The Gospel, Social Justice, and T4G

[JD Miller]

Andrew wrote:

You’re using the old communication model, JD. As are most of us here.

You see, there’s been a switch and we haven’t really been up to speed on it: analogous to “reader-response” literary criticism, your intentions are no longer the sole arbiter of meaning over your communications. That is, if offense is taken by someone higher up on the chain of grievance than you (which I hate to tell you, but as a white, male, evangelical, that’s absolutely everyone), then you are guilty, regardless of your intent.

The only thing left to do is to apologize for your insensitivity. But even that’s not really enough for genuine “redemption” anymore. You have to throw yourself into Leftist causes.

I think that this was a bit harsh, however I must admit that I have had similar feelings even though I decided it may be hurtful to express them in such blunt terms. My wife does not understand completely how I feel because she is not a white male. Having said that, we as white males must also realize that this gives us a taste of what a black man or women in general may be feeling when they hear derogatory statements about them.

The point I keep reiterating is that we as Christians should not accept ungodly statements about anyone regardless of whether they are privileged or not. What frustrates me is when I get pushback from some Christians who justify attacking certain groups of people. What makes it difficult is that the pushback comes from a wide range- some want to justify attacking minorities, some want to justify attacking women, some want to justify attacking white men, etc etc. We need to remember to love our neighbor and love God regardless of where they are on the social scale.

No, I don’t think it’s harsh at all. You are putting to narrow an application on a general principal I was drawing out about interpretation of public statements.
Let’s a look at the Lorde/Whitney Houston debacle: (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/entertainment/lorde-whitney-houston-joke…) Do you really think Lorde was making a joke about Whitney Houston dying in the bathtub? Does anyone care? The fact is it was said and interpreted as such, and no one really cares what she meant. There is a racial subtext to this story as well, to the observant.
There are plenty more examples like this.
I’m not trying to be bitter or make any accusations toward anyone. Knowingly offending someone is to be avoided as disciples of Christ, and we could all use a good deal more care in our choice of words. Here, however, I’m just describing what is. If you think I’m being inaccurate and/or reactive, frankly you’re not reading as many news stories as I am.

Here’s another relevant story, one that you have almost certainly seen: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/health/implicit-bias-philadelphia-starbu…
From the article: “Implicit bias is the automatic associations people have in their minds about groups of people, including stereotypes. It forms automatically and unintentionally, but results in attitudes, behaviors or actions that are prejudiced for or against a person or a group of people” (emphasis mine).
Read that again for emphasis, and note the implications of the bolded word are clear: Your intentions don’t matter. All that matters is your location within the network of power dynamics that make up our society and on which side of the discourse polarity you fall in response.

Can we really say that our intent was ever the sole decider of whether what we say is appropriate? Historically, we’ve had a legal doctrine of “fightin’ words” for hundreds of years, and the person saying them did not get to say “well, that’s not how I intended it” and then continue pressing charges against the guy who gave him a shiner for saying it. Now the list of those fightin’ words has changed, but let’s not pretend that “intent” alone is ever how we could expect to be understood. A good example is the response to the person who made fun of Whitney Houston’s death; one can quibble over whether it was just idiocy or malice, but the message was clear. That person thought it was funny to make fun of Houston’s death, and that’s tacky in most people’s eyes.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Bert Perry]

Can we really say that our intent was ever the sole decider of whether what we say is appropriate? Historically, we’ve had a legal doctrine of “fightin’ words” for hundreds of years, and the person saying them did not get to say “well, that’s not how I intended it” and then continue pressing charges against the guy who gave him a shiner for saying it. Now the list of those fightin’ words has changed, but let’s not pretend that “intent” alone is ever how we could expect to be understood. A good example is the response to the person who made fun of Whitney Houston’s death; one can quibble over whether it was just idiocy or malice, but the message was clear. That person thought it was funny to make fun of Houston’s death, and that’s tacky in most people’s eyes.

No, we can’t. And I’m pretending nothing of the kind.
Interpretation for meaning is and has always been a dynamic process that flows between sender, text, and recipient. Focus on any one of these for exclusive meaning and you’re off-base. After all, the author could lie about his/her intentions—or be mistaken.
Goodwill, however, has historically assumed we extend to the author a certain measure of charity and “authority” over his/her text/words. We recognized the special place in interpretation the author’s commentary has, even if not infallibly so. After all, we all know how it feels to be misinterpreted, and we don’t like it. Besides, “intention” is fundamental to meaning in a unique way, since without intention, there can be no language.
Now, however, intention and authorship has almost become incidental. What matters is how a piece can be seized and leveraged for political advantage or to raise our own profile or simply for the pleasure of outrage. Has this always been true, to a degree? Yes. Is it more “true” now? Yes.
Personally, I believe Lorde was innocent in her comment. It was just an unfelicitous and thoughtless coincidence. I wouldn’t even call it idiocy. These sorts of things happen in life. Far more often than we might think.

My kids do things like that sometimes, and my response is generally “use your head for something besides a hat rack.” I would agree with you that such things don’t render a person persona non grata forever, and further would agree that too many people would do exactly that.

But that said, I think there’s a lot to be said for understanding one’s blind spots and learning from them. Just saw a great quote from James Michener (the author); If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion and avoid the people, you might better stay home. Or, put in terms of our ministries, if we reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the cultural memories and avoid the people, you won’t be reaching those people for Christ.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Here is another article that just came into my email this morning on race:

https://churchleaders.com/news/323741-david-platt-asks-why-is-t4g-so-white.html?utm_source=outreach-cl-daily-nl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=text-link&utm_campaign=cl-daily-nl&maropost_id=&mpweb=256-6604079-713009561

In this article, he actually shows some reasons why the racial divide in the church is as wide as it is. We are not going to solve the debate on who is right and wrong any time soon. (I personally think there is truth to both extremes and error in both), but the reality is that race often affects how people view the world and it is insightful to understand that those differences do exist. If it were only color that separated us, then the easy solution would be to get over our color differences. The divide is more than skin deep though. It has to do with ideas more than color. I have long contended that denominational differences and the separation that they develop can provide unity in individual congregations (we Baptists do not have to debate with our Presbyterian brethren over timing of Baptism every week, but we can still respect one another and fellowship on a limited basis). The race issue is much more personal however. Still, I am wondering if both sides of the race debate would be better served to recognize that we have a different perspective, but still be welcoming of each other even when we disagree and even when that disagreement leads to less unity than we would hope for.

Just for clarification, I am not suggesting we ignore our differences for unity’s sake. What i am suggesting is that we continue to listen to each other without the expectation that the others will embrace all of our positions. Further each side should understand this, but be willing to listen and learn with the hope of drawing closer even if we do not erase all the divide.