayed by winning looks or charismatic personality.  More substantive matters such as education, administrative experience and previous accomplishments seem to be better indicators of leadership ability.  That being said, if there are more important things about a candidate than his views on human life and Biblical marriage I can’t figure out what they are.

 

These are my personal beliefs and I am deeply committed to my convictions.  I also recognize there are other believers who love God as much as I do yet disagree with me.  That’s okay.  They are allowed to be wrong!  I still love them as my brothers and sisters in Christ.  They are going to the same heaven that I am.  But they will probably have to stand in the corner when they get there.

 

SINGLENESS: A Blessing or Curse?

•November 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

At age 18, I started college thinking to myself, “I hope I can wait until I’m 25 to get married.” Twenty-five seemed so far away. I had no idea I would still be single at 35. Much has been written of single Christians who did exploits for God. David Brainerd, Amy Carmichael and Lillian Thrasher serve as great examples. What about those of us who do not desire to remain single forever? I’ve found there is hope for the single hearted. Here are some of my experiences along the path of singleness.

THE FEARS

Will I find the right one? Did I let him/her get away? Am I getting too old to have or raise children? Am I to remain single for life? What about a Christian dating service? The pool of eligible people seems to grow smaller every day. Even romantic movies simply serve to remind you of what you don’t have. It is one thing to talk about trusting God, but it gets harder with each wedding invitation from yet another close friend.

Don’t you love that friend or relative who always asks if you’ve met anyone yet? And all of us have endured the jubilant match maker who has found the perfect one for us (did we ever ask for their help?). Sadly, some people in the church seem to think there is something wrong if you are not married by a certain age. Even worse, some singles start to feel that way about themselves.
Did Paul really know what he was talking about when he said, “I wish that all men were as I am” (1 Corinthians 7:7*)? I believe he did.

THE FREEDOM

“I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs–how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world–how he can please his wife– and his interests are divided” (1 Corinthians 7:32-33).

We know there are specific historical and cultural reasons Paul wrote this to the church at Corinth, but let’s not miss a principle that applies to us. A single person has a level of freedom that a married person does not have. The question is how are we using that freedom?

Are you waiting or waiting? The old English word “wait” also means to serve or wait upon, as a waiter in a restaurant “waits” upon his customers. He serves them. Is your singleness a period of simply waiting for a mate or waiting (serving the Lord)? Singles should take advantage of the freedom to serve in a greater capacity. I have been able to travel, take classes, and minister in a much greater way than if I were married. Children are a “heritage from the LORD” and “a reward from him”. But a father of three once told me, “After children, it takes longer to do everything!” While I look forward to marital companionship and the reward of children, I’ve learned to appreciate the freedom that singleness can bring.

Another advantage that shouldn’t be overlooked is the area of finances. The cost of health insurance, auto insurance, food, travel, clothing (not to mention a wife’s shoe collection) and some times taxes is all higher for marrieds than for singles. We might be tempted to think that two people means two incomes. This assumes that both spouses will work, but is that ideal for every marriage? In no way are we casting a negative light on God’s first institution. The point is that your season of singleness is a financial opportunity to save, invest and even bless others on a level that may not be possible later on.

THE FOCUS

ATTITUDE.  Attitude determines your altitude. We often quote Philippians 4:13 for encouragement. It takes on significant meaning for singles when read with the verse before it: 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation… 13 I can do everything through him who gives me strength. Contentment does not happen by accident or good fortune. It is an attitude to be learned.

SELFLESSNESS.  We are called to “serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13). Singles may be tempted to ask, “How can I serve others when I don’t feel ‘complete’ myself?” But it is precisely these disciplines of serving and self-denial that prepare us for a successful marriage. It behooves us to learn the practice of selflessness before walking down the aisle.

RELATIONSHIPS.  Except for John the Baptist types, family and friends are essential for the personal contentment of most singles. Over the years, I’ve learned the invaluable worth of relationships in combating loneliness and providing accountability, especially as it relates to sexual temptation. God said it isn’t good for man to be alone. If and until marriage comes along we must build relationships to make sure our aloneness doesn’t become a pitfall.

SEARCHING or BECOMING?  Many marriages ship wreck because one or both partners spent more time searching for the right mate instead of becoming the right mate. We cannot over state the absolute necessity of character development. Continual learning, doing and spiritual growth are important not only for what you bring to marriage, but also for becoming a more fulfilled single. We must stay occupied. Grandmother always said, “An idle mind is the devil’s work shop.” To be something you’ve never been you must do something you’ve never done.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY.  I’m not going to offer up the age-old cliché which singles are always given. “Let Jesus meet your need for intimacy.” Or how many times have we heard this one: “Jesus is the only man I need!” Certainly, our Lord is all-sufficient but the fact is He created some needs that are only to be met by another human being. Until that time comes, God’s grace is sufficient to teach us the spiritual discipline of delayed gratification. When combined with a lifestyle of fasting and prayer, our delayed sexual fulfillment is a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Such fasting He rewards with spiritual intimacy that fulfills and strengthens us to run the race set before us.

