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

What about the poor people living in Myanmar? Or the elderly man who passed away unnoticed in his little cottage in Norway? Or the man waiting on death row for the murder of a 10 year old girl he abducted while she walked home from school? Do they belong to us too?

James 1:27

This thread is quickly becoming nonsensical. Can we have some actual dialogue here?

How about we define some terms - what does it mean to say that someone ‘belongs’ to us? And who is us? Humanity? Christians? Americans?

We should, of course, be grieved when a soul - any soul - goes out into a Christless eternity. Our sense of compassion should twinge when we hear about children floundering without parental guidance or moral anchoring. Our ministry efforts should include discipling parents and supporting at risk families.

But ‘belong’? As in others are somehow responsible for what happened?

Hooeyhokumblarney. We don’t remedy injustice by soaking in a pool of gooey emotional syrup. The media doesn’t give a rip about dead black kids unless they are harmed or killed by someone with light skin. And we aren’t doing black Americans, or any other Americans, any favors by neglecting to deal with the facts and trying to look good by doling out sappy directives that have nothing to do with the actual case.

Martin died during the commission of a crime. Zimmerman was following him to see what he was up to, but Martin was the one who actually engaged in criminal activity, and Zimmerman responded with deadly force.

As for lessons that our children should learn? How about “Don’t jump someone and beat their head into the ground, ‘cause they might turn the tables on you” or “If you see a creepy cracker, get off the phone with your friends and call 911”.

All parents, not just black parents, need to have talks with their kids about how to avoid risky situations, and how to detect predators and predatory behavior. I highly recommend Protecting the Gift by Gavin de Becker.

While we are not ‘at fault’ if someone decides to commit violence against us, there are ways to reduce our risk, and we can give our children the tools they need to make better decisions when they are out and about on their own.

[Susan R]

This thread is quickly becoming nonsensical. Can we have some actual dialogue here?

I agree… We could do with less nonsensical statements like this for a start.

[Susan R]

The media doesn’t give a rip about dead black kids unless they are harmed or killed by someone with light skin.

If you find my statement nonsensical, then refute it. The media seldom reports, with the furor and passion that was paid to the Martin case, the deaths of young blacks unless they were harmed/killed by a light-skinned person. By and large, they’ve reported this case in a dishonest and biased fashion that has nothing to do with the facts of the case. What other conclusion should I draw?

Where is the outrage that a grandmother, who was taking her little granddaughter to the hospital, was blocked and attacked by Martin supporting protestors? If major news outlets care so much about racial tension, why not report that shocking incident? Now the grandmother feels she needs a gun to protect herself. Guess what is going to happen the next time someone attacks Grandma?

There are dozens of journalists, bloggers, and columnists making the same point all over the net and news websites. They are listing dozens upon dozens of examples. That is called evidence to support my opinion. Feel free to explain why you find it nonsensical.

[Susan R]

If you find my statement nonsensical, then refute it. The media seldom reports, with the furor and passion that was paid to the Martin case, the deaths of young blacks unless they were harmed/killed by a light-skinned person. By and large, they’ve reported this case in a dishonest and biased fashion that has nothing to do with the facts of the case. What other conclusion should I draw?

Where is the outrage that a grandmother, who was taking her little granddaughter to the hospital, was blocked and attacked by Martin supporting protestors? If major news outlets care so much about racial tension, why not report that shocking incident? Now the grandmother feels she needs a gun to protect herself. Guess what is going to happen the next time someone attacks Grandma?

There are dozens of journalists, bloggers, and columnists making the same point all over the net and news websites. They are listing dozens upon dozens of examples. That is called evidence to support my opinion. Feel free to explain why you find it nonsensical.

You said that the media does not give a rip about black people dying unless they are killed by light-skinned people. That is a hyperbole-driven statement straight from talk radio that is not helpful and not serious.

Whether the media considers every black death newsworthy is one thing. Whether they care is quite another. It is ungracious and offensive to accuse them of not caring.

If correctly quoting your own words to demonstrate that you did not say what you claim you said is assuming the worst about you, then I guess I made assumptions. If correctly quoting your own words to demonstrate that you did not say what you claim you said is absolutely wrong, then I guess I’m wrong.

My intent is not to control the narrative but to correct it.

