Mohler: The Central Tragedy of this Case Remains—Trayvon Martin Belongs to Us All
- 23 views
[DavidO]Not at all. “We’d rather you not” is not any kind of order, and in fact “we don’t need you to…” likely expresses no more than “it’s not necessary, since someone is on the way.” Note that it wasn’t “please don’t,” nor was it “Don’t!,” or anything even resembling a hard request, let alone an order. And one thing the dispatcher *did* ask was whether or not he could see the suspicious person, which, at least in the mind of the juror interviewed last night, most likely led to Zimmerman’s getting out of his truck to determine if he could see the suspect.Trayvon Martin was killed, however, not by another African-American young male, but by a man who in a 911 call declared Trayvon was suspicious and out of place and then rejected the police dispatcher’s [request] to stop following him. ~ Dr. Mohler
Does that change it all that much? I use request because the implication of “we don’t need you to do that” is more likely “we’d rather you not” than “go ahead if you have nothing better to do…”
Dave Barnhart
T
[handerson] Should he be held responsible in some way?
He was:
- Arrested
- Incarcerated
- Tried before a jury of his peers
[Greg Linscott] To be blunt, do Christian white people really need more reinforcement from someone like Mohler that “all those” black people are violent, lazy, drug-addicted thugs who are more responsible for their own destruction than not, or do they need reminders that this is, regardless of skin color or character flaws, a tragedy that took out one of our own, and that this is a problem we need to take responsibility for instead of blaming others for not taking theirs like we think they should?Who has said anything remotely like “all those black people are violent, lazy, drug-addicted thugs who are more responsible for their own destruction than not”? And why are those the only two choices? Why can’t we just be concerned for the truth? Why do I need to take responsibility for this?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Jim,
I meant responsible for foolish choices, not murder. Truthfully, I think the punishment he is receiving at the hands of media and national opinion is far worse than he deserves. When he was painted as a racist from the beginning, he was slandered and will never be able to clear his name.
Still, I do think that the bravado that he felt to engage the situation was foolhardy. And this behavior ultimately resulted in a confrontation—which either one could have walked away from—that resulted in the death of Martin. In this sense, I do wish there were a way to acknowledge this and punish the foolishness of not waiting for police to come. Perhaps the process of arrest, incarceration, and trial are the punishment for that.
The whole thing reads like the book of Proverbs.
[GregH]I call exaggeration on this statement. BJU began admitting married black students in 1971, and all black students in 1975. Clemson University lost a court case and was forced to admit its first black student in 1963, and it was only by 1965 that all SC public colleges were admitting black students.Now, I would agree with you that BJU should have led the way on this, not been forced into it, but only 6-10 years after all public colleges were starting to do something is not “many years.” It’s sad that BJU waited as long as they did, and it’s no excuse that all other SC colleges had the same type of discrimination for even longer than BJU had existed, but your statement is exaggerating to make a point, just what we are claiming the media is doing.Consider Bob Jones University which refused to admit African Americans until many years after state schools did.
Dave Barnhart
Yes … but the stats are current: “Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.”
To cite this does not make one racist. I have 2 black nephews, 1 black niece, and one brown (non-white - whatever that means!) son-in-law. I just view them as nephews, niece, and son-in-law!
We continued to be hoodwinked on “race”
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/sunday-review/has-caucasian-lost-its-…
Susan Glisson, who as the executive director of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation in Oxford, Miss., regularly witnesses Southerners sorting through their racial vocabulary, said she rarely hears “Caucasian.” “Most of the folks who work in this field know that it’s a completely ridiculous term to assign to whites,” she said. “I think it’s a term of last resort for people who are really uncomfortable talking about race. They use the term that’s going to make them be as distant from it as possible.”
[Greg Linscott]Greg, I can’t speak for others, but for myself, I fail to see how a call to “weep with those who weep” is at all furthered by the use of inaccurate information, whether innocently, or in an attempt to get more of us to weep.The direction of the comments in this thread is a case in point for why Mohler needed to write the article he did. At this stage, the verdict is in. Nothing more will be accomplished (if indeed it would have otherwise) by debating the finer points of character of the parties involved. There is going to be, however, resentment, finger pointing, and yes, violence that ensues. Do we meet that with scorn, contempt, and retreat? How does “weep with those who weep” look in this situation?
To be blunt, do Christian white people really need more reinforcement from someone like Mohler that “all those” black people are violent, lazy, drug-addicted thugs who are more responsible for their own destruction than not, or do they need reminders that this is, regardless of skin color or character flaws, a tragedy that took out one of our own, and that this is a problem we need to take responsibility for instead of blaming others for not taking theirs like we think they should?
Dave Barnhart
Yes … but the stats are current: “Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.”
To cite this does not make one racist.
Understood. But citing it also doesn’t solve anything. Blacks kill other blacks. They’ve been doing it for a while, now. Mohler’s piece provides a change in perspective that says “How can we change that?” rather than “Those people really need to get their act together.”
Why do I need to take responsibility for this?
Mohler’s point: because you’re an American, and this is an American problem. Furthermore, you’re an Christian, and so in investing yourself, you have potential, not only to be a possible solution to the related issues in your sphere of influence, but allowing such actions to magnify the gospel which you proclaim.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[dcbii] Greg, I can’t speak for others, but for myself, I fail to see how a call to “weep with those who weep” is at all furthered by the use of inaccurate information, whether innocently, or in an attempt to get more of us to weep.