I used to go to sleep praying God would pull another rib job like He did with Adam. He has yet to take me up on it. Singleness includes some fears to be sure, but our freedom gives us an advantage others don’t have. It helps me to remember that there are worse things than being single. A friend tells me, “its better to wish you were married, than to wish you weren’t.” Food for thought. If we look at our singleness as a curse, then it will be. We should instead focus on the opportunities our singleness affords in the areas of time, ministry involvement and finances. Far from being a period of need, the focused and faithful single views this season as a gift to be maximized for the glory of God. Is singleness a blessing or curse? The answer depends on you.

What is ‘worldliness’ and why does it matter?

•November 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

“For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.

 “Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.  Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.     

“Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”

(2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1) 

 

The above passage represents some poignant statements regarding the believer’s relationship to the things of this world.  This is another one that has been very influential to me:

         

“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For everything in the world–the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does–comes not from the Father but from the world.  The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.”  (1 John 2:15-17)

 

Similar thoughts are found in passages like James 4;4; Romans 12:2 and Ephesians 5:11.  We must be clear about what we mean by the term “world”.  Jesus said that God so loved the “world” that He gave His only son.  Of course we are to love the people of the world.  Christ loves sinners so much He died for them and so should we (1 John 3:16; 4:7-8).  What does John mean when he writes that we are NOT to love the “world”?    When the Bible speaks of not loving the world, it is talking about the WAYS of the world, its practices, its possessions, its pleasures, its emphasis on self and self-gratification.  Basically anything that would hinder one from pleasing God in every way.  This includes things that may not be sinful.  Worldliness could be described many ways.  One definition is as follows:         

 

“WORLDLINESS is anything of public or private nature that tends to separate the believer from God, that distracts from his or her personal Christian witness or that defiles the body or corrupts the mind.  Participation in attitudes or activities that demonstrates a preoccupation with pleasures, positions or possession which lead to their misuse; the manifestation of extreme behavior; un-becoming speech; inappropriate appearance; or any fascination or association that lessens a persons affection for the Lord.  Attending or participating any activity, amusement or entertainment that is contrary to the Word of God and a dedicated walk in the Spirit.  Anything that would keep a believer from bringing glory to God with his entire life.”  Romans 12:1-2; 1 John 2:15-17; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Matthew 6:33; Colossians 3:1-11; 1 Timothy 2:19; 1 Corinthians. 10:31.

 

A great Spirit-filled leader once said, “Let the Church occupy the place that God intended for it.  If its members cease from living holy and become worldly, then it is no longer the Church of Jesus Christ but has become a mere social center.”  His words could never be more timely than right now.  You may know the story of the frog in the kettle.  If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water he will jump out.  But if you put him in cold water and gradually turn up the heat slowly, he will not know that his environment is being adjusted.  Eventually he will die from the heat, never knowing what happened. 

 

The Body of Christ has always been in the devil’s “kettle”, the world.  The Bible clearly teaches that Satan is the very one controlling the world’s influences.  He is referred to as the “prince of this world” (John 16:11) and the “god of this age [world]” (2 Cor. 4:4). But this truth is most clearly spelled out in Ephesians 2:2,  “in which you used to live when you followed the WAYS OF THIS WORLD and of the RULER of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is NOW AT WORK in those who are disobedient.” (emphasis mine).  No wonder those that are friends of the world are enemies of God!  (James 4:4). 

 

The ways of this world are in diametric opposition to the ways of Christ.  The world is the enemy of the church.  We love the sinner but we must hate sin.  We long for sinners to be saved and we must lovingly work toward that goal, but never compromise our holiness.  We are called to be holy lights in the midst of an unholy world.  If there is no difference in the ways of the world and the ways of a Christian, then how can they see our light?  It has become like the darkness around us.  Sinners control every major government and institution of influence in the world.  The Church in the midst of the world is like a soldier behind enemy lines; the enemy seeking our life is all around us.  The ways of this world are a deadly spiritual cancer which can creep into the Body unnoticed.  Most cancers are now curable IF they are caught in time.  The danger isn’t so much the cancer itself as much as its lack of detection.

 

Can the Church be decieved into becoming wordly without even detecting it?  The Bible answers.   I cannot think of a more tragic verse in all of the Bible than Revelation 3:14-18–

 

 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:  These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, `I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.” 

 

Take a moment and consider the horror of this passage.  Christ’s own Church, the one He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against, the one He purchased with His own blood, HIS people… US.  Here is how Christ describes His mighty Church: “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, naked” (v. 17).  Should not this passage make us weep?  Does this not strike fear in our hearts that we as “God’s property”, “King’s kids”, “Children of the Most High” can actually be decieved into such a pitiful state?  All the while shouting the victory on Sunday mornings?  We are rich!!  We have need of nothing!!  God is good!!  Yet so blind that we don’t see how repulsive we are to the Almighty.  So repulsive we make Him vomit (spit) us out of his mouth (v. 16). 