Feel free to have the last word. I’m done.

And we aren’t doing black Americans, or any other Americans, any favors by neglecting to deal with the facts and trying to look good by doling out sappy directives that have nothing to do with the actual case.

Susan,

I understand it’s not a clean parallel, but did Jesus refuse to deal with the actual facts when asked to deal with the woman caught in adultery?

Whatever Mohler did and didn’t do in the piece, a careful and reasonably gracious reading of it can see that he had no intent to reach a conclusion of who exactly was guilty of what. He provided just enough of a background so people had an idea of the case he was talking about, and then called for American Christians to focus on positive and attainable action, rather than continue to engage in pointless debate to no profit. Okay, his portrayal of the facts could have been more thorough and precise. But it was never his point to convince or persuade anyone of the innocence or guilt of Martin, Zimmerman, or anyone else.

Asking for Christians to look at the situation and 1. have a talk with their own children, 2. have empathy for the ones who have lost one of theirs, and 3. to understand that the situation and its coverage have brought to light that there are people in this country who still have to deal with things like “driving while black” is not “soaking in a pool of gooey emotional syrup.”

In the end, I can happily concede that the media has been obviously tilted in its portrayal of the situation. Still doesn’t change the attitude with which I should engage people in the world.

Fair assessment Greg. Thanks. Also, the article by Doug Wilson was excellent.

But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

I’m not sure what to say to this entire discussion anymore. Trayvon and George are my ‘neighbors’ (were, in Trayvon’s case), but I fail to see what to take from this experience. It hasn’t changed my command to love my neighbor as myself. It hasn’t altered to ‘need’ to ‘seek justice’ (which - whether you like the verdict or not - was done). This case took place literally thousands of miles from my home, so I don’t know any of the people involved. I wasn’t able to break up the fight or shooting that lead to Trayvon’s death.

Other than griping about the government’s politicization of the case (which, incidentally, is a sin), what exactly am I supposed to do? I think that Dr. Mohler’s point has been largely lost on all of us, and to be honest, I’m still not sure what his article’s aim was. Care about other people, including people of color? OK, well, that was already covered in the second great commandment. Am I supposed to be grieved that they didn’t get the justice that some sought? But if I’m right, they don’t want justice - they want unjust vengeance. So am I supposed to go join the local march for Trayvon or volunteer at the local NAACP meeting?

So what’s the point and what, exactly, should I take away from this? Or any of the other discussions on SI about the lack of justice in the Earth?

Someone throw me a line here.

[Greg Linscott]

And we aren’t doing black Americans, or any other Americans, any favors by neglecting to deal with the facts and trying to look good by doling out sappy directives that have nothing to do with the actual case.

Susan,

I understand it’s not a clean parallel, but did Jesus refuse to deal with the actual facts when asked to deal with the woman caught in adultery?

Whatever Mohler did and didn’t do in the piece, a careful and reasonably gracious reading of it can see that he had no intent to reach a conclusion of who exactly was guilty of what. He provided just enough of a background so people had an idea of the case he was talking about, and then called for American Christians to focus on positive and attainable action, rather than continue to engage in pointless debate to no profit. Okay, his portrayal of the facts could have been more thorough and precise. But it was never his point to convince or persuade anyone of the innocence or guilt of Martin, Zimmerman, or anyone else.

Asking for Christians to look at the situation and 1. have a talk with their own children, 2. have empathy for the ones who have lost one of theirs, and 3. to understand that the situation and its coverage have brought to light that there are people in this country who still have to deal with things like “driving while black” is not “soaking in a pool of gooey emotional syrup.”

In the end, I can happily concede that the media has been obviously tilted in its portrayal of the situation. Still doesn’t change the attitude with which I should engage people in the world.

Actually, Jesus did deal with the facts of the case. He certainly did not mischaracterize anyone’s actions to make a point. He addressed all guilty parties according to their hearts.

…what to do when the police pull you over and you are a young black man. The talk about what to do when you are eyed suspiciously by people just because you are a young black male. The talk about how to act and how to respond when people watch just to see if you are trouble.

