Mohler: The Central Tragedy of this Case Remains—Trayvon Martin Belongs to Us All

Trayvon Martin is not dead because George Zimmerman was foolish. Trayvon Martin is dead because Trayvon Martin was foolish. His choice to go fight Zimmerman was the first in a series of bad decisions. I live a few miles from where this all happened.

[Greg Linscott]

It also helps you realize that there were some who realized that the outcome was perhaps inevitable (justice was served), but why they are still disappointed with the results. I see that being where Mohler is. His article is a demonstrated effort to display compassion and empathy apart from the specifics of the verdict.

James K—

It is Hannah, not Anne. Please don’t think that I don’t know that culture is the result of the human heart. But there can be cultures that condone certain sins and thus perpetuate them. As a culture, we condone violence, whether in video games, movies, cage fighting, or abortion clinics. We teach young men that their natural tendencies toward aggression are marks of manhood and celebrate the bluff and bluster that would make a confrontation like this happen. We do not teach them how to reign in their strength nor do we teach them to use it to care for others.

That is all that I meant about a culture of violence.

[Greg Linscott]

I do not agree at all, Dave. Look at what he says:

The New York Times editorial board rightly lamented the fact that the prosecutors faced a case “weak on evidence and long on outrage.” But the editors of The Washington Post got it exactly right when they declared that “the central tragedy of this case—the death of a 17-year-old boy who had been on a simple errand to get snacks—remains.”

In other words, the verdict was the right one. There wasn’t enough evidence to convict. He is not addressing the legal matter, though. He addresses the human tragedy present in the aftermath.

Have we become so conditioned to suspicion of “the media” and “liberals” and __________ than we cannot look at those with whom we have principled disagreements with any measure of Christian compassion? Have we come to that?

No, I don’t think so.

I agree with you on this, Greg. Whatever Mohler’s intentions were, he certainly didn’t come across as being one to gripe about the slantedness of the trial or the unfair verdict. On that, you and I agree.

Sorry Hannah, that was me not being careful about your name. I actually think that our culture’s tendency toward passivity among men perpetuates this kind of stuff. Bullies tend to exist when they think they can just overpower everyone. Martin clearly thought he could just take Zimmerman without any effort.

I’m curious how you think that disappointment with the outcome (what I am convinced I was reading in Mohler’s article) is substantially different from disagreeing with the verdict.

I don’t think Mohler disagreed, even. I am reading him to disconnect himself from what the proper legal outcomes should or should not have been, and connect with his readers (many of whom would share similar expectations and agreements with the verdict arrived at) in an attempt to move them to a more compassionate and empathic perspective with those who had different expectations.

I don’t se him as having characterized anyone in a decisive fashion. I see him as speaking in respectful enough terms to avoid offending those who drew a different conclusion.

From the beginning, this sad and unhappy episode was force-fit into a preexisting narrative, and the longer those efforts went, the more lame they became. But because people on both sides don’t always think carefully, some sympathetic to Zimmerman don’t realize that there is a grounded reason for the pent-up frustration. It doesn’t come from nowhere. The fact that this particular incident did not fit the preexisting narrative does not mean that such a narrative is itself mythical. I am confident that many of my black brothers can tell me of numerous times when they were pulled over for “driving while black.” How to handle that kind of thing is the conversation that Al Mohler has never had to have with his son.

Link

Read the whole thing.

Maybe another hand

“On the other hand, we have those who believe that he was a young black man up to no good, and that he was the aggressor in his fatal encounter with Zimmerman.”

• I don’t believe Trayvon was “up to no good”
• I do believe (and I believe the evidence supports this) that he struck Zimmerman in the face and slammed his head on the pavement.

Something happened there that is unknown to me.

Per Rachel Jeantel Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a possibly a rapist.

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely. After I say, “Might be a rapist.” For every boys or every man, every who’s not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, “You see a grown person follow it you, run away,” and all that.

[Greg Linscott]

I don’t think Mohler disagreed, even. I am reading him to disconnect himself from what the proper legal outcomes should or should not have been, and connect with his readers (many of whom would share similar expectations and agreements with the verdict arrived at) in an attempt to move them to a more compassionate and empathic perspective with those who had different expectations.

I don’t se him as having characterized anyone in a decisive fashion. I see him as speaking in respectful enough terms to avoid offending those who drew a different conclusion.

Greg, here is what in my mind a parallel example. Recently (I’m too lazy to google the details right now) there was a man in the Southwest (Arizona?) who said that his city government was persecuting him because he was having a Bible study in his home. Christians were quick to say, “See, the government is out to get Christians!” because it fit their view of government and religious freedom.