Are we so arrogant to say this can’t happen to today’s church?  How does such a tragedy happen to the saints of God without them even realizing it?  It happens by very, VERY subtle means, even “spiritual” means.  It happens in the midst of “christian” activities, “anointed” music, “powerful” sermons.  Could the Church be allowing the world to gradually influence us in ways we don’t even realize?  Could we be using spiritual jargon to justify worldliness?  (“We have to win them some how.”)  Are we becoming like the world in order to win the world?   

 

Thus far, most true believers would agree with me.  It is very easy to talk about worldliness as long as we don’t start applying the Word to daily situations.  That is when it becomes uncomfortable and controversial.  Of course the Word was given to us so that we CAN apply it to our daily lives.  We are commanded to do so.  Consider the driving influence behind the world’s art and entertainment.  Are the influences Christian?  Are the producers and executives in Hollywood Christian people who seek to glorify God?  When homosexuals can march openly at Disney Land’s “Gay Pride Day”, what does this say about mainstream America?  And how many Christians keep feeding on these media influences regularly?  What gives a movie an “R” rating?  Is it not the profanity, violence and/or immorality that is depicted?  Yet many Christians, even ministers, think nothing of partaking of this and supporting it with their patronage.

 

There is no place in the Church for legalism or being judgmental.  May the Lord keep us from a critical spirit where we continually look for faults.  However, may He also keep us from justifying our worldliness by shouting “legalism” whenever someone preaches against sin.  It seems that those who want to preach against worldliness are labeled “legalistic” or “judgmental”.  Yet the Bible speaks much more about the dangers of carnality and sin than it does about legalism and judging. 

 

What we would find if we compared our prayer time to the amount of time we spend watching television.  What types of influences are we being fed through the world’s media?  Do we know the Bible as well as we know the characters on today’s carnal soap operas?  What if we got as excited about worship every Sunday as we do about Super Bowl Sunday?  Do our glitzy Christian music awards bring sinners to repent of their sin or do they entertain pleasure loving believers?  What is God’s opinion of comedians in the pulpit and million dollar record deals all in the name of Christ?  Is it possible that we have created a “Christian” version of the world’s celebrity worship and flesh exaltation?  Are we evangelizing sinners or entertaining the saints?   Are we denying self or gratifying it?  Whose cross are we taking up?

 

Consider the words of contemporary author Leonard Ravenhill, speaking of today’s Church:         

 

“I shudder when there are weekly classes in ceramics and painting, skating parties, and a host of infantile things… .  A church like this will never be on the devil’s danger list.”

 

He continues,

 

“Our spiritual immaturity never shows up more than our lack of praying.  Let twenty percent of the choir members fail to turn up for rehearsal and the choir leader is offended.  Let twenty percent of the church members turn up for a prayer meeting, and the pastor is elated.

“On the highways I see buses with signs on the side such as, ‘Church Choir on Tour’, or ‘Bible College Choir on Tour’, but I never see a bus announcing, ‘Church Prayer Meeting on Tour.’

 

In his book, Why Revival Tarries, the same author writes:         

 

“The pastor who isn’t praying is playing.  People who aren’t praying are straying.  …We have many organizers, few agonizers; many players, few pray-ers; many singers, few clingers; many fears, few tears, much fashion, little passion; many interferers, few intercessors; many writers, few fighters.  Failing here, we fail everywhere.” 

 

What an apt and heart-breaking description of many churches today.  Oh, but we have glitz!  We have glamour!  We have programs that are just as good as the world has!  Entertainment that is just as appealing!  We have a shout.  We have large crowds.  We are rich and have need of nothing! 

 

May the Lord keep us from fault-finding and a judgmental attitude.  But also keep us from being deceived by lukewarmness and carnal pleasures of the world within the Church.  We are told what type of Church Christ is returning for:  “a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:27).  Fortunately, Christ doesn’t end His message to the Church without hope.  He gives us the answer that we need today in Revelation 3:19-20,         

 

“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.”  Consider the words of Christ.  If we heed His call to holiness, we can have His gold refined in the fire, become rich and have white clothes to wear so that we will be righteous before Him.” 

 

What will we do as believers?  What will you do?  Does your lifestyle need examining?  Are you enjoying this world more than you are looking for Christ’s soon return?

 

“Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows those who are his,’ and, ‘Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.’ “ (2 Timothy 2:19)         

 

“To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy– to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen” (Jude 24-25).

 

Can Only Whites Be Racists?

•November 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Even in the 21st century racism and prejudice, both perceived and real, continues to be a polarizing issue in America.  A popular social definition of racism says that one can only be racist if he or she is in a position of power (such as being in the majority race) and uses that power to discriminate against other races.  We shall examine the validity of this controversial definition and its profound implications relating to race and class.

