If you’re writing about “race” and racism and your argument essentially resolves in, “View everyone as an individual,” you are not fundamentally writing about “race” or racism, which by definition concerns groups and the attributions we make about them and actions toward them.
In the last 24 hours, I’ve read posts from @RevKevDeYoung and Greg Morris, both lovely and faithful bros in he Lord, both making good points about the ways we can wrongly judge at individual levels, and both appearing to resolve in individualistic conclusions @ group phenomenon.
We need the cautions they give—all of us. But in this season, what we need most is careful understanding of racism itself and of the culture’s tendency to over-individuate as a way of minimizing racism and absolving oneself. Another tool in that process? “All sides”-ism.
It simply won’t do to justice to the issues to acknowledge historical and theological abuses, as Kevin does, or contemporary instances, as Greg does, only to write applications and conclusions that risk ignoring the asymmetry of these sins, abuses, systems and instances.
The kinds of social attributions Blacks and Whites make toward each other are not of a piece. To be sure, both groups have attitudinal racists among them and have lunatic fringes. But that’s not to suggest they’ve committed the same sin in the main.
It simply is not true—and ought not be left open to suggestion—that AAs have either thought the same way about or acted the same way toward White Americans in these matters. The *miracle* of Black history is we’ve fought for *everyone’s* humanity despite rec’g inhuman treatment.
In the main, the worst animus, the most dehumanizing stereotypes and tropes, the terrorist violence, the abusive use of policies, etc, have been largely one-directional. Writing in ways that absolve people of this disproportion is at least unfortunate and sometimes scandalous.
And you can bet your paycheck with very little risk that these ways of over-individualizing will be weaponized by people who share very little of Kevin’s and Greg’s humility, faith, love or hope. It’s already happening as those who deny a problem say, “See, here, told you so.”
If you ever endeavor to write about “race,” my hope is that you will actually write about “race” and understand how it works. This could be helpful: amazon.com/Racecraft-Soul…
If you dare to write about how one group views or ought to view other groups, you might be served by considering some book length historical treatments of the subject. Here’s one: amazon.com/White-Over-Bla…
Here’s another in the opposite direction: amazon.com/White-Image-Bl…
Let me end by saying I appreciate what both attempt. We each need to examine ourselves. Firm biblical ground there. But we each need to be more conversant with the cultural predilections that shape us and the asymmetries that exist. We are all people but we are not all the same.
The kind of moderation these posts seem to aim at does very little to actually deepen our understanding of our *particular identities and challenges the therein. Moderation should not always be the Christian’ goal. Sometimes we need a more radical and incisive analysis and voice.
To be frank, moderate evangelicalism has never been the prophetic and redemptive movement that God’s people ought to represent in fallen societies. Moderation has often been the “gentler” hand that slows progress and numbs conscience. See: africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/L…
