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

[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?

I say that you passed by the question, Greg. You reemphasize that Trayvon Martin belongs to us all, but you do not explain how. Until we understand that, we are not in a position to move forward to the subsequent issues. So to re-ask Mr. Cerna’s question, which I share, in what way does Trayvon Martin belong to us all?

Greg, is that “white guilt” speaking?

Um, I’m half Filipino. So your accusation is only potentially half true. :)

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.

Absolutely. But our good works can and should adorn the gospel. See James 1:27’s definition of “Pure Religion.” And the fact is, if people are won to Christ, that will generally have a significant impact on how they live their lives.

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.

I’m not blind to that possibility. My best friend from high school pastors a GARBC congregation in Santa Monica. They had a mass shooting in the local community college there that made national news recently. Come to find out, the shooter was one whom the church had ministered to as a child. So yeah, it happens.

Still, you ask why I keep talking about “taking ownership.” I am saying that we need to own this as our problem as citizens of this country, one. As Christians, two, we have better solutions at our disposal than the typical citizen. It’s a little harder where I live to address the specific “black” problem, but we personally have done foster care for one such child (and were on track to adopt her). We have a good relationship with her parents, still.

Mohler is writing to Christians, yes- but he is, in the main, writing to Christians who are US citizens. TM is one of ours.

Greg, what about Martin’s parents? Where do they fit into all of this?

How about we say that Trayvon’s parents should have taken ownership of their son’s life.

Isn’t Zimmerman an American? I don’t see you saying that Zimmerman is one of ours. Is that reverse discrimination?

Greg Linscott,

Thanks for being willing to step up and tell the truth even though it is obviously not a truth that many want to hear. I have often thought that we (conservative Christians) are very foolish if we actually think we have no bias that clouds our thinking in this area. Our track record is pathetic as a whole in race relations and we all have been influenced by people who have contributed to that.

We could all name probably dozens of people that we have heard say “I’m not a racist but…” and then go on to prove in the rest of the sentence that they are indeed a racist. I have never actually heard a racist admit they are a racist and I don’t know that I have ever met a racist that even realized that they were a racist.

I am not saying that anyone here is a racist. But on the other hand, this is an area where we all probably have powerful biases that cloud our thinking without our ever realizing it. I am guilty of that and I am convinced most of us are.

It is possible to say that Zimmerman was probably innocent, the media misrepresented some things, and the reaction from the black community has not all been stellar and STILL be open to examining whether we have done what we should for the black community and whether they have legitimate gripes about an unfair playing field. I think that is all Greg L and Mohler are getting at.

When the verdict came in on Saturday and I saw the comments coming in on Facebook from my black friends, my instinct was to get mad because I do believe that Zimmerman while very stupid is innocent from a legal perspective. But my second reaction was to ask myself what I am missing from the big picture.

Instead of doing a retrial of the case here to attempt to prove how innocent Zimmerman was, it really would be more beneficial to examine ourselves and also actually try to understand where the black community is coming from.

Greg Linscottt: You would be much better served to write your own article, rather than to try to defend Mohler’s. Or to have made your first comment the link to Doug Wilson’s (apparently superior) article. Instead, you have had to spend almost all of your time here re-stating, summarizing, and elaborating on what you think Mohler meant to say — because what Mohler actually did say about the facts of the case was so obviously tilted and inaccurate. (Which is a disappointing approach on his part.) Give up the defense of a loser of an article and get a clean start on the points you think need to be made.

I don’t think I’m going to do that. I would have linked to Wilson’s earlier, but I didn’t see it until just before I linked to it. I still don’t see Mohler’s effort as sub-par, though. I think it’s right on.

[christian cerna]

Greg, what about Martin’s parents? Where do they fit into all of this?

How about we say that Trayvon’s parents should have taken ownership of their son’s life.

Absolutely. But though their responsibility is primary, we still shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the issue. This is a national problem, as stats have shown.

Isn’t Zimmerman an American? I don’t see you saying that Zimmerman is one of ours. Is that reverse discrimination?

Sure, he is an American. And really, the solutions we should seek to implement for one would impact and affect the other in this case, I would say. If I haven’t said it directly, it wasn’t because I was distancing from him. He just wasn’t in the headline- and frankly, it’s because 1. He’s still alive, and 2. He’s a grown adult, and so our sense of responsibility changes.

I’m not delusional in thinking that our churches can solve this all by ourselves. But we as Christians and congregations can certainly make more of a difference than we have.

The central tragedy is very simply how everything is made into a political issue, for political gain. The local law enforcement and local prosecutor did not see any reason to charge Zimmerman with anything. The FBI’s report said there was no element of racial hatred. Instead from Washington to Tallahassee (Ds & Rs) decided to score political points.