RACISM = PREJUDICE + POWER?

Most people agree that everyone, of all ethnic groups, have racial prejudice.  However, there is a popular idea that restricts the definition of racism to acts of discrimination which can only be done by those who are in power.  Obviously, those with little or no social, economic or political power would have very few people over which they could discriminate.  Those who advocate this definition then conclude that white people are the only ones who can be correctly labed “racist” since whites have controlled, and to a certain degree still control, most every institution and position of power in America.  They reason further that whites are “privileged”, being the recipients of unearned benefits that have come from being the majority race and a long history of exploitation of people of color.  Hence the phrase “white privilege”.

There are several things about this idea that are obviously true. It is true that whites control every major institution of power in this nation. By “institutions of power” we mean those institutions that educate (schools and universities) disseminate information (media), make laws (government), and enforce laws (police, judges and courts). Also included would be those institutions that make economic decisions for individuals, communities, cities, states and the nation (government, banks, lenders, business owners, realtors, employers, property owners, etc.). Although, non-whites have made significant gains, it is still obvious that the vast majority of people in power in America are white people. It has always been that way. That fact has shaped the way things are today.

The whites who are in power have the ability to enforce their racial prejudice. This has not been true of other ethnic groups. For example, it is true that some African-Americans are prejudiced against whites. However, African-Americans have never been in places of power in order to enforce their prejudice on others. It is also true that the power structure has caused disparity between blacks and whites.  No one can intelligently deny the history that whites have enforced their racial prejudice throughout institutions of society.  No ethnic group has ever had this power other than whites.  The great strides that were made toward equality in the 20th century should not be understated.  It is fervently debated how much progress still needs to be made in that area.  But no matter how much or little progress is still needed, no one should deny the devastating effects of historical racism on minority groups today.

The Problem is the Way We View the Problem

There is no topic that is more volatile today than racism. Wounds, emotional scars and guilt make it a very painful reality for many. Because it is such an emotional issue, it is very difficult to remain objective. Many times discussions about race become shouting matches or debates in which neither side is listening to or even cares about the other. The biggest problem is the way we view the problem. We must always be aware of our own personal biases. We are the sum total of our life experiences. All of our experiences from the past up to the present shape the way we view the world as well as the way we think about it. Someone has said that when you are a hammer you tend to see everything as a nail. A psychologist will be tempted to see everything as a psychological issue, whether it is or not. The politician will be tempted to see everything as political and so forth. Those of us concerned about racial justice and equality are going to interpret the world through that concern. Of course we shouldn’t overlook race related events, but we must resist the temptation to make something a racial issue when in reality it may not be.

This is closely related to another issue which I call the “flat earth syndrome”. This is the constant temptation to judge things as they appear on the surface without full investigation. People believed the earth was flat for centuries because of the way it appears on the surface. They didn’t bother to investigate, do research or document their claims. It is unfortunate when we look only on the surface of things and make simplistic conclusions or sweeping judgments that are not documented. The fact is, this is one of the major errors of racial bigotry. We must be careful not to make the same mistake, no matter how noble our purpose.

One of my own experiences illustrates the dynamics just mentioned. While driving through a predominantly black neighborhood recently, I noticed a billboard ad for the phone company. It featured a young black male holding a telephone with the words, “I got my phone back!” The implication was that his phone service had been disconnected and the phone company helped him get it restored. Immediately I thought to myself, “What a bigoted ad! They are implying that black people can’t pay their phone bill!” This was my conclusion because misinformation about minority groups is prevalent in our society. A few days later, driving through a predominantly white area of town I saw the very same ad. Only this ad featured an attractive white female. Everything else about the ad was the same. It became obvious that the difference in ads was because of the different communities the ads were in, not because of bigotry. I was a hammer and I was seeing everything as a nail. Upon further investigation, I found that things were not as they appeared on the surface. The biggest problem is how we view the problem.

SOME QUESTIONS

This brings us to some questions about the current definition of racism being used by many. Please keep in mind that these are not rhetorical questions. They are not being asked simply to make a point. The questions are sincere and feedback is invited. The current definition of racism that is being discussed is: racism equals prejudice plus power. In other words, only white people can be racist since only white people are in power. The questions are as follows:

1) Is it true that all white people are in power?

Some believe that because all people in power are white, therefore all white people have power. The error of this thinking is illustrated with the following syllogism: All cows are animals therefore all animals are cows. The first statement is true but does not logically support the second statement. In the same way we cannot say: All people with power are white therefore all whites have power. The first statement is true but that alone does not support the second statement. It may appear on the surface that every white person in America has power over non-whites. But is there documented evidence to bear this out?