The name of his piece is “The Central Tragedy of this Case Remains—Trayvon Martin Belongs to Us All”. I agree that Mohler is not trying to sway anyone’s opinion as to who is and isn’t guilty. But his point- that based on what happened to Martin, black families must warn their children that their skin color is a factor in how they conduct themselves- is far too inaccurate and blurred to cause anyone to focus on positive and attainable action. It doesn’t relieve racial tensions- it reinforces them by catering to a false portrayal of the incident.

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.”

No, they didn’t get it right. Leaving out the fact that Martin was killed because he attacked Zimmerman is an enormously glaring attempt to misconstrue the fact of this case.

The fact is, all families, regardless of ethnicity, must teach their children what is and isn’t ‘risk’ behavior, how to spot a predator, and how to react appropriately. We are not teaching anyone positive and attainable actions by neglecting to warn young people of any color that their actions have consequences. Attacking someone you think might be a rapist is not an innocent activity. I don’t think Martin deserved to die, but he placed himself at risk for violence by being violent. A white boy (or a ‘white’ Hispanic boy) who took the same actions as Martin would also have ended up lying on the pavement, bleeding and dying.

If anyone can refute that, please do so asap.

We are told to speak the truth in love. Truth and love go hand in hand, they are not opposites. All attempts to characterize honesty as lacking in compassion violates this Biblical principle. We are showing courageous compassion by acknowledging all the facts the dealing with each one of them in their context, because, let’s face it- sometimes it ain’t perty to deal in facts.

The “Trayvon Martin Belongs to Us All” line is, IMO, gooey emotional syrup. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s so… Oprah.

And please note- I enjoy reading Mohler’s articles. I think he is, more often than not, right on the money. This one bothers me, though, and I don’t think it makes the point he intended. He’s better than that, and I think it’s ok to say that IMO he’s better than that.

But his point- that based on what happened to Martin, black families must warn their children that their skin color is a factor in how they conduct themselves- is far too inaccurate and blurred to cause anyone to focus on positive and attainable action. It doesn’t relieve racial tensions- it reinforces them by catering to a false portrayal of the incident.

I don’t think his point was they had to do this based on what happened. His point was they already do that, and the coverage of the case simply brought that to light.

Actually, Jesus did deal with the facts of the case. He certainly did not mischaracterize anyone’s actions to make a point. He addressed all guilty parties according to their hearts.

As I said, not a clean parallel. But what he didn’t do was rehearse the woman’s actions with her accusers. Whatever else, I think it’s pretty safe to assume Mohler’s audience would not generally consist of “the black community.” He knows to whom he speaks, and as a white male raised in the South, he has a pretty good idea of the attitudes that need addressing among those to whom he speaks.

The “Trayvon Martin Belongs to Us All” line is, IMO, gooey emotional syrup. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s so… Oprah.

Again, as I said earlier, we don’t get to choose what draws people’s attention and what doesn’t. There are cases that we need to look at and respond to, say, on our local level that won’t draw the scrutiny and attention that this story has. He’s not saying to throw out observation and so on. At the same time, skin color alone isn’t sufficient to “identify a predator.” Still, saying “he belongs to us all” in the end means the response the coverage of this matter has exposed isn’t just a situation that other people need to work to correct- the media, black parents, George Zimmerman, gun rights activists, etc etc. It means that we all have an opportunity to change the climate through our actions and behavior- and he is making the point with his audience that they need to begin by realizing they must play a part in the solution. They have a responsibility to do so.

Is it possible that Mohler was not saying that because of the TM case, black parents have to tell their children to be more careful because their skin color makes them more subject to injustice, but that such injustice has been the case in America for a long time, and the TM case is simply another occasion to “have the talk” with their sons? Whether we are aware of it or not, “driving while black” is a real phenomenon in America, the common experience of most black Americans, and almost always on their minds. Is it really asking too much for white Christians to acknowledge this injustice, and sympathize with our black neighbors accordingly?

[G. N. Barkman]

Is it really asking too much for white Christians to acknowledge this injustice, and sympathize with our black neighbors accordingly?

Apparently…

[GregH]

[G. N. Barkman]

Is it really asking too much for white Christians to acknowledge this injustice, and sympathize with our black neighbors accordingly?

Apparently…

saying we should not acknowledge injustice and racial tensions, or sympathize with our black neighbors? If they did, I missed it.