The verdict did not appease this desire, so now the the top law enforcement in the nation is setting up a website to collect information on Zimmerman’s hatred of blacks http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/feds-want-zimmerman-any-way-they-c… .

I would submit to you as Christians we need to have the discussion amongst church leadership and with our congregations how to respond to a government that will not stop until it gets its way. The topics are plentiful, gay-marriage, social justice vs committing ourselves to a gracious God, 2 Peter 2:3-3, what the works worthy of repentance look like…

I personally feel that Mohler and others have missed the central issue and that is “we the people vs the government” and how we as Christians need to respond accordingly.

Greg “you belong to us all” too!

Needless obfuscation but whatever floats your boat

I Am the Walrus (* Lennon, amused that a teacher was putting so much effort into understanding the Beatles’ lyrics, wrote the most confusing lyrics he could)

Maybe it wasn’t needed for deciding the outcome of the case, but it certainly would have put things in perspective. The after effects would have quieted the racists who believe Trayvon was an “innocent child” and had no responsibility in his own death.

and now we are hearing that an employee, taking advantage of the whistle-blower law, is charging that the prosecution deliberately without evidence that would have incriminated Martin. This, of course, is a violation of the law.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/jimmy-carter-george-zimmerman-ver…

The jury made the “right decision” in the George Zimmerman murder trial, former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

“I think the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented, because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman that he was not at all defending himself, and so forth,” Carter told Atlanta news channel WXIA. “It’s not a moral question, it’s a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented.”

Someone shared this link on FB last night. It is an interesting perspective from a black pastor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CUNUVhzFAQ

Mod action: Hyperlinked the above

I’m not sure I’m going to do much more good here, so I’m going to try to sew things up (from my end, anyway).

The best illustration I can come up with as far as how the situation is being handled is this: most of you are looking at the matter very technically, like a medical examiner would look at a corpse, trying to find the exact cause of death and so on. Mohler’s article is approaching the situation like a pastor should- regardless of specific cause or condition, there are people grieving, and he’s there to provide a measure of sympathy, comfort, and dignity to a difficult situation.

There is a time for autopsies. The funeral isn’t one of them.

[Greg Linscott]

I’m not sure I’m going to do much more good here, so I’m going to try to sew things up (from my end, anyway).

The best illustration I can come up with as far as how the situation is being handled is this: most of you are looking at the matter very technically, like a medical examiner would look at a corpse, trying to find the exact cause of death and so on. Mohler’s article is approaching the situation like a pastor should- regardless of specific cause or condition, there are people grieving, and he’s there to provide a measure of sympathy, comfort, and dignity to a difficult situation.

There is a time for autopsies. The funeral isn’t one of them.

I can appreciate the way you are seeing this, but still disagree. To use your analogy, what Mohler is doing is similar to attempting to give people comfort about the eternal state of someone that everyone knows demonstrated evidence that they did not know God, but that evidence is being glossed over. When there is objection to that glossing, one of the other mourners is telling us we are missing the big point that people need comfort and healing and confidence that God saves sinners, even though the rest of the mourners know that this sinner by all accounts had no use for God, so such comfort is irrelevant, and if based on false information, is not really helpful.

(Just to be clear, for those of you that would try to read something into this, I’m just using the analogy. The deceased is representative of the event, not any person.)

No doubt there is a need for comfort and healing after an event like this, and I don’t think any of us disagree with that. It’s just that this case is not a good springboard to deal with racial tension when the evidence does not show that this case was at all even related to racial tension, except amongst the outside observers. Right now, it seems the only comfort that is desired is that the accused gets some “justice” (i.e. punishment) based on the fact that the deceased was part of a group that somehow never gets real justice. Does this outcome of this case help demonstrate that there are still big issues to be dealt with? Sure, but again, it’s really the reactions of outsiders that are demonstrating this problem, not the case itself.

I’m not at this point sure of what I should take from Mohler’s article. Am I sorry a person is dead? Yes. Will I work to make sure my dealings and judgment of others are as free from racial bias as possible? Yes. Will I decry such invalid bias in other Christians and ask them to take a long look at what they are saying/doing? Yes. Do I think our society needs changes in the way we handle racial disagreement? Yes, though I’m sure my particular opinions on this will be different from those calling for “justice.” Will I agree that it’s the “system” which is responsible for this death and that there need to be big legal and social changes along the lines of what the mourners are demanding, and work for those changes even though I disagree? No, and I think that’s only “comfort” some will accept.

Racial bias may be a problem that belongs to all of us, even if it’s not a problem for each individual. I disagree that the deceased in this case is someone who belongs to all of us any more than all sinners should be our responsibility as Christians, including the accused.