Those with power in America are those with political and financial affluence. This represents a small number of people. The “institutions of power” mentioned above, only represent a small number of positions. There are only so many lawmakers, so many bankers, so many police and judges, etc. These institutional positions are only a few when compared with the total population. It should be noted that a growing number of these positions are held by non-whites (mayors, congressmen, police, judges, etc). This is encouraging. We need even more people of color in these positions in order to reflect the true diversity of America and help insure equality for all.

The question is, do most whites have positions of power over people of color? In America there are more white families in poverty than black families. There are more white single mothers on welfare than black single mothers. Does a white single mother on welfare really have power over the life of a black single mother on welfare? If so, how? Do either of them make or enforce laws? Is a white welfare recipient in a position to enforce power over others? If so, how? How much control does the average white person really have over people of color? Most Americans, whether black or white, do not hold significant positions of true power over the lives of others.

But one could argue that the white woman on welfare still has more opportunities for advancement than a woman of color on welfare. Many times this is true, but if the white woman works to advance and is successful, does that mean racism is at work? Did racial prejudice have to be enforced in order for her to advance? Or does it simply mean the system worked for her the way it should work for all people?

Positions of real power are held by an elite class of people in America: the affluent. Those elected to public office are either wealthy or they are heavily funded and influenced by the wealthy. Laws and policies are passed because of the influence of big businesses, corporations and other affluent lobbyists. People with political and financial clout are the ones that have power in America. The trial of O. J. Simpson is a telling example. Regardless of race, anyone with fame and money can exert that power for their own benefit. If we limit racism to only those in power, then most Americans, even whites, cannot be racist. The problem is much broader than that.

2) Do all white people in power use that power to discriminate racially?

One of the driving forces behind prejudice is stereotyping. It is not logical to say that a white person is a racist simply because he has power. This is like saying a black man is violent simply because he is disenfranchised. They are both false stereotypes. Neither is supported by logic or evidence. Many whites have oppressed other ethnic groups while other whites have not. There is simply no evidence to show that all of those in power carry out racial prejudice. It may appear this way on the surface but there is historical evidence to the contrary. The work of white abolitionists during slavery, the involvement of whites in the civil rights movement, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act by congress are only a few examples. We cannot overlook the evil perpetuated by some of European ancestry. Neither can we lump them all in the same category and falsely stereotype. This, is itself prejudicial.

3) Since most in power are white, does that mean that most other whites receive unearned privileges?

The assumption is that all white people are advantaged since they have the same skin color as those in power. This does not take into consideration the competition that takes place even among the majority class (whites). According to the U.S. Census Bureau whites make up 73% of the U.S. population.[1]  Therefore there are more whites competing with each other than whites against non-whites. When two white people apply for the same job, only one person will get it. The one who was rejected gained nothing because of his white skin. Racism comes into play when people of color are not allowed to compete in the first place. Or if they are allowed, the odds are stacked against them. These are examples of what happens when racism occurs. Denying the rights of the minority does not equal privileges for the majority. The majority still has to earn what they have.

We must be careful to distinguish between a right and a privilege. A privilege is something that is undeserved. It is given regardless of one’s merit. It can also be taken away in the same way. If a privilege is earned, it ceases to be a privilege and becomes a right. For example, some might say that whites are privileged because they have better jobs, can afford better housing, or get approved for loans more readily than non-whites. This does not take into consideration the effort that had to be put into obtaining these things. No person can walk into a bank and get a loan based upon their white skin. There are credit checks, history inquiries, applications, fees and a host of other requirements that must be met. The loan must be earned. It is then a right, not a privilege. The same is true of jobs, entrance into college, etc..

Of course people of color have not had the same opportunity to earn those rights. That is where racism has been so damning. It does not mean the majority group is privileged. It means that the minority group has been denied their rights. This is an important distinction. Again, all cows are animals but not all animals are cows. A distinction must be made between a denied right and an unearned privilege. This may seem like a meaningless distinction but it is not. It has implications for how the problem must be solved. If one group has undeserved privileges then it is logical to take those away. But what if they’ve rightfully earned some of those things? Shall we rob the rich to give to the poor? Shall we deny the majority their rights in order to help the minority? If so, racial hostility is here to stay. Or shall we instead seek to bridge both groups to make sure all have equal opportunity, equal access and equal justice? We cannot deny the evil effects of racism. But trying to quickly redistribute power is unrealistic and produces unnecessary backlash. In the long term this is only detrimental to race relations. Although there is more time and work involved, wouldn’t bridging cultures be a better long-term solution? It would seem that healthy relationships between cultures is necessary for any sustained measure of justice and equality.

4) Have most whites benefitted from racism?

The “prejudice + power” school of thought says that by virtue of having white skin, people have automatically received unfair advantages. In other words, because minorities have been oppressed, that automatically means all whites have benefited from it.  Now it is clear that some whites have benefited from racial oppression.  It is a logical possibility that slave owners and traffickers passed down their wealth to their offspring even to today.  Furthermore, discrimination in education and the job market has undoubtedly caused some whites to be chosen over people of color. That cannot be denied.  Moreover, whites have never had the sociological and psychological effects of oppression such as low self-esteem, hopelessness, lack of motivation, rage and self-hate.