Then more details emerged. Turns out he was misrepresenting what was going on in his “home”—that he actually had built a structure on his property that looked like a church building and acted like a church building, but he refused to call it a church building. When the city tried to regulate it as they did any other church building, he defied them and cried “persecution!”

Do you think it would be appropriate for Christians to say, “This incident shows we need to work for religious freedom and the freedom to have Bible studies in our homes!” No, it wouldn’t be appropriate, because the incident proves nothing of the kind. Are some municipalities unfairly cracking down on home Bible studies? Yes, but this wasn’t one of those instances. And it makes Christians look bad when we use an incident to argue for something that has nothing to do with said incident.

I think that is exactly parallel to this situation. Does racism happen? Are black men unfairly profiled? Are black people sensitive to any incident based on racism or racial profiling? Yes, yes, and yes. But basing calls for action and compassion on an incident which cannot be proven had anything to do with the thing you’re calling for action for, does nothing to serve your cause.

I think what most of us here find most offensive, is the title of the article. “Trayvon Martin belongs to us all”??? Really?

In what way?

Albert Mohler is addressing a Christian audience. Yet I doubt that Martin was a Christian. And Martin’s history and actions do not appear the actions of someone who should be honored, or treated as a martyr.

Trayvon Martin certainly does not belong to me. And unlike Obama, I will say “Trayvon is no son of mine”.

[christian cerna]

I think what most of us here find most offensive, is the title of the article. “Trayvon Martin belongs to us all”??? Really?

In what way?

So, if his brothers fight on behalf of this country, would you deny them, too? Do you only appreciate the white soldiers, police officers, etc. etc?

Trayvon Martin does belong to us all. It is because we don’t take ownership that violence like this continues to occur.

I admit, it’s not something easy to change. But if Christians like us don’t look at things and try to help, what hope is there? We could all take Mr. Cerna’s approach and effectively conclude, “not my problem,” or to quote James 2:16 in the high King James, “Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled.” And hey, maybe that’s one of the reasons churches in “the movement” are struggling. Because people who sin? Not my problem. They’re not my kids.

What else do you say?

Mr. Long,

I don’t think the situation is exactly parallel. We don’t have a long history of the majority of churches having government interference in regards to buildings, for one. For two, race issues may not have been to blame, but they did factor into this case, whether all of them were verbally observable or not. There was stereotyping going on in the immediate case (we know, for example, that Zimmerman was called a “crackar,” for sure), there are comments from columnists, bloggers, the guy on the street- this thing is racially charged. It just is. There’s no denying it- whether or not it was primarily to blame in this case, it stirred up the anthill and exposed the very real divide in this country.

[Greg Linscott]

[christian cerna]

I think what most of us here find most offensive, is the title of the article. “Trayvon Martin belongs to us all”??? Really?

In what way?

So, if his brothers fight on behalf of this country, would you deny them, too? Do you only appreciate the white soldiers, police officers, etc. etc?

Trayvon Martin does belong to us all. It is because we don’t take ownership that violence like this continues to occur.

I admit, it’s not something easy to change. But if Christians like us don’t look at things and try to help, what hope is there? We could all take Mr. Cerna’s approach and effectively conclude, “not my problem,” or to quote James 2:16 in the high King James, “Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled.” And hey, maybe that’s one of the reasons churches in “the movement” are struggling. Because people who sin? Not my problem. They’re not my kids.

What else do you say?

Greg, is that “white guilt” speaking? First of all, I made no mention of race in my comment.(By the way, I am Hispanic) I was referring to the fact that Trayvon Martin was a free agent in this world. I can no more control him than I can control the wind. You keep saying that we Christians need to take ownership. Ownership of what exactly??? Are you blaming all acts of violence in this country on the Church? Are you blaming any violence on the Church? The only thing we can take ownership of, is our own actions. Since when is it the Church’s mission to be a police force? The Church is there to preach the gospel and to provide a place for believers to come together to worship and pray and hear the word of God. We are not there to stop the violence that exists in this world, or racial strife, or any other social ills.

Christianity is not some type of movement that exists to bring about political or social change. It is a message of repentance, and of the coming kingdom of God.

One other thing, Greg. Are you God? Do you know all of Trayvon’s life? For some reason, you are assuming that during those 17 years of his existence on this Earth, no one ever preached the gospel to him. You are assuming that there were no Christians that came across his path(relatives, teachers, counselors, cops) who tried to give him direction in his life. Most likely Trayvon did hear the Gospel, had friends and relatives who tried to help him get his life in order, but he rejected them and chose to live as he pleased.