Just because Mohler doesn’t provide all the information doesn’t mean he’s inaccurate. In another arena, many people try to discredit Calvinism because of Servetus, etc. Even if Calvin did act improperly, though, does that invalidate his conclusions? If someone defends Calvin’s position without raising potential character issues like this, is he being inaccurate?
The point is not whether TM was an happy, innocent Skittle-eating kid or not, or whether this case is getting more attention than it should or not. Mohler’s comments could be summed up this way- “Hey, since this issue is being used to highlight a matter of national concern, let’s make sure we as Christians are doing our best to address said matter compassionately and with Biblical wisdom, instead of writing it off or leaving it for others to deal with.”
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[dcbii][GregH]I call exaggeration on this statement. BJU began admitting married black students in 1971, and all black students in 1975. Clemson University lost a court case and was forced to admit its first black student in 1963, and it was only by 1965 that all SC public colleges were admitting black students. Now, I would agree with you that BJU should have led the way on this, not been forced into it, but only 6-10 years after all public colleges were starting to do something is not “many years.” It’s sad that BJU waited as long as they did, and it’s no excuse that all other SC colleges had the same type of discrimination for even longer than BJU had existed, but your statement is exaggerating to make a point, just what we are claiming the media is doing.Consider Bob Jones University which refused to admit African Americans until many years after state schools did.
You call exaggeration on 10 years being “many”? I suppose we all have our definition of what “many” is but accusing me of exaggeration over something so relative strikes me as not helpful, especially when “many” would agree with my definition of “many” and the broader point stands regardless of whether it is many, some or few. ;)
Who said: “Understood. But citing it also doesn’t solve anything”
Why don’t we go beyond race and say like Paul: “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth …” Acts 17:26 instead of falling into the same racial stereotypes of the world!
In this scenario:
- The Trayvon Martin case is still a tragedy (and it is …. a young boy-man lost his life seemingly needlessly)
- But it doesn’t bubble up to the top of the pile of all the senseless killings: whether the 3 year old in N Minneapolis, the downs syndrome boy at the theater, etc.
…but nowhere does Mohler say that this case deserves to “bubble up to the top of the pile,” so to speak. He observes,
“America is divided once again in the aftermath of the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.”
And then…
“The central tragedy remains. …the tragedy of a boy now dead, of parents and loved ones grieving, and of a nation further wounded, confused, and tormented by the color line.”
Nowhere does he say that there isn’t confusion on the issues. Nowhere does he say that TM had a spotless character. He just observes that this larger matter is an issue we shouldn’t dismiss or leave to others to solve.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
GregH wrote: “I know very dedicated (and conservative) black Christians who are devastated by the verdict.”
Why are they devastated?
I feel like your statement that we shouldn’t tell them they are mistaken calls for a response, but without understanding the source(s) of devastation, I’m not sure it would be productive.
[GregH]If your broader point is that Christianity at large was worse in regards to racism than the world at large (thus we “need” a lecture from Mohler), and as evidence you cite a single *southern* university that was only 6 years behind other schools in its state (the larger number applies for a different reason, interracial dating, on which they were also wrong, but is a separate topic) in accepting certain students, you have hardly made your broader point. And calling that number of years “many” is a very clear exaggeration, when “many years” is hardly ever seen as some number short of a couple of decades at least, unless your frame of reference is that of a child who sees 6-10 years as “many.” (If you don’t believe me, try telling someone that Harvard University has done X for many years, and see if anyone thinks that means only 6 or 10.) Obviously, BJU has had to correct some things over the years, but there is no reason to paint their errors in a worse light than they actually are. However, this is just a side point.Christians hardly have clean hands in regard to racism in the USA. However, what really does not help is a noted Christian calling us to “understand” while still spouting some of the inaccuracies of the media, perhaps in a vain attempt to gain more hearing or sympathy. The dead person was hardly just a boy getting snacks (any more than the hands of the person who took his life were spotless), and misrepresentation of other facts, like the mischaracterization of the actual words the dispatcher said as an “order,” in fact make his whole article suspect. If someone as usually careful as Mohler doesn’t care to get the facts right in this case (or worse still, has misrepresented them intentionally), that weakens his point, rather than helping it.You call exaggeration on 10 years being “many”? I suppose we all have our definition of what “many” is but accusing me of exaggeration over something so relative strikes me as not helpful, especially when “many” would agree with my definition of “many” and the broader point stands regardless of whether it is many, some or few. ;)
Dave Barnhart
[Robert Byers]GregH wrote: “I know very dedicated (and conservative) black Christians who are devastated by the verdict.”
Why are they devastated?
I feel like your statement that we shouldn’t tell them they are mistaken calls for a response, but without understanding the source(s) of devastation, I’m not sure it would be productive.
I don’t know that I quite have a good handle on their reasoning but the general gist is that the playing field is uneven and if the situation had a different racial perspective, the end result would have been different.
Also, they believe that Zimmerman should be punished in some way for what he did because he did end up killing an unarmed teenager and should not have been in that situation in the first place. Because he is walking away, they see it as society not valuing the life of a black person as much as they would value the life of a white person.
Discussion