But is it true that all or even most white people in America have benefited from racism?  If so how?  Most whites in history never owned slaves or even lived in states that benefitted from slavery.  Some say the economic prosperity of America today is somehow tied to historic racism.  Besides the difficulty in supporting this factually, it also neglects the fact that all Americans benefit from today’s economy.  American “poor” are among the most prosperous in the world.  Non-whites make up roughly 27% of the population (African-Americans = 12.6%).[2]  How has historic racism exclusively benefitted whites only?   

A side note is that non-African minorities (Asians, Latinos, and Middle Easterners) make up the majority of non-white Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau they are no less than 14% of the total population, whereas African-Americans make up around 12.6%.  It is important to note that most of these non-African ethnic groups did not enter the U.S. in large numbers until the last 40-50 years so historic discrimination against them would be impossible.

If it is true that whites have benefitted from historic racism, then their will obviously be wealth handed down from generation to the next.  We can test the validity of this by examining the wealthy class in America today.  How many of them received financial help, inheritance or a business that was passed to them from family or friends?  How many of America’s wealthy started with little and made fortunes?  Authors Thomas Stanley and William Danko shed interesting light on this question in The Millionaire Next Door.  Regarding U.S. millionaires:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received “an act of kindness” of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

The authors elaborate:

In America, the achievements of the current generation are more a factor in explaining wealth accumulation than what has taken place in the past. Again, most American millionaires today (about 80 percent) are first-generation rich. Typically, the fortunes built by these people will be completely dissipated by the second or third generation. The American economy is a fluid one. There are many people today who are on their way to becoming wealthy. And there are many others who are spending their way out of the affluent category.[3]

The idea that whites benefit or have benefitted from racism is based upon three notions.  First, there is the notion that equal opportunity always means equal outcome. By equal outcome we mean that all races will be equally represented in jobs, income, and positions of power. The assumption is that if all groups have equal opportunity, then inevitably they will all be equally represented in positions of power. According to this idea, if there is not equal outcome then the only explanation is racism. The reason whites have so much power is all because of racism, so says this notion. This view is obviously suspect in that it does not consider any factors other than race to explain disparities among groups.

This brings up another question. How are we measuring racism? What indicators are we using to tell how widespread it is? Many only look at the disparity among whites and non-whites and immediately conclude that racism is the main reason. But could there be other reasons as well?  What other data and evidence have been considered?  Does equal opportunity always means equal outcome? This strikes at the heart of the matter.  Many involved in civil rights only look at results-based evidence.  They start with the preconceived assumption that racism is the root of all disparity. Then they document the disparity believing this proves their assumption. This is begging the question or arguing in a circle.  For a truly scientific conclusion, a thorough examination of all social phenomenon is required, such as cultural distinctions, and differences in language and thought patterns.[4]  It does not logically follow that racism is the only phenomenon that has caused disparity.

A second reason people believe all whites benefit from racism is the win/lose mentality. This says that for one person to win, another person has to lose. So if one person has lost, then his opponent has automatically won. This is also described as the scarcity mentality by best-selling author Stephen R. Covey. “Most people are deeply scripted in what I call the Scarcity Mentality. They see life as having only so much, as though there were only one pie out there. And if someone were to get a big piece of the pie, it would mean less for everybody else.”[5]  This is in contrast to the win/win mentality which says there is enough out there for everyone. When parents have a second child, they don’t take food from the first child in order to feed the second. They get enough food for both. A perfect example of the scarcity mentality can be seen in education by what is known as grading on the curve. This is a pre-set notion that there can only be a limited number of “A” students. Instead of letting each student’s work speak for itself, only a few are able to win a good grade since there is a limited number of A’s to go around. The fact that this is used by institutions of higher education shows how deeply scripted our society is in the scarcity mentality.

Some might argue that current world population justifies the scarcity mentality. Over-population may well be a valid concern today. But this has only been an issue during the current generation. Over-population has never been a global problem historically, especially in the United States. Yet historically the scarcity mentality has shaped the way we look at disparity among groups.

A third reason people believe all whites benefit from racism is the notion that oppressors always benefit from oppressing others. Again, this does not logically follow. One reason is the fact that oppressors rob themselves by subverting the richness and strength of diversity. It was the blending of Greek and Roman cultures that created an ancient world power. Multi-culture is stronger than mono-culture because it blends the strengths of various cultures.

Also attached to this third notion is the idea that each member of the oppressing group is privileged whether they themselves act out oppression or not. Again we return to the illogical syllogism: All cows are animals therefore all animals are cows. In the same way we cannot say: All people benefiting from racism are white therefore all whites benefit from racism. The first statement is true but that alone does not support the second statement.

5) Has emphasis on power overshadowed personal responsibility and other requirements for acheivement?

History demonstrates the requirements for “success” are universal. In any culture, in any time period, responsibility, ethics, hard work and discipline produce achievement. These values have stood the test of time. They are not a white, European thing. They are much older than that. To uphold a standard of excellence is not judging someone by “white” values. If a white person is lazy, irresponsible, undisciplined and rebellious, his skin color won’t get him very far. This is reflected by white people who end up in prison or otherwise “unsuccessful”. One could argue that a lazy, irresponsible white person will have a better chance than a black person with the same faults. This is often true because racism has denied black people their rights. This doesn’t mean white skin makes achievement easy or that whites don’t have to work hard in order to succeed.

It is wrong to assume that a white person is in power because of his skin color. Race alone does not bring affluence and “power”. Racism is an undeniable horror in our society that must be addressed. But much also needs to be said about personal values and responsibility. Listen to the remarks of Louis Farrakhan:

“[I]f you look at the Asians, the Asians have the fastest growing economies in the world. The Asians are not saying, [sic] bashing white people. You don’t find the Asians saying the white man is this, the white man is that, the white man is the other.
     “He don’t [sic] talk like that. You know what he does? He just relocates the top banks from Wall Streets to Tokyo. He don’t say, ‘I’m better than the white man.’ He just starts building his world and building his economy and challenging white supremacy.…
     “They don’t have to say to white people, ‘I’m better than you.’ They just do their thing. And white folk have to readjust their thinking.…
     “Black man, you don’t have to bash white people, all we gotta [sic] do is go back home and turn our communities into productive places. All we gotta do is go back home and make our communities a decent and safe place to live. And if we start dotting the Black community with businesses, opening up factories, challenging ourselves to be better than we are, White folk, instead of driving by, using the ‘N’ word, they’ll say, ‘look, look at them. Oh, my God. They’re marvelous. They’re wonderful. We can’t, we can’t say they’re inferior anymore.’ But, every time we drive by shoot, every time we carjack, every time we use foul, filthy language, every time we produce culturally degenerate films and tapes, putting a string in our women’s backside and parading them before the world, every time we do things like this we are feeding the degenerate mind of white supremacy and I want us to stop feeding that mind and let that mind die a natural death.…
     “Clean up, Black man, and the world will respect and honor you.”[6]

While this is certainly no endorsement of Farrakhan, his comments here are noteworthy. Continually blaming those in power neglects elements such as responsibility and self-help, thereby creating a false dependency on others.  Racism is not the sole cause of white success.  Neither is it the sole cause of suffering for others.

Now it must be repeated that racism has caused a great disparity among blacks and whites. People of color have been denied opportunity because of race. We are not denying the “power” aspect of racism. It has caused at least a portion of the disparity. But for that to become our focus neglects deeper human issues that lie closer to the root of the problem.

6) Is power the main problem?

Every major world power has abused its power throughout history. Study the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Europeans. Those in power have always used it against others. This reflects the true condition of the human heart. Since the beginning of recorded history someone has exerted power over another. There has never been a time when power belonged to everyone equally. There will always be people in power over others. This in itself is not a bad thing. In order for human civilization to exist, there must be a controlling influence which governs, administrates and sets civil order. Anything less is barbarism. There must be a governing power in order for a civilized society to exist. The problem is when those in power use that power unjustly.

Which brings us to the question, is power the main problem? Lets suppose, as some are saying, that the problem is prejudice plus power. In other words, the problem is that whites have power and other groups don’t. One answer might be to balance out the power equally. But how do you do this fairly? Well how about dividing up power based upon the total population of each ethnic group?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, whites (non-Hispanic) make up about 73% of the U.S. population. African-Americans make up just under 13%, Hispanics make up 10%, Asian Americans almost 4%, and American Indians less than 1%.[7]  Let’s suppose there was a fail-proof way to guarantee the positions of power would be 73% white, 13% black, 10% Hispanic, etc.. Very quickly you realize that there is still one dominant group. Even if there were some fail-proof way of doing this, which itself seems unrealistic, the fact is there would still be an imbalance of power. There always will be. Does that mean we shouldn’t address issues of power, racism and disparity? Not at all. These issues need to be addressed reasonably and justly for all.

On the other hand, what if we focused on racial prejudice? Racial prejudice may be more illusive but that does not mean it is impossible to deal with. If we effectively deal with prejudice it would not matter who is in power. You see, the problem is not who has the power, the problem is the prejudice of those in power. That is what must be addressed. We cannot de-personalize racism by saying it is merely institutional or that it is simply built into the system. Institutions and systems are built and maintained by persons. The problem is not the system, it is people. We human beings are the problem because of what is in our hearts. This is true whether we carry out our evil desires or not.

In his wisdom, Jesus Christ pointed out that an evil desire in the heart is just as wrong as actively carrying it out.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. “…You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’” (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28 NIV)

In his book, Breaking Down Walls, African-American pastor Raleigh Washington comments:

“…a popular sociological definition of racism states that one can only be racist if that person is in a position of power, and uses that power to take advantage of another race of people. I call that racial oppression, which indeed is an evil expression of racism, but is not the sum total of racism. Just as the sin of adultery or murder begins in the heart—even if it is never acted out—racism, too, begins in the heart, even though we may not have the social power to act on it by oppressing those we hate.”[8]

As history indicates, it isn’t just a white problem or a black, brown, yellow, or red problem. Its a human problem. Those in power have always exerted their prejudices, regardless of their race or nationality. Social power is necessary; racial prejudice is not. That is why power is not the problem. It is the prejudice of the human heart. Laws and social programs serve a good purpose. We need them. But we will never eradicate racial injustice through laws, government intervention or social programs as good as they are. What must be dealt with is the heart and mind of the individual. Racial prejudice in the heart is the oxygen that sustains racism in society. If you help people overcome prejudice, racism will dissipate and die out.

A daunting task? Perhaps. But is it as unrealistic as current methods which seek to redistribute power based on skin color? Can we create a society where race doesn’t matter while still using policies where race does matter? Dismantling racial prejudice is not as impossible as some say it is. Let us not forget the example of William Wilberforce, the great British abolitionist and member of Parliament. When he began his crusade to abolish slavery 200 years ago, his task could not have been more daunting. England’s economy was heavily dependent upon the slave trade. For 20 years he was voted down every year in Parliament. Yet in 1807 slavery was abolished in England, 50 years after Wilberforce began his crusade.[9]

There is still much work to do, but Americans have made some progress over the last 35 years. In the 1960’s, African-Americans were not allowed to use the same restroom as whites in the south, much less attend the same schools or get the same jobs. Although we have a long way to go, things are changing. They are not yet changing as quickly or to the extent they should and that is why we must continue to work hard. Can we afford to give up on equal opportunity and justice for all?

These are some of my questions. What do you think?

ENDNOTES

 

[1] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), 14.  Henceforth referred to as Statistical Abstract.

[2] Ibid., 14.

[3] Stanley, Thomas and Danko, William, The Millionaire Next Door: Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy (Pocket Books- Simon & Schuster Inc., 1996), Chapter One.

[4] Thernstrom, Abigal and Stephan, America In Black and White (Touchstone-Simon & Schuster, 1997), 534.  This landmark work by the Winthrop Professor of History at Harvard and his wife, herself a published scholar, is a 704 page volume of research, data, and statistics on the progress of black-white relations and the gains of African-Americans since desegregation.

[5] Covey, Stephen R., Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People  (Simon & Schuster, 1989), 219.  Most of the points in this paragraph come from Covey.

[6]Taken from the transcript of Minister Louis Farrakhan’s remarks at the Million Man March, Washington D.C., October 16, 1995.  It can be found in the archives at http://cnn.com.

[7] Statistical Abstract, 14.

[8] Washington & Kehrein, Breaking Down Walls: A Model for Reconciliation in an Age of Racial Strife (Moody Press, 1993), 225.  See also pp. 203-204.

[9] Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia 1998 Edition, Wilberforce, William

Is A “White” Value System Needed?

•November 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

The following comments are taken directly from a popular church website (link below):

The White Value System

These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They consist of the following concepts:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Matthew 22:37

1. Commitment to God. “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become White Christian Activists, soldiers for White freedom and the dignity of all humankind.

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother [or his sister], he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother or sister whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? I John 4:20

2. Commitment to the White Community. The highest level of achievement for any White person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the White Community.

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. Deuteronomy 6:6-8

3. Commitment to the White Family. The White family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society. Those Whites who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. Matthew 22:37

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education. We must forswear anti-intellectualism. Continued survival demands that each White person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process. “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment. Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems. Since the majority of Whites have been denied such learning, White Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college. Basic education for all Whites should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of White minds.

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Ecclesiastes 9:10

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence. To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the White Community. We must recognize the relativity of one’s best; this year’s best can be bettered next year. Such is the language of growth and development. We must seek to excel in every endeavor.

For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. II Thessalonians 3:7-12

6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic. “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.” Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a goal of the White workforce.

To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. I Peter 1:4-7

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect. To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline. We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others. Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of White Progress and a model for White Youth.

Happy are those who find wisdom and those who gain understanding, for her income is better than silver and her revenue better than gold. Proverbs 3:13-14

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:

1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”

4. So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of White “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, White people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.

5. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the White Community.

6. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions.

7. Pledge Allegiance to All White Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the White Value System.

8. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the White Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the White Community and the Advancement of White People towards freedom.

Although these comments have been removed since the controversy, these statements were taken verbatim from the website of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago formerly pastored by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The only difference is that the word “black” is used in place of “white” which you can read for yourself here.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.